Audit of the CBSA Transition
Internal Audit Report

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• Introduction
• Background and Context
• Audit Objective
• Audit Scope and Approach
• Observations and Recommendations
  • Managing Transition
    • Transition Planning
    • Managing Risks During Transition
    • Monitoring, Tracking and Controlling Risks During Transition
  • Controls in Support of the CBSA’s Transition
    • Responsibilities and Accountabilities
    • Control Procedures and Standards
  • Management Decision Making During Transition
    • Information for Decision Making
    • The Decision-Making Process During Transition
• Audit Team
• APPENDIX A: Audit Criteria

---

Executive Summary

Background

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) was created on December 12, 2003, and operates as an agency under the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC) portfolio. The new Agency resulted from the merge of border services activities and resources from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Objective and scope

The objectives of the audit were to assess the appropriateness of the CBSA’s risk-management practices in place to increase the likelihood of the CBSA’s success, to assess the effectiveness of control measures in place or the degree to which the measures were achieved, and to assess the appropriateness and timeliness of information for management decisions. The scope of the audit covered the period from January 2004 to October 31, 2005.

Observations

Managing transition

The audit concluded that, during the transition period under examination, the CBSA had processes in place that ensured that decisions were taken to identify, eliminate, mitigate and monitor risks, and that appropriate authorities were in place to enable approvals. Without having had the opportunity to plan for transition, the CBSA moved quickly to establish a team to take charge of the transition and gave it a clear mandate and membership. The CBSA also put in place effective processes for managing transition-related risks and issues.

As the Agency was getting established during the first two years of transition, its regions and districts developed and implemented what are likely innovative solutions to specific risk situations and occurrences, including cross-training tools. The audit concluded that given that the CBSA expects to move toward a unified and consistent approach to managing its operational risks across the country, it would be useful to compile all the innovations implemented by knowledgeable officers across the country. These improvements would be used for the development of the CBSA’s national operational risk-management practices and training materials.

With respect to communicating results and progress concerning transition, findings indicated that the approaches in place have not been sufficient to keep the organization as informed as it should be about the CBSA’s transition. Findings indicated that regional personnel who were very supportive of the new Agency have difficulty keeping interest in new developments because they are not receiving all the information that they believe is important to them. 

The audit concluded that to fully engage the entire CBSA organization in a successful transition, under the leadership of the Vice‑President of the Operations Branch and the Vice‑President of the Strategy and Coordination Branch, the CBSA’s senior management should develop and implement a comprehensive transition communications strategy and a vehicle to communicate transition matters across all the CBSA on a regular basis.

Controls in support of the CBSA’s transition

Key elements of the CBSA’s control framework are in place, and many other elements are still under development. The CBSA moved quickly to implement an executive structure to support its organization and the signing authorities for financial transactions, and then to communicate these to the organization. The individual “program” and operational controls remained intact from their transfer from legacy organizations, and memoranda of understanding were being developed to establish the inter-organizational control frameworks with legacy organizations.

The CBSA has in place some fundamental elements of its results-based controls and is actively developing other elements that should lead to a comprehensive enterprise-wide framework for measuring, reporting and using results information.

The CBSA’s financial control system is still under development. While improvements have been made to these systems, these transition-related changes have not been communicated sufficiently well to parts of the CBSA.

 The audit concluded that the CBSA’s senior management needs to communicate more often and more deliberately on how the financial control systems are expected to work and meet managers’ needs.

The CBSA has created a Port of Entry (POE) Vision that sets out the conceptual framework for how the CBSA will work in Canada’s ports. There is considerable expectation throughout the CBSA that the POE Vision will set the course for the future, and implementing the POE Vision is seen to be key to the CBSA’s successful transition. The audit concluded that the CBSA needs to establish how the POE Vision will be implemented and set out the roles and responsibilities to oversee the implementation. Also, it is essential to inform all the CBSA on the status of the POE Vision’s development and the expectations for implementation.

Management decision making during transition

The CBSA Transition Team had in place all the elements to enable the flow of relevant information for transition decision-making, and it had access to decision-makers. Although there is considerable information yet to be developed to support the CBSA’s transition, officers at CBSA Headquarters indicated they have access to the available information they need, where it exists. Senior officers in the regions indicated they have access to decision-makers to address emergency operational matters. As it further develops its operational policies and practices, the CBSA will need to ensure that effective communications mechanisms are in place across the organization to ensure successful dissemination and implementation.

While there are significant transition decisions still to be made, the decision-making process to support transition has met the needs of the CBSA. Improved communications practices across the organization will help to ensure that all CBSA staff are informed of decisions and that all the desired transition changes will take place to ensure the CBSA’s success.

Action plans

The Program Planning, Monitoring and Analysis Division will be surveying the regions to determine and gather the risk-management strategies used during the Agency’s early transition period.

A corporate internal communications strategy will be developed by representatives from all branches and regions, and it will integrate all the communications components of the recommendations made by the audit.

The Operations Branch has developed a detailed project plan for moving the POE Vision further ahead over the next 6 to 12 months, with a comprehensive communications strategy as one of the key elements. This detailed plan will be used as a basis for determining opportunities for communication that will clearly signal progress.

In its response, the Comptrollership Branch indicated that significant work was already undertaken during the conduct of the audit that addressed some of the issues identified. In addition, it provided further details on actions to respond to the audit recommendation on budgetary matters and control systems.

1.0 Introduction

This report sets out the observations, conclusions and recommendations from an audit of the Canada Border Services Agency’s (CBSA) transition to its new organization. This audit of the CBSA’s transition was identified for the first year of the Agency’s Risk-Based Multi-year Audit Plan 2005–2008. The focus of the audit was to identify any major weaknesses or gaps in the transition plan and subsequent implementation.

This audit was conducted in accordance with the Government of Canada’s Policy on Internal Audit, as well as auditing standards prescribed by the Institute of Internal Auditors.

2.0 Background and Context

The CBSA was created on December 12, 2003, and operates as an agency under the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC) portfolio. The CBSA is responsible for providing integrated border services that support national security priorities and facilitate the free flow of persons and goods, including animals and plants.

As a direct result of the creation of the Agency, activities and resources from three other Government of Canada departments were merged to form the new agency, as follows:

• the Customs Branch of the former Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA);
• the Intelligence, Interdiction and Enforcement program and the Port of Entry  immigration program from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC); and
• the Import Inspection at Ports of Entry program from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Operating with an integrated approach to border management, the CBSA is positioned to improve operations through risk-management techniques; to advance interoperability with its partners in Canada and abroad; to collect and share the right information at the right time; and to improve its capacity to respond rapidly and effectively to threats.

With a workforce of approximately 12,000 public servants, the CBSA provides services at approximately 1,200 points across Canada and 39 locations abroad. The Agency administers more than 90 acts and regulations on behalf of other Government of Canada departments and agencies, and international agreements.

Creation of a CBSA Transition Team

The day the Agency was created, the new President announced a transitional structure. At the same time, the new CBSA Executive Vice-President was appointed to take the lead role in managing transition issues related to the bringing together of the three organizations that form the CBSA. 

The Executive Vice-President began to assemble a Transition Team of full-time personnel to coordinate transition activities. The Transition Team was the primary coordinating vehicle for transition activities, working with all areas of the new CBSA and also with representatives from the three organizations from which the CBSA was formed. 

With the passing of time, certain documentation related to the Transition Team could no longer be found for the audit, including a definitive organization chart. Furthermore, the Team continued to grow and add to its core group. According to interviews, at its largest, the Transition Team included about 20 people. The Transition Team was also supported by other individual transition coordinators assigned to specific areas of focus and by transition working groups consisting of several people from, for example, communications, human resources management, and finance and administration.

The Transition Team was formally disbanded on June 30, 2004. After that date, the identification, coordination and management of transition-related issues were transferred to the respective vice-presidents. The final communications from the Head of the Transition Team provided the names of individuals in corporate and program areas to whom transition questions could be addressed.

Working with the Transition Team, the CBSA’s vice-presidents were involved in all aspects of transition from the time of their appointments. However, to improve clarity in this report, observations on the management of transition are presented according to the following two time periods:

• transition management during the first six months (up to June 30, 2004); and
• transition management under the responsibility of vice-presidents after July 1, 2004.
  

3.0 Audit Objective

The objectives of the audit were the following:

• To assess the appropriateness of CBSA risk-management practices in place to increase the likelihood of the CBSA’s successful transition. 
• To assess the effectiveness of control measures in place or the degree to which the measures were achieved.
• To assess the appropriateness and timeliness of information for management decisions.

For each audit objective, Appendix A presents the related criteria and sub-criteria.

4.0 Audit Scope and Approach

The audit scope covered the period from January 2004 to October 31, 2005. 

The approach was intended to provide management with assurance regarding the appropriateness of risk management, the effectiveness of control measures in place, and the appropriateness and timeliness of information for management decisions to support the new Agency.

The approach included the following:

• interviews with management and selected Transition Team staff, in headquarters and in regional operations;
• examination and analysis of documentation; and
• review of documentation of controls and processes.

Testing involved validating interview findings to ensure that processes were indeed in place and controls functioned as intended. As could be expected, some of the processes established early in transition had been replaced by newer processes.

5.0 Observations and Recommendations

5.1 Managing Transition

This section on managing transition risks includes audit criteria related to the following:

• transition planning;
• managing risks during transition; and
• monitoring, tracking and controlling risks during transition.

5.1.1 Transition Planning

Under typical organizational change conditions and according to audit criteria, the audit team would have expected that a transition charter be developed and approved by all relevant stakeholders for the transition, and that a transition plan identifying transition activities be developed and signed off. Such a management practice would provide a strong reference point for all transition activities. 

However, the CBSA was not provided the opportunity to establish such a practice. The formation of the CBSA was announced December 12, 2003, and there was no opportunity to plan in advance for the transition to the new Agency. 

Given the circumstances, a Transition Team was formed to coordinate transition activities within weeks of the announcement of the creation of the Agency. Under its mandate, this team was the focal point for coordinating all aspects of transition, including the management of transition risks.

Internal Audit found that the Transition Team had a clear mandate and role, and that this mandate and role were well-known to all the individuals interviewed during the audit. Furthermore, the Transition Team included its own planning and priority-setting practices to set its agenda vis-à-vis transition risks. This finding indicated that, without having had the opportunity to plan for transition, the CBSA moved quickly to establish a team to take charge of the transition and gave it a clear mandate and membership.

5.1.2 Managing Risks During Transition

To help ensure the success of the transition and according to audit criteria, the audit team would have expected that the CBSA put in place sound risk-management techniques. This would include a process that ensured that decisions were taken to identify, eliminate, mitigate or monitor risks; and that appropriate authorities were in place to enable approvals. As part of managing risks, this would also include establishing a process to record and monitor the status of transition-related issues.

During the first six months

Internal Audit found that, during the period of the Transition Team, sound risk-management techniques were in place. It considered risk management from both an operational and management perspective.

Operational risks related to the CBSA’s mandate and authorities had been transferred from legacy organizations through legislation. As a result, organizational units that were transferred to the CBSA maintained the operational risk identification, elimination, mitigation and monitoring processes that had been in place before the CBSA’s creation. Furthermore, they retained the authorities they had in place to enable approvals. Interviews with CBSA officers in the regions indicated that they understood fully that the operational risk-management processes of their organizational units remained intact from their legacy organizations.

The Transition Team and the interim CBSA management team were managing risks related to the management control framework. Documents indicated that key financial, human resources and corporate infrastructure risk issues were being recognized and managed to the extent possible in a period of high uncertainty. This finding was further validated by interviews.

With respect to recording and monitoring issues, the Transition Team quickly implemented a comprehensive system to perform those functions. The documentation indicates that an individual on the Transition Team was responsible for the issues tracking system (i.e. ensuring that the issues were recorded and monitored and that their progress and disposition were tracked). Interviewees during the audit were aware that the process existed and that its role was to capture any issue raised by any CBSA staff member. 

Overall, the findings indicated that in the first six months of transition, the CBSA had in place effective processes for identifying, recording, assigning and monitoring transition-related risks and issues.

Transition under the responsibility of the vice-presidents

The audit team found that, once the Transition Team’s mandate had ended and all the transition files had been passed to the CBSA’s new executives, risk-management techniques continued and did so with a more corporate perspective. In particular, in 2004, the CBSA developed an organization-wide corporate risk profile. Also, individual branches began their own risk-management exercises (some of these were more formal than others at the time of the audit).

Even though some of these exercises were not yet complete at the time of the audit, assurance was given that they will be completed. The CBSA was undertaking an enterprise-wide A‑base review that required all areas of the CBSA to undertake a business planning process that included the development of risk-management frameworks. In addition to the A‑base review, other reviews, such as those of the Goods Programs and the People Programs, are examining areas of operational risk.

The documents provided related to these business cases indicate that the Agency has identified and is managing its ongoing risks, which includes risks related to the transition to the new organization. Examples of these risks being managed include changing from legacy organizations’ financial systems to the CBSA’s own systems and chart of accounts; making changes to personnel classifications; and planning the future of the Agency’s management and operational information technology systems.

In addition to these more formal risk-management processes at the corporate level, the audit team identified risk-management practices at the regional and district level concerning operational matters. Documents and interviews indicated that, to ensure that operational matters continued to be addressed at the local level while the CBSA was developing national approaches for its newly integrated operations, risk-management decisions were being considered and taken at the local level. These local “work-arounds” were developed collaboratively between the officers with expertise from the customs, immigration and food safety programs. Interviewees indicated they expected that these local solutions would be adjusted over time as the CBSA defines its own global operational risk-management frameworks and practices.

Furthermore, in the absence of corporate-led, cross-training initiatives that the CBSA knows it still has to establish, regional personnel have developed and implemented their own courses to train officers in the operations areas that are new to them. Regions are relying on the expertise of local officers who have a CIC, CFIA or CCRA background to cross‑train colleagues who are now responsible for all CBSA operational areas.

Therefore, while waiting for national risk-management initiatives to be developed by CBSA Headquarters, the regions have implemented their own risk-management approaches.

Conclusion

Overall, the audit concluded that, during the transition period under examination, the CBSA had in place processes that ensured decisions were taken to identify, eliminate, mitigate and monitor risks, and that appropriate authorities were in place to enable approvals.

The audit determined that, as the Agency was getting established during the first two years of transition, its regions and districts developed and implemented what are likely innovative solutions to specific risk situations and occurrences, including cross-training tools. Given that the CBSA expects to move toward a unified and consistent approach to managing its operational risks across the country, it would be useful to compile all the innovations implemented by knowledgeable officers across the country. This compilation would be useful input for the development of the CBSA’s national operational risk-management practices and training materials. Furthermore, if the CBSA does not take advantage of these innovations, the officers who developed them will feel frustrated, the CBSA may overlook useful solutions that work at the local level, and locally established relationships with involved partner organizations may suffer. Also, taking advantage of successful local practices may enable the CBSA to move more quickly toward defining and implementing its consistent, national services.

Recommendation 1

To benefit from and build on the innovation of all staff during transition under the leadership of the Vice-President, Operations Branch, and the Vice-President, Strategy and Coordination Branch, all CBSA branches should compile the innovative practices and arrangements implemented under their respective areas of responsibility.

Response/Action plan

It is important that the CBSA build on the successes in the regions regarding the subject of risk management. To this end, the Program Planning, Monitoring and Analysis Division will be surveying the regions to determine and gather the risk-management strategies used during the Agency’s early transition period.

Task	Approximate timeframe
Drafting of Terms of Reference (to be distributed to the regions) Mandate What we need from them Why we’re initiating this activity	Mid-April 2006
Drafting of survey	Mid-May 2006
Explanatory conference call	Late June 2006
Distribution of survey	Early July 2006
Gathering of responses	Early September 2006
Analysis and recommendations	Early September 2006

5.1.3 Monitoring, Tracking and Controlling Risks During Transition

To help ensure the success of transition and according to audit criteria, the audit team  would have expected that the CBSA put in place sound techniques to monitor, track and control risks at the corporate level. This would include establishing a functional senior management committee; developing and implementing a communication strategy and plan to communicate results and progress to all stakeholders; and establishing a documentation management process.

During the first six months

The audit team found that a senior management committee with defined responsibilities was established soon after the creation of the Agency. According to documentation, the composition of the committee was communicated to the new organization on the day the CBSA was formed. 

During the first six months of transition, the main elements of a communications plan were set out, and the President and Executive Vice-President committed to communicate directly to all staff on a regular basis.

Finally, the Transition Team established a clear mechanism to manage all transition‑related documentation. This process was used to inform senior management on a regular basis of new risks identified during transition and of the status of known risks. Interviewees indicated that this documentation-based process was central to the tracking and control of transition-related risks.

Therefore, risks were monitored, tracked and controlled early in the transition to the new Agency.

Transition under the responsibility of the vice-presidents

After the Transition Team transferred all operations to the vice-presidents and according to audit criteria, the audit team would have expected the executive team to continue to monitor, track and control risks; to continue to implement a communications strategy and plan to communicate results and progress to all stakeholders; and to maintain documentation of management practices.

As indicated earlier, branches across the CBSA have undertaken, or are in the process of undertaking, their own risk-based analyses and business plans. This finding indicated that vice‑presidents are continuing to monitor, track and control the transition-related risks and issues under their respective areas of responsibility.

Furthermore, with respect to documentation of management processes, the risk analyses and business plans that have been completed indicate that the respective branches within the CBSA are identifying and developing the risk-management documentation they need to manage and monitor risks.

With respect to communicating results and progress concerning transition, documentation and interviews revealed that the CBSA’s executive has relied on the intranet and the chain-of-command reporting as the primary vehicles to inform the organization of developments. However, as discussed below, findings indicate that these two vehicles have not been sufficient to keep the organization as informed as it should be about the CBSA’s direction and progress during transition.

Interviewees in the regions indicated that, given the extent of change caused by transition and the wide-ranging impact of the formation of the new Agency on all aspects of their work, that the intranet and chain-of-command communications are not meeting their information needs. Interviews indicated that regional personnel who were very supportive of the new Agency have difficulty keeping interest in new developments because they are not receiving all the information that they believe is important to them. They have questions about standard operating procedures, protocols with other organizations, uniforms, reporting relationships, financial matters, human resources management, classification and many others. According to interviews, the appetite across the CBSA for transition-related information was also heightened by two factors. First, because of the strong support on the part of staff for forming the new Agency, people expected that the CBSA would come together quickly. Second, the successful Transition Team mechanism that enabled all staff to provide their issues to headquarters set out an expectation that their questions would be answered.

The staff’s considerable appetite for information during the CBSA transition is not unexpected, given that communications is a key ingredient to successfully managing organizational change. Even if only little progress is occurring, one of the axioms of successful organizational change is “you can’t communicate too much.” Because of this lack of information to regional personnel about the progress of the new agency, morale and commitment to the organization is suffering; there is confusion about current practices and expected directions; and individuals are holding back on implementing innovations while waiting for developments from headquarters.

It is important to note that the responsibility for communicating to all areas of the CBSA rests with the entire executive team and not solely with operations or communications.

Conclusion

Overall, the audit determined that the CBSA put in place many sound techniques to monitor, track and control risks at the corporate level, including establishing a functional senior management committee and establishing a documentation management process. The transition process would benefit from a more comprehensive approach to communicating transition-related information regularly and directly to all areas of the CBSA. 

5.2 Controls in Support of the CBSA’s Transition

The audit objective was to assess the appropriateness of controls to determine whether they were adequate to support the successful operation of the new CBSA. The controls examined by Internal Audit included organizational responsibilities and accountabilities, control procedures and standards, and the availability of control information.

5.2.1 Responsibilities and Accountabilities

To ensure proper control and according to audit criteria, the audit team expected the CBSA to have in place an organizational structure to support the CBSA, as well as clearly documented, communicated and understood roles and responsibilities.

The audit team found that the CBSA moved quickly to implement an executive structure to support its organization and to communicate this structure to the organization. In 2004, the CBSA also established an overall organizational governance model that included a committee structure.

Interviews revealed that senior officers at headquarters knew of this governance and organizational committee structure. However, interviewees in the region were generally not aware of the structure or what it meant to all of the CBSA. This finding reinforces the earlier observation that the CBSA’s transition would benefit from a comprehensive communications strategy.

As indicated earlier, the operational roles and responsibilities of CBSA branches were transferred through legislation. Interviews confirmed that officers knew their roles, responsibilities and accountabilities.

Also, the negotiations of important control arrangements with legacy organizations were actively managed during transition. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) were developed to establish the inter-organizational control frameworks with legacy organizations. As they are put into practice, these MOUs will help the CBSA to clarify even more its roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis its partner organizations.

One essential element of transition is the vision of the organizational structure, roles and responsibilities of the CBSA’s front-line operations. The CBSA has created a Port of Entry (POE) Vision that sets out the conceptual framework for how the CBSA will work in Canada’s ports. Throughout the audit, interviewees referred to the POE Vision as the reference concept for the future of the Agency’s front-line operations and how the front-line operations will interact with other CBSA organizational units. 

There is considerable expectation throughout the CBSA that the POE Vision will set the course for the future. Therefore, implementing the POE Vision is seen to be key to the CBSA’s successful transition. However, when asked who is responsible for promulgating the POE Vision and overseeing its implementation, interviewees were not clear on specific roles and responsibilities or on the implementation steps. Whereas Internal Audit recognized that the POE Vision is still under development, the CBSA will need to establish soon how the POE Vision will be implemented and who will oversee that implementation. Furthermore, given Internal Audit’s earlier finding concerning the need for increased communications, it is now and will become even more essential to inform all of the CBSA on the status of the POE Vision development and the expectations for implementation.

5.2.2 Control Procedures and Standards

To ensure proper controls for the new CBSA and according to audit criteria, the audit team expected the organization to have in place adequate control procedures and standards related to results, timely financial data and financial authorities, and that financial tracking is conducted and reported.

Early in the transition process, the CBSA set out the signing authorities for financial transactions. This enabled managers to proceed with their respective organization’s fiscal commitments. 

As indicated earlier, the individual “program” and operational controls remained intact from their transfer from legacy organizations, and MOUs were being developed to establish the inter-organizational control frameworks with legacy organizations.

Financial controls

The CBSA’s financial control system is still under development. Its financial control systems are still those of legacy operations, and these systems and practices are not yet fully sufficient to ensure adequate control for the CBSA’s needs. The CBSA is aware of this situation and is in the process of developing a business plan for identifying priorities and implementing the required changes using a risk-based approach. Documentation from the 2005–2006 fiscal year indicates that measures are being taken to implement the necessary financial control frameworks. As a result, Internal Audit believes this aspect of transition is being managed.

One important consideration involves the communication of the financial budgeting and control process under development. Owing to the insufficient financial management control systems at the time, early in the 2005—2006 fiscal year, the CBSA was not able to inform managers of their full budgets for this fiscal year. One consequence was that regional directors general did not have the information they needed to make resource allocation decisions in the early part of the fiscal year. The necessary information on their entire budget came later in the year once the CBSA was able to compile and analyze its financial requirements. As a result, interviews with regional managers indicated a frustration with the financial information control systems; managers said that the systems were not sufficient to allow them to control their expenditures against realistic budgets. 

While headquarter documents indicate that improvements have been made to the financial control systems, interviews with regional managers indicated that these transition-related changes have not been communicated sufficiently well to parts of the CBSA. Whether or not the current budget control approach meets the needs of CBSA managers, interview findings reinforced the view that the CBSA needs to communicate more often and more deliberately how the financial control systems are expected to work and meet managers’ needs. As indicated earlier, a comprehensive strategy to communicate transition information across the CBSA would help to inform the organization of developments, including improvements to financial control systems.

The CBSA’s A-base review has as part of its objectives to develop a “robust resource strategy responsive to the dynamic environment of the CBSA.” This exercise, due to report in October 2006, is an important step taken by the CBSA to solidify the information it needs for proper financial control and program delivery controls in future years. When the A-base review is complete, the CBSA should then have sufficient assurance of its resource requirements to deliver on its mandate, which in turn will enable more rigorous financial control.

Controls related to results

The audit determined that the CBSA has in place some fundamental elements of its results‑based controls and is actively developing other elements that should lead to a complete control framework. For example, the CBSA has a multi-year plan for evaluations, its accountability agreements require commitments to specific results, and the A-base review is examining the performance measurement, monitoring and management requirements of the organization.

There is insufficient information at this time to indicate whether and when the CBSA will have a comprehensive enterprise-wide framework for measuring, reporting and using results information. However, the documentation available at the time of the audit indicated that the CBSA is managing the transition of its controls related to results.

Conclusion

The audit determined that the transition of the CBSA’s financial and results control systems is being actively managed. 

5.3 Management Decision Making During Transition

The audit objective was to assess the appropriateness and timeliness of information for management decisions. The audit team examined whether information was available for transition decision making and whether processes were in place to enable the necessary decision making.

5.3.1 Information for Decision Making

During the first six months

The audit team found that the Transition Team and its management processes had been designed in a way that provided ready access to available information and direct access to senior decision-makers. Specifically, the audit team found that the “issues management” process captured and organized information on potential concerns from all areas of the organization; that the role and responsibilities of the Transition Team were known across the CBSA thus enabling its access to information; and that the Transition Team was led by a senior vice‑president who had access to all executive-level information that was available. 

Also, because it was led by a senior vice-president, the Transition Team had ready access to the CBSA’s senior decisions-makers. Documentation indicated that the CBSA’s executives were actively involved in transition-related funding decisions.

Interviews with headquarter officers indicated that they had good information sharing with the Transition Team. The officers indicated that once the Transition Team had ended, they knew which officers were responsible for which files, and that information existed and was readily available. The interviews also indicated that headquarter officers continued to have the access they needed so that management decisions could be made, to the extent that the required information existed.

Information for emergency operational decision making

Senior managers in the regions indicated that they have ready access to the CBSA’s senior officers to address emergency operational issues. This level of senior responsiveness is important to this new Agency that must address important people, goods and security matters.

Information for ongoing decision making

As discussed earlier, information flow has been less successful for regular operational decision making. As discussed above, during transition, officers in the CBSA’s regions were not getting the information they needed for financial decision making. Also, as discussed earlier, while national approaches were, and still are, being developed for operations to guide information flows and decision making, operations managers are making local-level decisions based on the information they have available in their region. The CBSA‑wide systems and practices are not yet in place to enable fully informed operational decision making. Furthermore, as indicated earlier, these local-level decisions are not being captured and catalogued systematically to maximize learning and innovation at the CBSA.

Documentation provided indicated that the CBSA recognizes and is working on developing the operational systems it needs to support decision making. As indicated earlier, the CBSA would benefit by communicating the direction and progress of these developments to the entire organization.

Conclusion

The Transition Team had in place all the elements to enable the flow of relevant information for transition decision making, and it had access to decision-makers. Although there is considerable information yet to be developed to support the CBSA’s transition, officers at headquarters indicated they have access to the available information they need, where it exists. Senior officers in the regions indicated they have access to decision-makers to address emergency operational matters. However, as it further develops its operational policies and practices, the CBSA will need to ensure that effective communications mechanisms are in place across the organization to ensure successful dissemination and implementation.

5.3.2 The Decision-Making Process During Transition

To enable decision making during transition and according to audit criteria, the audit team expected a formal reporting structure and accountabilities, access to personnel so that changes could be made, and that a senior management committee was available to meet when required.

The audit team found that the reporting structure for the Transition Team and the CBSA’s executive team was clearly defined and that their accountabilities were defined.

Interviews indicated that Transition Team members were able to access individuals across the CBSA to communicate the required changes.

Also, the Transition Team had ready access to the senior management committee through the senior vice‑president who led the Team.

After the Transition Team disbanded, the formal reporting structure and accountabilities remained clearly defined, which was supported by the new CBSA governance structure. Interviews indicated that, to date, access to personnel has been sufficient to implement the decisions made so far. However, the CBSA still has significant change to implement due to transition, and the communications issues identified earlier may present barriers later as new policies and practices need to be promulgated.

Overall, interviews indicated that the senior management team has been actively involved in all aspects of transition decision making and that access to senior management has been available when needed.

Conclusion

The findings indicated that, while there are significant transition decisions still to be made, the decision-making process to support transition has met the needs of the CBSA. Improved communications practices across the organization will help to ensure that all CBSA staff are informed of decisions and that all the desired transition changes will take place to ensure the CBSA’s success.

Audit Team

John Burns, Center for Public Management Inc.

Phil Carr, Center for Public Management Inc.

Christine Noël, Center for Public Management Inc.

APPENDIX A: Audit Criteria

Management of Risks

First audit objective: assess the appropriateness of CBSA risk-management practices in place to increase the likelihood of the CBSA’s success.

Criteria and sub-criteria: risk-management strategies in place increases the likelihood of the CBSA’s success by ensuring that an effective risk-management framework exists.

• There are adequate planning techniques in place.
  • A transition charter was developed and approved by all relevant stakeholders for the transition.
  • A transition plan identifying transition activities was developed and signed off.
• There are sound risk-management techniques in place.
  • A process has been established that ensures decisions are taken to identify, eliminate, mitigate or monitor risks.
  • Appropriate authorities have been given approvals.
• There are appropriate risk-management monitoring, tracking and control techniques in place.
  • Executive Management Committee has been established and is operating.
  • Communications strategy/plan has been developed and implemented regarding communication of results and progress to all stakeholders.
  • Documentation management process has been established and implemented.
• There are adequate issue management procedures in place.
  • Issues are monitored and recorded.
  • The issue management process should ensure that whenever issues are resolved, the associated documentation and procedures are updated accordingly.

Controls

Second audit objective: assess the effectiveness of control measures in place or the degree to which the controls were achieved.

Criteria and sub-criteria: there are adequate controls in place to support the new CBSA.

• Organizational responsibilities and accountabilities are clearly defined and acted upon.
  • An organizational structure is in place to support the new CBSA.
  • Roles and responsibilities are clearly documented, communicated and understood.
• Adequate control procedures and standards are in place to support the new CBSA.
  • Actual results are captured and compared to baseline data.
  • Performance/results are documented and communicated.
  • Financial data are accurate and complete.
  • Financial authorities are established and corporately applied.
• Adequate control information is provided in a timely fashion.
  • Financial tracking is being conducted and reported.
  • Financial data are timely.

Management decisions

Third audit objective: assess the appropriateness and timeliness of information for management decisions.

Criteria and sub-criteria: there are adequate controls in place to assess the appropriateness and timeliness of information for management decisions.

• Management decisions are made in a timely fashion.
  • There is a formal reporting structure with key decision-makers to enable the efficient and effective exchange of information, clear accountabilities and timely decision making.
  • There is adequate access to CBSA personnel in order to have changes or decisions made in a timely manner.
  • The ability to call meetings with the Executive Management Committee whenever key issues need to be discussed or when more senior authority is required for decision making.
• Information is detailed and complete to enable management decisions.
  • There exists timely access to the Executive Management Committee to have major issues addressed, to get senior approval for major changes or to address funding issues.