RESULTS for Mof District Offices: Who Does What and When?

RESULTS Redesign Workshop March 29th to 31st, 2005: Chilliwack

Workshop Notes: RESULTS Redesign Workshop March 29th to 31st, 2005: Chilliwack

Agenda

Date and Time Location Consultants

 Tue Mar 29th - 9:00 am to RCMP Pacific Region Training Centre, Richard H. Eaton and 4:30 pm Chilliwack James Bretzlaff  Wed Mar 30th - 8:30 am to http://www.rcmp- Berlin, Eaton & Associates Ltd. 4:30 pm grc.gc.ca/learning/prtc/travelinfo_e.htm Phone: 250-472-3767  Thu Mar 31st - 8:30 am to E-Mail: [email protected] 3:00 pm

Theme of the Workshop:

RESULTS for MoF District Offices: Who does what and when?

The outputs from this workshop will include:  Redesigned the district business processes for RESULTS and route cards  New or revised tools to support the business processes including a responsibilities matrix for managing RESULTS - Who does what and when ?  An implementation plan  A communications plan to support your change efforts , and  A stronger cross functional team able to work together effectively to help you lead and manage this project following the workshop

This project will not go into the details of data integrity or compatibility, but rather focus on who and when district staff will need to interact with RESULTS for data entry, review and approval and retrievals. We would like to map out the process so that we can identify who needs to provide the inputs/outputs to make RESULTS run and work for the district.

Participants: . Lucy Stad - MOF - Chwk - Stewardship Forester . Craig Wickland- MOF - Chwk - C & E Forester . Mike Smith- MOF - Chwk - GIS Analyst . Lindsay Scott - MOF - Chwk - Tenure Operator (partial days) . Jack Sweeten - MOF - Chwk - Tenure Forester . Jim Jensen - MOF - Chinook BCTS . Hal Maclean -MOF - Coast Region Timber Supply Analyst . John Gillamore - MOF - IMG - Forestry Analyst . Dave Philp - Forsite Consultants - Business Analyst . Susan Mulberger - Lakeside Pacific . Tim Salkel - MSRM - VRI Technical Applications Coordinator . Dona Stapley – MoF Tenures Branch

of 25 Prepared by Berlin, Eaton & Associates Ltd. RESULTS Redesign Workshop March 29th to 31st, 2005: Chilliwack

Agenda Tuesday March 29th

Time Activity Lead

9.00am Welcome and opening remarks: Len Leroux  Background to the project: Setting the scene - Why are we all here?  Confirm deliverables and key dates: End products and deliverables  Confirm outline project plan and resources available  Confirm key project teams and participants and expected commitment levels

To follow Confirm your expectations for this project: Consultant  Presentation of pre-workshop survey and interview results  Facilitated expectations exercise, and introductions and team formation activities  Confirm agenda for the workshop

To follow Understanding the current RESULTS processes and opportunities for Consultant improvement:  Possible presentation by John Gillamore  Large group, high level mapping activity

10.15 am Break All

To follow Continue high level mapping activity Consultant  Develop process phases and confirm redesign priorities  Confirm outline project plan, deliverables and timelines  Confirm key roles 12.00 noon Lunch (Provided)

1:00 pm The Principles of Continuous Improvement Consultant, Break  Presentation and Case Study out groups  Review mapping principles 1.30 pm Detailed Business Process Mapping: Consultants,  Map the current process and redesign in line with project Breakout groups priorities  Commence redesign as time permits 4.15 pm Confirm agenda for Day 2 Consultant

4.30 pm Adjourn Consultant

Agenda Wednesday March 30th

Time Activity Lead

8.30 am Reconfirm agenda for Day 2 Consultant

8.45 am Continue with detailed business process mapping according to Consultant, priorities set on Day1 Breakout Groups

10.15 am Break All

To follow Continue with detailed business process mapping according to Consultant, priorities Breakout Groups

12.00 noon Lunch (Provided) All

1.00 pm Team Activity All

2:00 pm Finalize redesign for highest priority processes Consultant, Breakout Groups 2.30pm Coffee All

2.45 pm  Finalize redesign for highest priority processes Consultant,  Start building route cards and other tools for the redesigned Breakout Groups processes

4.00 pm  Review progress made to date Consultant,  Confirm agenda for Day 3 Breakout Groups

4.30 pm Adjourn All

Agenda Thursday March 31st

Time Activity Lead

8.30 am Reconfirm agenda for day 3 Consultant

8.45 am  Complete route cards for redesigned business processes Consultant,  Adjust process maps as required Breakout Groups  Complete development on tools as required

10.15 am Break All

10.30am Ongoing tools completion work Consultant, Breakout Groups

12.00 noon Lunch (Provided) All

1.00 pm Implementation planning Consultant,  Develop a plan to implement the proposed redesign and tools Breakout Groups

To follow Communications planning: Consultant,  Develop a communications plan to support the Breakout Groups implementation plan

To follow  Summarize actions, next steps and ‘parking lot’ items Consultant  Workshop evaluation

3:00 pm Adjourn Len Leroux

Workshop Notes

Expectations

Group 1  Business process chart  Job tasks/functions/workload  Flowsheets/procedures  Relationship between FTA and RESULTS  Proper access authorities / delegation matrix  Training needs  Attributes and spatial links  Data integrity / quality control o Backlog information  Legislated timeframes  MOF field services responsibilities  Relationship of RESULTS to other systems – i.e. CIMS, GENUS  Assigning opening numbers and stocking standard regime numbers  Role of service providers after March 31/05

Group 2  Who is responsible for what?  When things should be done?  Why do we have to do RESULTS at all?  Documented process – start to finish  How/where do “systems” tie together?  How/where does industry fit?  C&E uses data – how do they use/get and interact?  Is there QA at district for data (who’s responsible)  Who do licensees call for help/support?  Who do districts call for help/support?  How will “this” be communicated?  How does FTA data quality affect RESULTS  Is there data quality process

Operating Principles  Stay focused  Not a complaining session  Respectful disagreement  One person talking  Use a ‘parking lot’ for unanswered questions  Encourage participation  Challenge the process using an evolutionary approach  Develop options for ‘problems’

Macro Map: Strengths and Opportunities to Improve

Phase 1. Operational Planning and 2. Initial Reporting 3. Obligation Reporting 4. Post FG Approval Activities (FIA) START Licensee submits FDP or Harvest starts Post Harvest Declaration Post FG Plan amendment Developed

Major Steps  Licensee, BCTS and MoF  Service provider entry  Land resource data warehouse  Scheduling (Brainstorm) stocking standard submission  Send to service provider  RG achieved projects  DDM approves  Updates  FG achieved  Retiring  Opening # assigned  Licensee submission  Activity scheduling openings  Block within FTA correct  GENUS  CIMS status  Results updates block status in FTA  Amendments  Block must exist in FTA  Amendments: paper, electronic  Service provider input data  Harvest complete  ESF submission limited to BCTS  Veg cover update for regen  ISIS rollover  ESF submission for all after June 1  TSR  Approved variation  Opening definition, disturbance, forest  Subsequent information from  CIMS: updates block status cover submitted to ESF B, C paper map arrives in in FTA  Electronic DM approval? office  Activation scheduled  Data to LRDW RESULTS and  Data integrity? VR5  Approved variations  Declaration update: ESF,  Updates errors online  Woodlot annual reports  CRS reports  Amendments  Veg cover update @ FTG  CIMS  Data to LRDW result and VR1  Veg cover update for harvest  CIMS risk assessment  Data to LRDW RESULS and VR2 END CP/RP approved by DM Post Harvest Updates Completed Free Growing Declaration Licensee Develops FDP / Amendment What’s  The concept for planned  Info being put in by service providers  If info is put in correctly it  Working Well activities (but slowly) works  Opening # assignments (but  CRS reports work, but limiting we are doing it manually)  Works ok for basic functions  FTA submissions for CPS Opportunities  Delegation matrix for  Delegation matrix for online approvals  Undeclared backlog  Nothing yet to Improve approval  Approval process  Lost data  Better planning  Approval process  Clearly defined roles and  Data integrity capability  Definition amendments responsibilities  CRS reporting  Data integrity  WTP process – include?  Ad hoc reporting  Amendment reporting in FTA  Quality control  Training needed in linking  Clearly defined roles and  Backlog data integrity reports responsibilities  Natural disturbance  Backlog of data  Linkage: opening ISIS to spatial  Process for unplanned  Communication activities (i.e. fires, insects)  Definition for amendments  Maps in the system

Redesign Considerations

Characteristics of Changes: Successful Unsuccessful  No more paper and integrate ESF  Working independently  Licensees use it and we stop doing it  Disjointed for them

Transition from Service Provider to Licensee  A plan  Service provider involvement o Chartwell o Foresite o Thrower o Integrated Woods

Redesign Assumptions  Direct input from MoF to Licensees  Data is complete and accurate  Data quality is good  Map quality is good  Provincial mapping standards are followed

Route Cards

Phase 1: Stocking Standards Step Who What Time 1-1 Licensee  Submits FSP/FDP/amendments to MoF 0 and Tenures/Stewardship in District Office 1-2 o FDP and FSP Amendments: Jack (until there are no more FDPs) o FSPs: Lucy  Paper copies  Electronic data  Consistent block name 1-3 MoF Reception: Paper Copy: Heather or alternate  Datestamp  Distribute to o Tenures Forester (FDP o Stewardship Forester (FSP  Assigns to tenures of stewardship officer  Ledger entry

Stewardship Forester Electronic: (SF): Jack  Checks inbox (RESULTS) for stocking standards 5 days 1-4 TF/SF:  Check with legislation? Initial FSP:  Jack (Amend)  Consistent with TSR? 50 days  Lucy (Initial FSPs)  Consistent with local and provincial guidelines?  Consistent with past practices? FDP/FSP  Make recommendation to SDM/DDM and draft letter Amend: for rejection/approval 20 days 1-5 DDM/SDM: Kerry  Reviews submission and recommendation  Makes decisions (mindfully)  Rationale completed o 10 days 1-6 DDM/SDM: Kerry Rejection Notification  Paper: letter signed  Electronic: rationale included with rejection 5 days 1-7 Approval Notification SF: Jack  Paper: o Approval stamp on original submission o Signs and stamps original, faxes approved submission to licensee OR DDM/SDM  Electronic: approves (hits button) SF: Jack  Paper copy to Resource Clerk Res Clerk  Copy to Tenures Resource Clerk (Katherine), ledger and send to Service Provider

5 days

Phase 1: Cutting Authority Step Who What Time 2-1 Licensee  Submits CP application to FTA inbox Day 0

Tenures Tech:  Automatically notified through ECAS and advises LIM Harry or Erik to begin clearance 2-2 LIM Tech: Lindsay  Check inbox (FTA) daily  Check map report for each block in CP o Resolve conflicts o If conflict unresolved, send map report to MSRM for adjudication 2-3 LIM Tech: Lindsay  Approval – conflicts resolved: goto 2-4

 Rejection – return to licensee/BCTS: goto 2-1 2-4 LIM Tech: Lindsay  Create Exhibit A map or print map report  Forward map and report to Tenures Tech 10 days 2-5 Tenures Tech:  Gather info for legal documents Harry or Erik  Forward to Tenures Resource Clerk 5 days 2-6 Tenures Resource Clerk:  Completes package for decision Katherine  Forwards to decision maker 2-7 Tenures Officer: Doug  CP Package approval: 5 days o Signs and forwards to tenures resource clerk  CP Package rejection: o Signs letter and mails to licensee 2-8 Tenures Resource Clerk:  Enters final approval in FTA (block status changed to 5 days Katherine “issued”)  Sends legal info to regional revenue clerk  Sends notification letter to licensee  Sends legal documents to filing clerk 2-9 Filing Clerk: Joan  Initiates file (electronic and paper) 5 days  Files documents

Phase 1: ECAS Step Who What Time 3-1 Licensee  Submits electronic appraisal request and detailed 0 paper maps 3-2 Tenures Tech:  Reviews data provided based on Coast Appraisal 15 days Harry or Erik Manual  Advises LIM to begin on day 5 3-3 Tenures Tech:  Requests clarification for RPF if necessary OR Harry or Erik  Sends appraisal pkg to Regional Appraisal Officer  Potential inaccuracies in appraisal data package forwarded to C&E

15 days

Phase 1: Opening Number Assignment Step Who What Time 4-1 Licensee  Requests opening # from LIM 4-2 Lim Tech: Lindsay  Assigns opening #  Sends notification to Licensee 10 days

Phase 2: Harvest Step Who What Time 1 Licensees, BCTS,  Notice of harvest commencement via ESF or Web Prior to Woodlots* based form (as of June 1) harvest 2a Licensee, BCTS, Woodlots  Harvest start and completion date (Form B) By May 31  Stocking standards (Form A) (Apr 30 for  Initial forest cover (Form C) woodlots) 2b Licensee, BCTS  Spatial activities completed: planning, brushing etc By May 31 (Form B) where activity comp’d 2c Licensee  Forest cover, declaration (Form C) spatial Previous fiscal BCTS by May 31 2d Licensee  Forest cover, declaration (Form C) spatial By May 31 BCTS 3 Automated  Approve populated into RESULTS xml/9ml 40 min  Email notification to licensee 4 Automated  Information into RESULTS Overnight  Declaration with BCEID  Submission data  LRDW replicated including spatial

Phase 2: SP Amendment Step Who What Time 1 Licensees  Amends RESULTS online and hits submit button BCTS  Shows up in inbox and date stamped Woodlots*  Standards which require DM approval 2 MoF: Craig  Checks inbox weekly Within 60 days  Reviews proposed changes for consistency with of submission legislation/accuracy date  Completes SP amend flow sheet with recommendation  Attach flow sheet to RESULTS amendment  Email DM with notification of an amendment requiring a decision (note opening #) 3 DM: Kerry  Review  Approve amendment online or reject amendment and write rationale 4 DM: Kerry  Approves  Shows up in RESULTS as approved with approval date in RESULTS

Phase 2: MoF Obligations (NRFL) Step Who What Time 1 MoF LIM: Lindsay  Assign opening Number 2 MoF Stewardship Forester  Planning of activities 3 Licensee  Notice to commence harvesting through ESF or web Prior to form harvest 4a Licensee  Harvest start-completion dates By May 31  Form A, B, C; Stocking stds, initial forest cover where harvest 4b MoF Stewardship  Activities complete completed 4c MoF Stewardship Regen Achieved previous fiscal  Forest cover, declaration (form C) spatial 4d MoF Stewardship FG Achieved  Forest cover, declaration, (form C), spatial 5 MoF LIM / Consultant  Ezlink application .gml, .xml file creation 1 day 6 Automated  ESF approve or rejected  Approve: populate results, declaration IDIR, send email to MoF LIM  Reject: email to MoF LIM 7 Automated  Results populated – info into Results Overnight  Declaration with BCEID  Submission data

 LRDW replicated including spatial

Phase 2: MoF Obligations (Natural Disturbance) Step Who What Time 1 Protection (if fire)  Provide info 1 month after  Send spatial file (PDF map), area (ha) based on fire out Other source (sat mage…) flight, to MOF District 2 MoF Stewardship and/or  Decide whether to do anything 2 days LIM  If “do nothing”, Mike sends info to SRM Kamloops  Status check, productivity, visible  Priority – economic assessment  Chance of success – MERCH remaining (determine if available) decision point 3 MoF LIM: Lindsay  Assign mapsheet opening # 1 day 4 MoF Stewardship: Mike  Build opening definition in RESULTS 1 day  Create disturbance within RESULTS, natural area, date of disturbance  Create xml/gml file with spatial, attribute data, ESF submission 5 Automated  ESF Submission: accept/reject 1 day  Accept: email to MoF LIM  Reject: email to MoF LIM 6 MoF Stewardship or  Complete site plans 1 week Consultant  Esilink upload into RESULTS  Activities scheduled 7 MoF Stewardship or  Complete and report activities ? Consultant  Forest cover and map  Activities, declaration  Xml/gml file created – ESF 8 Automated  ESF Submission: Accept or reject  Email to MoF

Phase 2: Updates for SPs Step Who What Time 1 Licensee  Complete update online in Results without DM approval 2 Automated  Results populated prior to Form A,B,C submission

Tools (incomplete List)

Phase 1:  Consistent block labeling protocol  Licensee submission standards o LRDW and Arcmap  Terms of reference for District ‘RESULTS’ team

Phase 1&2  Licensee training plan components  Quality assurance process and/or tool o Computer queries for blocks without RESULTS entries o Data validation o Cross program queries RESULTS/FTA/Veg o External audit veg and sat imagery o Field data audit effectiveness evaluation for stocking standards (peer review) o Information on basal area retention coming in – possibly part of a wider program  MoF District staff training components o ESIlink o Access (Queries) o imap LRDW access arcmap o Tenure update tool – TRG (May) o Learnlink o FRPA training (reporting requirements) o CRS training . FTA and RESULTS reporting

Parking Lot

Parking Lot Items Discussion/Actions* *Also captured in more detail in “Action Plan” at end of session notes Graham Hawkins:  “Training” Stocking standards regimes – do licensees need different  Confirm protocol numbers for FDP and FSP stocking standards if they are identical? Phase 1:  Larry to confirm what can be delegated Delegation of DDM approval FPC - SDM Confirmation on what can be delegated Phase 1:  Being looked at by streamlining team – Don What should we do about CP amendments? FTA amendments? Mullet Don Mullet’s team, cut block integration teams – risk of doing  Area reports between FTA/Results – John vs not doing Galimore Phase 1:  Lindsay to talk to Christine Ungy (Quesnel How to manage multi polygons in Results and FTA, consistent FD) block numbering  Must be consistent between FTA and Results QA framework for data: 1. Create a diagnostic reporting tool for QA  Progressive  Find incomplete information  Appropriate levels of QA  Look to FTA/Scale/ECAS  Field QA data completeness mapping 2. Field Checks – C&E: Fieldwork, rendered maps, completeness 3. Mapping accuracy  Reporting system by MSRM  Map standards? Spatial linking of all legacy data  Tim and Mike to look at opening numbers that do not match Results – URI  Analysis by May 31/05 Phase 1:  Update from Ralph Winter with Larry Legislative approach to getting high quality submissions from Licensees – mapping standards Phase 2:  John Galimore – relating to QA framework A process to determine if Licensees are complying with reporting requirements (e.g. harvesting commencement dates) Phase 1:  Approved variation button covers this How do variations in a standard get entered in an initial SS?  Procedure/training issue Passage of information on mapping standards to all Licensees  Part of ESF project – consistent to the right people in the Licensee businesses  AI – to Mike and Lindsay  BCEID  User profiles Awareness raising for Licensees on requirements of new  Part of ESF project legislation – right person in the Licensee organization  Len’s staff as well NRFL heads up: additional workload that is uncertain at this  See action plan poing MoF Obligations: Natural Disturbance  See action plan  should MoF take this on, and to what level?  What creates the obligation Cutting permit closures in FTA – who should do it?  See action plan SP amendments workload: technically a tenures issue, but too  Craig big for tenures right now How does LIM get info on what to assign opening # for NRFLs?  Action plan Who responsible for NRLS up to end of harvest? Notification on ECAS and FTA – joint inbox submission by  Lindsay and Doug Licensees BCTS ‘grey areas’ – they can shortcut the system – timing of  Just an observation – no actions ECAS submission is different from other Licensees Check of data quality on SS entered by service provider  Jack, Lucy, Clerk?

Implementation Plan

April May June and Beyond Key Dates  ESF Regional Workshops Apr 20-May 4  May 4: ESF Regional workshops end  June 1: CPs and RPs  ESF District Working Groups start  May 10: RESULTS 2.0 release  June 1: RESULSTS fully implemented  April 30: RESULTS training for  June 1: ESF Working groups end Licensees and MoF Districts completed  Dec 31: ABR (Learnlink) DM April 11 Learnlink for More detail Quick wins, amend and or output – licensee SS 3rd week in messages April Office All staff mtg: Web based ID specific ½ hr talk, training training email add’l audience info Learnlink Result overview Licensees Send out email to remind Licensees re: (BCTS) training  Map standards  ESF linkage

Implementation Considerations (Debrief from Group Juggle Exercise):  Establish goals and objectives  Pay attention to efficiencies  Implement in a phased approach  Identify risk and mitigate if possible  Know what information you have, where it came from, who you are passing it to and how  Include all steps and all stakeholders  Allow for ability to stop and review when things change  Find a way to measure the process/outputs  Ensure everyone has a role  Pay attention to strengths and weaknesses  Utilize emerging leaders fully  Include training in the plan

Communications

Key Messages:  We have mapped the RESULTS process for the District DM/Lic/Gen/Staff  We know who does what in our District and when  Some details will still be worked out later  This has to be a team effort  There is still workload and responsibility issues to be determined  RESULTS is linked to FTA, and all part of ESF  We need to involve and include Licensees in the implementation  Block naming convention must be consistent starting at Exhibit A – Lic/BCTS  EFM Group formed for District with the following members: o Lindsay o Mike o Craig o Jack o Lucy o S/L/BCTS/DM o We would encourage Licensee and BCTS participation  RESULTS is used to track silviculture obligations for MoF and Licenses – this is the only process for MoF to use  After June 1, 2005 we will not accept paper  Help for RESULTS APP help

Actions

# Action By Who By When Done? 1. Create a diagnostic reporting tool for John G Email Results QA response or - include how to determine if Licensees are timeline by complying with HC dates April 8 2. Field checks: C&E staff Email Start working with C&E and check that free response or growing is achieved; timeline by Assess maps to the standard of the April 8 legislation 3. Mapping accuracy: Tim (MSRM) Email  MSRM lag time between response or submission/harvest date timeline by  Work on map standards and push April 8 them forward 4. Spatial linking of legacy data; Tim and Mike May 31 Look at opening #s that do not match Results – URI 5. Delegate DM Approvals: Larry Email Confirm what can/can’t be delegated response or timeline by April 8 6. Amendments to FTA and Results: Email  Streamlining being looked at Don Mullet response or  Area reports between FTA and Results John G. timeline by April 8 7. Determine how to name multi-block Lindsay Email openings in Results Dona response or Kristine’s timeline by replacement April 8 8. Stocking standards regime same #’s for Larry Email Licensees?: response or  Most licensees would offer new #s timeline by  Use automatically generated # or the April 8 number that has been assigned 9. Legislated submission standards: Larry talk to Email Letter confirm where we are at Ralph W response or timeline by Review standards and develop a checklist, Craig April 8 and track quality 10. Variations in a standard getting entered ESF Working Email into SS? Group response or  Covered by approved/variation button timeline by  Procedure/training issue for Licensees April 8  Bring up at next all Licensee meeting 11. Pass mapping standards to Licensees: Lindsay: email Email  Hand out to Licensees at meetings response or  Email to all Licensees and ESF timeline by  “Here are the guidelines for Results working group April 8 and ESF” meetings 12. Reporting timeframes Len Email  Make Licensees aware of key dates: response or June 1st, etc timeline by April 8 13. NRFL heads up: Lucy Email Additional workload that is uncertain at this response or point – 3rd party?, in house? Contracts? timeline by  Bring up workload issue the Kerry April 8

# Action By Who By When Done? 14. MoF Obligation – Natural Disturbance Larry (fire or Email  Need to check out the following pest related) response or questions: timeline by  Should MoF take this on, if yes to what April 8 level? o Areas harvested and not salvageable o Post-free growing disturbance and not salvaged  What creates the obligation? 15. Determine who should do cutting permit Len to bring to Email closures in FTA DAT response or timeline by April 8 16. SP amendments workload: technically a Craig to take Email tenures issue, but too big for tenures right on for now response or now timeline by April 8 17. If NRFL Licensee does not take on Larry to follow Email responsibility, what do they need to report up on response or on? timeline by April 8 18. Forward recommendation to Don Mullet via Lindsay and Email email: Doug discuss, response or  Notification on ECAS and FTA – joint Doug email timeline by inbox submission by Licensee Don April 8 19. Develop a system to check on timely entry Jack and Craig Email (SS entered by service provider) response or timeline by April 8 20. Present to DM EFM Group April 8

21. Start using the new processes EFM Group April 8  Quick wins

22. Notes from the session Berlin, Eaton April 1 23. Coordinate Results implementation: Lucy EFM Group Craig Jack Lindsay Mike 24. Email answers to EFM group for above All April 8 actions, or a timeline for when you will have the answers

Expectations Not Fully Addressed:  How does C&E use/get/interact with data?  Workload implications  Training needs (requires more detail)  Relationships between RESULTS and other systems (e.g. CIMS, GENUS)  Role of service providers

End of Day Evaluations and Debriefs

Scores out of 10: 8 8 8 8 8 9 7 7 8 9

Average: 7.9 or 79%

What Went Well?  Teamwork  Focus  Agenda  Current map  Lunch/facilities  Facilitation focus

Need to Pay Attention to:  Details  Systems  Workload  Written procedures

Scores out of 10: 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 9

Average: 8.6 or 86%

What Went Well?  Details  Accomplished objectives  The job is do-able  Comfort level and increased understanding  Donuts

What We Need To Focus On Day 3?  Revisit parking lot items  Assigning roles in the route cards  Evaluate workload and time requirements for Chilliwack District  Try to scale to other Districts  Capture action items out of this meeting  Revisit expectations  A plan to implement and communicate

Post Session Survey Results

The Post Session Survey was administered to the participants at the end of the workshop. The purpose of this survey is to provide feedback and information to incorporate into planning activities for future sessions and meetings. Information gathered fall into the following categories:

 Overall Score out of 10  Preparation  Agenda  Delivery  Results

The graphed results report the percentage of respondents that agree (scoring either 4 or 5), to a series of statements related to their perception of how they viewed the session. Any scores where less than 80% agree are generally noted for future action.

The total number of responses was 11.

The overall score out of 10 was 8.6, or 86%.

Survey Responses

Preparation

100% 100% 91% 82% 80% 64% 60%

0% t - e o n e h s l d a t e l n r s e n

r o g r a e t e i t r a o l a o i o e i a p i u v d h s n r o i i p p p s c e f t s o r i l g e s r e v i o t e r e s t h s n c s e r u o e o a b e a R g e E r s p i e P p n s r s p m R p

Most scores were 80% or higher for preparation. The largest opportunity to improve exists in ensuring that the right pre-session materials are provided to allow participants to prepare for the session ahead of time.

Agenda

100% 100% 100% 100%

0% s s e d t d c o e a i a a e a i o d p d n d m r i g n o n w a p n a t r e t e a o o e f t l

r g f n g g e h d p o A A A g a i m p c i r h t a

All scores were high for “Agenda” questions with each scoring 100% 4s and 5s.

Delivery

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 91%

0% d s r s s s s n l l t r s r e i o e n s o d e y t f r d l l n d o r o k c o n t t k i t a o e b e s e e o s t t n r a a t a c c g a t v t u t t a a i w e i t i m a i l a t e t a t l s t i t i i h o r p i l m h d c p l i c t n n p c i c g h e o s i u e c e s a o e a c a r f s c o e a a p f e k a r F m F c m r f e x e R F F a e e h e t r d

All scores were high in the “Delivery” area.

Results

100% 100% 100% 90% 82% 80%

0% d t s s e

n r e n r n d t r e n n a o e e o d i l e i x m l a o o t t e t l i i e l s m b w e i u

a r a c s s s c p t a n t r o

m s l u a m s s i e c u t t e l t o u t d e e m W s e u u n a s c s f u n s a p S p e

e e V t o a I x r r g u b e o a

All scores were above 80% for “Results.” The largest opportunity to improve is ensuring there is clarity around actions and next steps coming from the workshop.

Written Comments:

My most significant learning from this session was:  Clear understanding where RESULTS is at in DCK and who is doing what  Good teamwork is important, the right people to participate  Step by step process of mapping a business procedure  Learning the details of Ministry existing processes  Provided with a better understanding of tasks associated with implementing RESULTS and ESF  The pre-process and post-processes  Clear understanding  We have a long way to go for implementing all this Provincially  District business flow for Silv/C&E

Future sessions could be improved by:  ½ more day  Including staff from other districts  Additional background materials  Pre-start coffee  Not much – very well done and smooth

I have the following additional comments:  Good session

of 25 Prepared by Berlin, Eaton & Associates Ltd.