Curtains on my TBS Odyssey
Curtains on my TBS Odyssey
A Personal Reflection on Driving Change at the Treasury Board Secretariat
Happy Tuesday, Transformation Friends. Another week, another opportunity to go Beyond the Status Quo.
In a slight shift from my usual posts, I’m sharing something more personal today. Last week, I moved on from my role overseeing major transformations in the Office of the Chief Information Officer of Canada at the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada (TBS). This role, which I held for around two years, has been a journey filled with learning and insights.
Today, I want to take a moment to reflect on this experience and share some of the key takeaways with you.
So, grab your morning coffee, and let’s get started.
How it began
Let's rewind a bit because it’s worth discussing my background before joining the TBS in November 2021, as it shaped my approach and mindset for the role I eventually took on.
My career, prior to my TBS stint, was entirely focused on the delivery side. Fresh out of graduate school, I started my career journey as a scientist at Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC). My work there was fascinating and diverse, involving research on underwater mines and torpedoes. It was an incredible start to my career, taking me around the world and involved spending time on warships, flying in helicopters, and living in Italy for a brief stint working for NATO.
After six years at DRDC, I had the unique opportunity to join the inaugural cohort of Canada’s Free Agent program. This program marked a significant shift from my scientific role. It allowed me to leverage my research, analysis, and critical thinking skills towards improving services for Canadians. This phase of my career, spanning another five years, involved various roles across multiple departments.
During this period, I often found myself in conflict with TBS, seeing it as a rival of sorts (remember this sense of rivalry later). Whether it was expressing frustration over policies I perceived as counterproductive or grappling with the complexities of the Treasury Board submission process, I frequently questioned the organization's effectiveness.
So, when the chance to join TBS came up, I was hesitant. My initial motivation wasn't enthusiasm for the role but rather a strategic move—perhaps bordering on selfing—to gain "central agency experience," often touted as a critical aspect of career progression in the Government of Canada. I thought I'd spend a year there, gain some insight, and leave, hopefully without losing my perspective and values; hopefully, get out uncorrupted.
Has my perspective changed?
Over the past few months, as I prepared to transition to a new role, I reflected on my time at TBS. The central question I pondered was whether my perspective had shifted during this time.
The unequivocal answer is yes.
My initial skepticism about the role of TBS has transformed significantly. I now recognize the critical importance of its work in financial oversight, management policies, and digital and service delivery. These functions are essential in ensuring the public service delivers optimal value to Canadians. Based on what I told you about my perspective of the organization prior to joining, this realization marks a substantial shift in my thinking.
My focus at TBS was primarily on major transformations and modernization initiatives and their interplay with the organization. In these areas, particularly in environments characterized by high volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), I've experienced several aspects where the value of TBS’s role is unquestionable and paramount. However, given this importance, naturally, there are opportunities for improvement.
I've developed a series of "How might we" questions to frame these insights constructively. These are intended to highlight potential areas of positive change rather than dwelling on shortcomings. I've arranged these questions in what I believe to be a logical sequence, starting with some foundational questions that should be considered before others.
How might we check in to ensure everything is working as intended?
This question is particularly pertinent when considering TBS's responsibilities in financial oversight, management policies, and digital and service delivery.
In a nutshell, we can distill TBS’s role in a simple sentence taken directly from the TBS website:
The Secretariat helps ensure tax dollars are spent wisely and effectively for Canadians.
Interestingly, when we think about the success or failure of an initiative, the focus tends to be on the initiatives themselves, which is a valid starting point. However, it's crucial to also consider the broader ecosystem in which these initiatives operate. In contexts like major service transformations, TBS's role is central. As a key player in financial oversight, TBS emerges as a common denominator in these initiatives. My experience at TBS revealed the significant, and often underappreciated, influence it has in guiding government investment decisions. This influence is not just substantial; it's critical, given the high stakes involved in ensuring optimal operation.
To illustrate this point, let's examine two recent Auditor General reports that we've discussed previously: Modernizing Information Technology Systems, The Benefits Delivery Modernization Programme.
These reports highlight areas where TBS's role could be enhanced, which is invaluable feedback. However, they tend to focus on TBS's role from an external perspective, without diving into how TBS's internal processes, particularly in financial oversight, are functioning within the larger ecosystem.
It's important to remember that all major failures in these areas have passed through TBS's financial oversight process. By only examining these failures from an inside-out perspective starting with the initiative, we might be overlooking crucial insights that could be gained from an outside-in perspective starting with TBS’s oversight approach.
It’s like identifying shortcomings in a school's performance by only scrutinizing the teachers, without considering the role of the principal.
Perhaps it's time we take a closer look at the 'principal' in these scenarios, in this case, TBS, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of its role and impact.
How might we create a more like a partnership than a rivalry culture?
My experience gave me the impression that there is a prevailing 'us versus them' culture, with TBS on one side as the gatekeeper of financial oversight, and the initiatives seeking approval on the other. This dynamic often felt like a battleground, where one side was keen on highlighting the mistakes of the other, and the latter struggled to see the value in undergoing rigorous scrutiny.
I felt like this rivalry culture hindered the ability of both parties to recognize and focus on their shared objective: delivering value to Canadians. There's immense potential in acknowledging this common goal and fostering a more collaborative atmosphere. When we view each other as allies rather than adversaries, the dynamics change significantly. Collaboration encourages transparency and responsiveness to feedback, challenges, and questions, leading to more productive and effective interactions.
TBS, not having a direct mandate to deliver services to Canadians, might risk losing sight of this crucial perspective. It's essential for TBS to be wary of an 'ivory tower' mindset and strive for a balance that incorporates practical delivery experience alongside policy expertise. This balance should emerge from a place of experience, not just theoretical understanding.
A valuable piece of advice from my first boss at TBS resonates deeply with me: the mindset should be more "we've got you" rather than "gotcha!" It’s a great way to capture the essence of moving towards a partnership culture, where support and collaboration are prioritized over fault-finding and rivalry.
How might we be better at focusing on what’s really important?
A recurring theme in major transformation projects, and one that I've observed consistently, is the tendency to get bogged down in the minutiae of the "how" while losing sight of the "why."
In the context of TBS's role in guiding Treasury Board ministers' decisions on significant investments, it's crucial to return to first principles and concentrate on the fundamental questions.
These key areas include:
Justification for Investment: Articulating the reasons and necessity for the initiative including how it aligns with strategic goals and objectives.
Cost-Benefit Analysis: A thorough examination of the expected costs and benefits, providing stakeholders with a clear understanding of the financial implications and the anticipated return on investment.
Risk Assessment: Identifying potential risks associated with the initiatives and outlining strategies to mitigate these risks.
The key here is to do this in clear and plain language absent of jargon and technical mumbo jumbo. I always say it need to pass the neighbour test: I should be able to explain it to my neighbour in a way they understand and see the value.
The aim is to equip decision-makers with the best possible evidence to make informed choices about proceeding with the project.
The TB Submission template attempts to do this with sections like Context; Design, Delivery, and Implementation; Costs; Results; and Risks. However, in practice, these sections often become overly detailed and prolix. The goal should not be to overwhelm with information but to present clear, concise, and descriptive text that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the project.
Mark Twain's quote, "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead," aptly reflects the challenge of conveying complex and uncertain topics in a clear and concise manner. A lengthy narrative can inadvertently signal a lack of clarity and confidence in the project's direction and execution.
Furthermore, the current template has evolved into a sort of Frankenstein’s Monster with now 14 appendices (and growing). It seems like they are continually added but rarely streamlined. This lack of refinement adds to the complexity.
Another issue is the guidance, which is over 16,000 words long and has a Flesch Reading Ease score of about 28 (on a scale of 0-100, where lower scores indicate more difficult readability). This score places it in the most difficult band 0-30 "Very Difficult", suitable for a “college graduate level” of understanding.
There's a clear need to simplify and refocus on what truly matters. By getting back to first principles and executing them well, we can provide decision-makers with clear insights that balance the "how" with the uncertainties involved.
This approach leads nicely into my next and final "How might we" question.
How might we better balance opportunities and threats?
It's important to address our natural tendency to focus predominantly on negatives, a phenomenon known as "negativity bias." This bias, where negative events, experiences, or information are given more prominence than positive ones, significantly influences our decision-making, risk assessment, and memory.
In Risk Management, the term "risk" encompasses both potential negatives (threats) and positives (opportunities), including the risk of missing out on positive outcomes. However, an excessive focus on threats can lead to an overly risk-averse mindset, skewing our perception to believe that every uncertainty will result in a negative outcome. For instance, concentrating solely on the threats in a procurement process might cause us to overlook its positive aspects, leading to decisions based on incomplete information.
A key challenge, possibly rooted in the rivalry culture I discussed earlier, is that oversight roles often emphasize identifying and highlighting negatives. This focus can inadvertently reinforce negativity bias. It's crucial to acknowledge this bias and strive for a balanced perspective that equally considers both risks and opportunities.
Enhancing risk management training could be a solution. By providing frameworks that encourage a more balanced view, individuals involved in oversight can develop the ability to weigh both the positive and negative aspects of a situation equally.
Wrap up
As I close this chapter of my career at TBS, I reflect on the invaluable learning experience it has been. Coming from a background focused on delivery, my time in an oversight role has enriched my perspective significantly. This experience will undoubtedly enhance my future endeavors in delivery roles.
I've developed a deep appreciation for the importance of oversight in transformational initiatives. Just as we continuously seek to improve how we conduct transformations, it's equally important to refine our oversight methods. This tandem approach ensures both efficiency and effectiveness in our endeavors.
A key takeaway for me has been the significance of thoroughly justifying investments. Understanding the broader benefits of our work and how they tangibly add value to Canadians has been enlightening. Equally important is the comprehension of costs, uncertainties, and risks to provide decision-makers with a balanced and well-informed view.
Today, let’s end by reflecting on these questions:
Redefining Oversight and Delivery Dynamics: How can we transform the traditional 'us versus them' dynamic between oversight bodies and delivery teams into a collaborative partnership that enhances effectiveness
Simplifying Complexity in Decision-Making: In an environment often bogged down by complexity and jargon, how can we streamline our processes to focus on clear, concise, and essential information that truly aids in decision-making?
Balancing Risk and Opportunity: How can we develop a more balanced approach in risk management that equally weighs the potential opportunities and threats, moving beyond the natural tendency towards negativity bias?
Until next time, stay curious and I’ll see you Beyond the Status Quo.