The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAO-007-17CAO Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: June 19, 2017 Report Number: CAO-007-17 Resolution: GG-366-17 File Number: By-law Number: Report Subject: RESEARCH ON MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEWS Recommendations: 1.That Report CAO-007-17 be received for information. Municipality of Clarington Report CAO-007-17 Page 2 Report Overview The purpose of this report is to respond to a request of Council for research on the process, costs and outcomes of other municipalities’ organization structure reviews. The research is inconclusive. Few comparable municipalities have undertaken such a review and the process, costs and outcomes vary widely depending largely on the purpose of the review. Broad findings are provided on each of these three items and it is concluded that going to market for this service may garner more useful information, but will need to be preceded by a Council direction about the purpose of such a review. In the meanwhile, the Municipality is making good progress on implementing five enablers of organizational performance that will be useful regardless of organizational structure changes. 1. Background The purpose of this report is to respond to Resolution #GG-524-16, approved at the October 31, 2016 Council meeting: “That the Interim CAO be directed to prepare a report providing Members of Council with information regarding the process, costs and outcomes of other municipalities’ organization structure reviews”. To undertake this research, the Interim CAO consulted a number of people knowledgeable of these matters through his contacts and professional associations. The research questions are set out in Attachment 1. The research was inconclusive on these matters firstly because there was little information available. There are few comparable municipalities who have undertaken such a review in the recent past. Moreover, of those that have undertaken a review, most municipalities and professionals with relevant experience in this field are unwilling to provide this type of information or where they were, were not willing to have it broadcasted. This because it may be commercially sensitive (e.g., explain a consulting firm’s process, costs) or reveal personnel information (e.g., outcomes). 2. Key Findings Within this narrow band of responses and these limitations, it was found that: A. Processes to undertake the reviews varied widely – often because the purposes of the reviews differed widely. That is, some reviews were driven by a desire to change up the leadership team whereas others were driven by a desire to respond to known pending retirements of senior staff whereas others were Municipality of Clarington Report CAO-007-17 Page 3 driven by public policy goals, e.g., economic development or driven by public administration goals, e.g., efficiency, accountability, responsiveness, public policy capacity, customer service. However, in general, the Interim CAO’s experience and this research would suggest that the process should include: 1. Setting outcomes for what an effective municipal organization should provide for the community and the interests it serves 2. Establishing criteria for what makes for an effective organizational structure to deliver these outcomes 3. Developing options for organizational structures 4. Assessing the options as against the criteria 5. Refining and choosing the most suitable option 6. Determining the gaps between the current organizational structure and the chosen option 7. Developing the most feasible and acceptable means to close the gaps (implementation plan). B. Costs similarly varied widely and depended on: - the purpose of the review - how it was undertaken (e.g., process used including range and complexity of options assessed and depth of analysis; time, level and type of consultation) - whether the review itself was just being costed (in which case costs were found to range from $75,000 to $500,000) or its implementation (in which case costs ranged from $100,000 for management system upgrades to multiples of $100,000s where there were significant staffing changes) C. Outcomes achieved of course were a reflection of all of the above and varied widely, with some claiming they largely meet their goals, but that a large number of public administration factors contributed to this beyond organizational structural changes, including: Municipality of Clarington Report CAO-007-17 Page 4 - changes to businesses processes - skilling and engaging staff - introducing new technology - changing work design - business planning and aligning budgets with plans - service delivery reviews - controllership changes. Notably, some claimed that a structural change that saw a tighter span of control for the CAO meant a more strategic and integrated approach to decision making and greater clarity about the organization’s purpose. Very few claimed any dollar savings from the organizational structure changes in itself and where they did, there were significant one-time off sets, e.g., staffing adjustment costs. Savings and improvements in efficiency and effectiveness tended to arise from these public administration changes noted. This is consistent with the approach of the Interim CAO who has focused on building five enablers of organizational performance that are useful regardless of the organizational structure and can produce results more quickly. The details of the results, the actions taken to achieve them, and the next steps for the incoming CAO on these matters is set out in a May 26th memo to Council from the Interim CAO and is attached here as Attachment 2. 3. Conclusion Research on the process, costs and outcomes of recent municipal organization structure reviews of municipalities comparable to Clarington is inconclusive. Little information is available and the information that is available shows that the process, costs and outcomes vary widely. The purpose of any review is a key factor that will determine these matters. Should the Municipality wish to proceed with a review, Council will need to provide clarity of purpose of such a review in order for the market to answer these questions about process, costs and expected outcomes. In the meanwhile, the Municipality is making good progress on implementing five enablers of organizational performance that will be useful regardless of organizational structure changes. Municipality of Clarington Report CAO-007-17 Page 5 3.Strategic Plan Application Not applicable. Submitted by: Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO, Interim CAO Attachments: Attachment 1 - Municipal Organizational Review Research Questions Attachment 2 – Key Enablers ATTACHMENT 1 TO REPORT CAO-007-17 Page 1 of 2 Municipal Organizational Review Research Questions Our Council has put the following request to me in a recent resolution: “That the Interim CAO be directed to prepare a report providing members of Council with information regarding the process, costs and outcomes of other municipalities’ organization structure reviews.” I would much appreciate your help with this. If your municipality has undertaken an organizational structure review within the last three years or have one underway or are about to start one, can you please let me know. And if you said yes to any of these three scenarios, can you please link me to any publicly available reports about this and let me know the W5 on this: 1. Why was the review undertaken? (e.g. What opportunity or problem was/is the Municipality seeking to advance/resolve with undertaking the review?) 2. What was the scope of the review? (e.g. Enterprise wide or just some parts of the structure? Did it also include matters other than structure? e.g. Businesses processes? Service levels? Service delivery methods? Did it include relationships with Agencies, Boards and Commissions?) 3. Who undertook the review? (e.g. Who was the consultant/firm contracted to undertake the review? What was the role of the CAO in the review? Role of the Council? Were any aspects of the review done by Municipal staff?) 4. How was the review undertaken? (e.g. What process/methodology was used to undertake the review? e.g. consult on key objectives, formulate models and discuss with Council and/or CAO? What principles/theory guided the recommendations? e.g. purpose-based organization, process-based organization, client-based organization) 5. When was the review undertaken? (e.g. start and finish time (at least “finish” in terms of key structural changes in place) 6. What were the costs? What were the direct consulting costs to undertake the review itself? What was the approximate Municipal staff time to provide input to the review? What additional costs were incurred to support the review? (e.g. change management supports? Communications supports?) 7. What were the outcomes? What came out of the structural review? a. In terms of structural changes: • Which of the review’s recommendations were implemented? • Partially implemented? • Deferred for implementation at a later date? • Not at all implemented or intended to be implemented? Or ATTACHMENT 1 TO REPORT CAO-007-17 Page 2 of 2 • Outcomes that came about that were not recommended at all but reflected the underlying issues found in the review? Or outcomes that really had little to do with the review? b. In terms of performance outcomes? e.g., Significant change in • Efficiency? • Effectiveness? • Customer satisfaction? • Accountability? • Clarity of roles? ATTACHMENT 2 TO REPORT CAO-007-17 ATTACHMENT 2 TO REPORT CAO-007-17 ATTACHMENT 2 TO REPORT CAO-007-17