Frequently Asked Questions

The Major Projects and Investments Board (MPIB) is an ADM sub-committee of the Portfolio Management Board (PMB) and has a mandate to support rigorous and transparent project planning, project management, and investment decisions.

All major investment projects (over $5 million) are brought before MPIB for review. . investment projects are required to undergo a series of stages and gates (decision points) in their life cycles. The project life cycle approach allows for informed decision-making about investments based on the performance of the project to date, the return on investment (business or social rationale), and the ability to execute the plan for the project going forward. It also provides a mechanism to allocate resources at defined points in time.

MPIB provides project leads with feedback and recommendations at gates 2 and 3. The Committee has decision making authority: it provides project teams with the approval to continue to the next phase of project work. Where there is disagreement about whether or how a project should proceed, the matter may be brought before PMB for a decision.

MPIB meeting dates take place on Mondays, every two weeks. When a date resides on a statutory holiday the meeting may be cancelled or re-scheduled if critical submissions must take place before the next available date. The same goes for a submission that it very time critical: in this case, a special meeting can be established for such a critical project. Contact your Project Management Advisor (PMA) for the MPIB meeting dates and activities leading up to a MPIB meeting. If you do not know who is your PMA, please send an e-mail to NC-BGPE-EPMO-GD@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca.

Contact your PMA and let them know how much the date needs to be shifted and the circumstances around the shift. In cases where the documents are simply not yet signed the shift may simply be one meeting period so can be done as an administrative change. If the date must shift significantly and may affect other dependent projects then a formal change request must be submitted with options explored. Options should include doing nothing, for instance: doing a partial release (in the case of a gate 4) to mitigate the impact of a full release delay.

The CFOB Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO) encourages the use of the gated project templates and these can be found in the PMIS ESDC Knowledge Repository. If there is ever a question as to if the template is the most up to date contact your PMA for verification.

All projects subject to the Treasury Board Standard for Project Complexity and Risk must be assessed to determine their level of risk and complexity prior to the expenditure of project funds (prior to Gate 2).  If during the life cycle of a project, there are significant changes that would impact on its assessed complexity and risk the project's level of risk and complexity must be reassessed and the Treasury Board Secretariat must be informed of the result.

At ESDC, Project Managers should consider running through the PCRA questions as soon as the project proposal is approved. Doing a preliminary run through the PCRA questions will sensitize you as to where the risks are associated and how much detail you will need in your documents to support the score you feel is appropriate for your project. Once you do a preliminary run through, develop your gate documents to support the risks associated with the project and submit the PCRA along with your other gate 2 documents for a Gate review. Your Project Management Advisor can assist you throughout this process. It is a good idea to look at the PCRA questions even for non MPIB governed projects as it will provide insight to what makes a project risky and complex in the eyes of TBS. The level of risk and complexity will help to determine how much detail you should include in your project documents (see other FAQ on this topic).

The level of detail in your project documents should be based on the projects risk level and complexity. Projects that are not governed by MPIB are still required to follow good project management practices and thus must have good documentation. (Some projects have been known to rise in overall project value and become MPIB governed). All projects will need the project documents to include the level of detail to reduce risks the project has based on its reach and scope.

In order for a project to develop project documentation that presents information in a standard way, ESDC’s new Project and Program Management Practice (PPMP) has defined templates that projects should use to develop their specific project documents. In each case whether it is a gate 2 or 3 document being submitted for MPIB approval or a gate 4 or 5 for MPIB recognition, the documents should be developed in consultation with the PMA to ensure an adequate level of detail and clarity. Once the activities and project deliverables for the stage are complete, the project team submit their gate deliverables for gate review. Each submission is passed to a project assurance review team prior to the MPIB meeting to assess project readiness and impacts to the portfolio. Documents must be signed at the Director General level for project assurance review to take place and at the ADM level prior to the MPIB meeting. If the documentation is not fully signed by a specific date in that process the submission will be delayed until the project can provide the final signed documents.

It is important to know about changes to small and minor sized projects because of the overall impact these changes have on the portfolio of approved projects. If a minor sized project adds in a $200K IITB component that was not accounted for in the Approved Project List this may cause other projects – which may be of higher priority – to lose their IITB capacity to the minor project change. If the minor project does not tell MPIB that it has consumed more IITB capacity than is noted on the Approved Project List then IITB may be unable, at some point, to provide capacity to the ones that did document and change accordingly.

All projects are required to note their changes in the PMIS tool and to complete, if required, change requests. Each change no matter how big or small can affect the overall departmental investment in projects. MPIB knows all approved projects (all sizes) by its costs and timelines at a minimum, as all projects must provide this basic information. If any aspect of the project changes, the project should complete a change request, obtain the appropriate approvals based on established thresholds, and notify EPMO so the Approved Project List can reflect the changes (in cost or time). Changes to approved planned amounts and timelines are presented to MPIB in a document which summarizes all changes to the Approved Project List. That document is provided to the committee as an impact artifact at each meeting. If they have questions they will ask the ADM (if in attendance) to explain the change or create an action item in the MPIB meeting action register for follow-up.

The purpose of the PMP is to document how a project will be planned for, executed, monitored, controlled and closed. In Stage 2 (Initiation), the PMP submitted identifies standard project management best practices that will be used during the life cycle of the project. The intent is to identify information that impacts the project complexity and risk assessment that is also completed at this stage. The PMP also initiates the project control activities. In stage 3 (Planning), the PMP is refined to add details to each project management area to provide the baseline to which the project status will be compared to.  It also allows for some process customization to best fit the project needs that may not have been identified during Stage 2. Please note that guidelines are included in the PMP template found in the PMIS ESDC Knowledge Repository. Since the PMP is submitted twice and evolves between Stage 2 and the approval at Gate 3, it needs to be signed at each Gate to ensure the Executive Sponsor and the Business Owner are aware of the changes and ultimately approve them.

Contact your Project Management Advisor (PMA) directly, or if you are unsure who your PMA is, contact NC-BGPE-EPMO-GD@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca

ESDC Knowledge Repository

A programme is a group of related projects and change management activities that together achieve beneficial change for a department.

The spelling 'programme' distinguishes "a group of related projects and change management activities" from a Government of Canada 'program' which delivers services and social benefits to Canadians (e.g., the Canada Pension Plan program).

ESDC has opted to capitalize Benefits to ensure a clear distinction is understood between social benefits delivered to Canadians through operational programs (e.g., Employment Insurance benefits) and Benefits realized through the implementation of a change initiative, project or programme.

Programme management, as defined by Treasury Board, is "the coordinated management of projects and change management activities to achieve beneficial change".

At ESDC, the Managing Successful Programmes (MSP®^{Footnote 1}) framework has been selected as the best approach for the delivery of programmes. MSP provides a similar definition of programme management: 'the action of carrying out the coordinated organization, direction and implementation of projects and transformation activities to achieve outcomes and realize benefits of strategic importance to the business."

By 2021, ESDC will successfully deliver complex change using programme management best practices resulting in:

• Scalable programme management linked to strategic priorities, properly resourced and planned;
• Sustainable capacity and capability development to support on-going programme delivery;
• Effective programme governance and accountabilities for Senior Executives; and
• Being respected and recognized as an enabler for the implementation of programme management within the Canadian Federal Government.

It has been recognized across the public sector in numerous jurisdictions, that using only project approaches has created challenges in delivering the type of change required to successfully transform organizations.

Recognizing the importance of effectively delivering complex change within the Government of Canada, the Treasury Board (TB) has released the results of a Policy Suite Reset initiative which includes the use of the programme management discipline.

ESDC has over the past few years been developing its capability and capacity in project management to support successful service delivery; this will continue to be a major focus for the Investment, Procurement and Project Management (IPPM) directorate. The adoption of programme management will most effectively be addressed while working in parallel with developing our capability in project management.

Programme management has a role to play, specifically in delivering transformational change with a high degree of risk and complexity. Programme and project management, although different disciplines, are inextricably linked and it is worthwhile to point out there is a clear dependency in delivering maturity in programme management along with the organization delivering its maturity in project management.

Effective programme management will:

• Link the delivery of change with the achievement of the organization's strategic priorities with a distinct focus on the delivery of Benefits;
• Within a programme governance structure, establish flexible boundaries to cope with frequent changes, e.g., strategic direction;
• Recognize the complexity of the work to be carried out;
• Ensure alignment of projects to deliver a coherent capability;
• Manage the demand for critical resources more effectively; and
• Incorporate change management into its structure to support successful implementation.

The ultimate goal of a programme is to realize outcomes and Benefits of a strategic nature, whereas a big project is primarily focused on the delivery of outputs. A big project will still typically be focused on a single concentrated endeavour to be achieved within a certain cost and time frame, while a programme will be made up of a combination of such projects and will include the successful transition of the change into business operations to achieve the intended outcomes and Benefits.

For example, a big project would be to 'build a set of recycling facilities across the city of Ottawa.' A programme would be to 'enhance Ottawa's natural beauty for the enjoyment and health of citizens and to attract tourists,' which would initiate several related projects, possibly including building recycling facilities.

Just like projects are different from programmes, so is the documentation. Programme management documentation is a set of core documents used throughout the programme life cycle and is key to eliminating duplication and to ensuring effective coordination of plans and management of resources across the programme. Given that programmes are usually more complex and riskier than individual projects, these documents are intended to support and track the programme as it progresses through the delivery.

It should also be noted that the level of documentation produced is higher upfront, specifically in "Phase 2 - Defining a Programme" and diminishes as the programme progresses.

To help facilitate the decision as to whether an initiative is a programme, below are a few key attributes that best describe a programme:

• The focus is to achieve the desired strategic outcomes and deliver the expected Benefits;
• They are often triggered by a departmental mandate, a strategy or new legislation which requires a transformation in how services are delivered;
• It's about delivering a vision of the future state, not a product and therefore the route we take is difficult to be fully defined upfront;
• There is a high level of complexity, risk, and uncertainty and the change will impact multiple stakeholders; and
• It brings significant transformational change to the organization, the services it delivers, and its people.

Further advice and guidance on determining if an initiative is a programme can be obtained from Programme Management Advisory Services via email.

In 2018, Chief Financial Officer Branch (CFOB) endorsed a review of programme management at ESDC to establish a baseline for improvement. Based on the findings, the review recommended to launch a programme that would build the capabilities the department needs to successfully support existing and future programmes.

PMAP is a 3-year, multi-phase approach to adopt a new organizational capability in programme management aimed at achieving the following strategic objectives:

• Enhancing ESDC's capability and capacity to deliver complex transformational change;
• Upskilling senior staff to function in a programme oversight, assurance and delivery environment;
• Maturing the IPPM function to support programme management within the organization; and
• Developing processes to guide effective delivery of programme management practices in the department.

PMAP is driven by the increasing expectations of citizens and government as well as the gaps ESDC has in its capability and capacity to successfully deliver transformational change. Citizens expect all government departments to deliver new and existing services quickly and efficiently in the service channels they want, which increasingly means digital. ESDC plays a very significant role in delivering services to Canadians and must be capable of delivering transformational change to keep pace with client expectations.

At the same time, governments are (rightfully) being held accountable for project and programme failures; Phoenix being just one, particularly painful, example. Recently, the Treasury Board conducted the Policy Suite Reset initiative, which introduced the Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and the Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes. The objective of these policy instruments is to ensure "The Government of Canada has the necessary assets and services in place to support program delivery to Canadians" and "Government projects and programmes are effectively planned, implemented, monitored and controlled, and closed to enable the realization of expected benefits and results to Canadians."

At ESDC, the 2018 review of the department's capability and capacity to deliver programmes to effect transformational change identified many gaps. Addressing these gaps is an important driver for PMAP.

• First and foremost, for the programmes ESDC delivers, Benefits are realized as planned within the expected budget and time frame;
• Senior executives actively lead the adoption of programme management and embrace their accountabilities and responsibilities in programme delivery;
• ESDC is respected and recognized as an enabler for the implementation of programme management within the Canadian Federal Government;
• Programmes are clearly linked to departmental strategic priorities, properly resourced and planned;
• Programme delivery is supported by sustainable capability and capacity development; and
• Programme governance is effective.

Failure to adopt programme management will result in:

• Failure to achieve expected outcomes from large-scale, transformational change and realize Benefits of strategic importance to the business;
• Lack of support for major transformational changes at ESDC;
• Inability to deliver the type of change required to successfully transform;
• Lack of active participation, buy-in and support from senior executives;
• Unclear vision of the required change and how success can be measured;
• Lack of compliance with Treasury Board's Policy Suite Reset;
• Inability to execute and manage large complex changes; and
• Lack of appropriate resources with relevant skills and experience to initiate, plan, manage, support and deliver programmes.

The Programme Sponsor is ultimately accountable for the success or failure of the programme and has to ensure that the programme is focused on achieving its business objectives and delivering the forecasted Benefits. This role must be undertaken by someone operating at a senior level with significant authority otherwise putting the programme at risk. Certain responsibilities can be delegated but the ultimate accountability rests with the Programme Sponsor.

The Programme Sponsor has ultimate accountability for ensuring the programme is delivered successfully. The various oversight functions are there to provide confidence in the health of the programme throughout its life cycle and ensure issues, risks and problems are identified and mitigated before they occur or become unmanageable.

"There were no oversight bodies independent of the project management structure to provide independent advice to the Deputy Minister... This meant that the Deputy Minister did not receive independent information showing that Phoenix was not ready to be implemented or that the Miramichi Pay Centre and departments and agencies were not ready for Phoenix."

A Benefit is a measurable improvement towards one or more organizational objectives. For example, a reduction in childhood poverty by 50% within the next decade.

Benefits can be realized only after transitioning to a new operational state and achieving an outcome, such as operationalizing a new citizen service aimed at reducing childhood poverty.

To achieve an outcome, a new capability is required. For example, the capability of a new citizen service which requires public consultation, a new web-based citizen portal, and subject matter experts – each of which are outputs of individual projects.

The Programme Sponsor (a.k.a. Senior Responsible Owner (SRO)) is an ADM-level individual who has ultimate accountability for the success of a programme. The Programme Sponsor provides clear leadership and direction throughout the programme and ensures agreement among stakeholders as to the programme objectives and Benefits.

The Programme Manager is responsible for planning and managing the programme, proactively monitoring its progress, resolving issues and initiating appropriate corrective action. The Programme Manager coordinates the programme's projects to successfully deliver new capabilities for the business to enable change and realize Benefits.

The Business Change Manager (BCM) is a senior role and is responsible for defining the Benefits, assessing progress towards realization and achieving measured improvements in business operations. This role is pivotal to ensuring that the changes resulting from a programme are transitioned into business operations and Benefits are realized. In programmes that affect a number of business operations, it is possible to appoint more than one BCM, with each one focusing on a specific business area impacted by the programme. The BCM reports directly to the Programme Sponsor in relation to their programme activities.

For projects within a programme, an Executive Project Sponsor (a.k.a. Project Sponsor, Project Executive) are accountable for the project's objectives and delivering the outputs required for forecasted Benefits. Executive Project Sponsors are appointed by the Programme Sponsor for each project during Defining a Programme or at the beginning of a new tranche.

The Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and the Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes.

ESDC has three policy instruments related to programme management:

• Policy on Project and Programme Management;
• Directive on Programme Management; and
• Standard on Programme Management.

The three documents provide progressively more detailed requirements for ESDC personnel operating in a programme environment at ESDC. These documents have been developed and issued pursuant to the Treasury Board’s Policy on the Planning and Management of Initiatives and Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes.

The Policy on Project and Programme Management and the Directive on Programme Management came into effect on October 11, 2019. The Standard on Programme Management came into effect on March 30, 2020. These policy instruments will be reviewed on a regular basis and updated to reflect any ongoing changes in programme management requirements.

ESDC’s Senior Designated Official (SDO) is responsible for maintaining a department-wide project and programme management framework, which includes policy instruments. ESDC’s Deputy Minister has designated the Chief Financial Officer as the department’s SDO.

ESDC programme management policy instruments provide the mandatory requirements for managing programmes at ESDC. They describe the policy requirements, key roles and responsibilities, governance, phases for managing a programme, required artefacts, managing projects within a programme, and managing change related to a programme.

For projects that are part of a programme, the programme management policy instruments apply. This ensures projects within a programme are managed consistently with the overall intent and requirements of the programme.

ESDC’s programme management policy instruments can be found on iService and in ESDC’s Knowledge Repository.

ESDC's Programme Management Process describes the high-level phases for managing a programme along with the supporting artefacts (e.g., Programme Business Case, Programme Definition Document, etc.) and key roles and responsibilities (e.g., Programme Sponsor, Business Change Manager, etc.).

The high-level phases are:

• Identifying a Programme;
• Defining a Programme;
• Managing the Tranches; and
• Closing a Programme

Anybody working on a Programme within ESDC is required to follow ESDC's Programme Management Process.

Adopting programme management will benefit those working on programmes by:

• Working in an interesting environment of high strategic importance;
• Developing new skills, knowledge and behaviours;
• Providing tools, structure and consistency in managing programmes;
• Increasing the probability of participating on a successful programme; and
• Being seen as a "pathfinder" within ESDC.

The impact will be different depending on your role. Some roles will be part of the programme team while others will support and help deliver the programme, either full-time or part-time and for different periods of time. Those not working on the programme itself may be impacted by the changes the programme will deliver. It's difficult to say exactly how employees will be impacted, but it could mean taking on a new challenge, receiving new training, a change in how you perform your role, etc.

The following ESDC documents provide important direction and guidance:

• Policy on Project and Programme Management;
• Directive on Programme Management;
• Standard on Programme Management (in development);
• Guide to Programme Management (in development); and
• Directive on Benefits Management.

To learn more about programme management, check out the iService Programme Management web site or contact Programme Management Advisory Services via email.

As per the Treasury Board Policy on Investment Planning, Assets and Acquired Services, “the departmental investment plan is a high-level strategic document that defines the direction, capacity and commitments of a department with respect to its investment in assets and acquired services.”

This policy aims to contribute to the achievement of value for money and sound stewardship in government program delivery through effective investment planning. In addition, the Policy on the Management of Projects ensures that the appropriate systems and controls for managing projects are in place at the departmental level, and that they support the achievement of project and program outcomes while limiting the risk to stakeholders and taxpayers. The ESDC Investment Plan is the Department’s response to the requirements outlined in these policies.

Investment Plan (PDF, 2 MB).

Refer to the Steps under the Intake Process.

Here is the list of approved departmental investment projects.

Your Project Management Advisor (PMA) is your main point of contact. A PMA will be assigned to you upon expression of interest in creating and submitting an investment proposal. Contact the EPMO at NC-BGPE-EPMO-GD@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca.

The Project Management Information Solution is the department’s central repository of project information. It is used to create standardized reports and project management practices within ESDC. The solution is made up of two systems: Microsoft Project Server (project information) and SAP Project System (financials).

If you are the project manager of an approved project, please open a ticket with the National Service Desk to gain ownership of the project. Make sure to include the project name and project number in this request.

If you are a team member contributing to an approved project and do not have an account on Project Server, please open a ticket with the National Service Desk to have an account created, then have your manager add you to their team on Project Server. Once your account is created, it is up to the Project Owner of the project to ensure you have access to individual projects.

You will be able to access projects through Project Web App (PWA)

Note: If you receive an error message indicating “Access Denied”, it is because you do not have an account on Project Server.Please contact the EPMO to request access.

Microsoft Project Server works just like SharePoint, if you check something out it is important to check it back in. It is important to remember to Save, Publish and Close your project at the end of every session.

In Project Server there are many reports that you can use to provide information to senior management. There are portfolio reports and project reports. All reports are located in the Business Intelligence section of Project Server.

For technical questions you can open a ticket with the National Service Desk. For any general inquiries regarding the use of Microsoft Project Server you can contact EPMP at NC-BGPE-EPMO-GD.

The IAG is an independent group which reviews project documentation in order to provide impartial advice to members of the Major Projects Investment Board (MPIB) and Director General Project Oversight Committee (DGPOC) about the value, risk, and level of alignment to departmental strategy and priorities that a proposal or project brings to the Department’s investment portfolio.

For each small, minor, or major proposal or project, the IAG:

• Assesses alignment to the organizational direction;
• Assesses priority within the investment portfolio, including whether the proposal/project is considered non-discretionary; and
• Makes a recommendation about the value and risk of proceeding with the proposal/project.

These assessments are triggered when Gate 0, Gate 1, Gate 2, or Change Request documentation is submitted for MPIB or DGPOC approval.

The IAG produces an investment assessment, often referred to as a “project card”. This assessment is typically three or four pages in length, and the first page will provide a summary of the three items listed above. The investment assessment will be included in the eBinder for the MPIB or DGPOC meeting where the proposal or project is seeking approval to proceed, alongside the Gate 1, Gate 2 or Change Request project assurance assessment.

The IAG’s assessment is based on the project documentation provided at a moment in time. If more information is required to complete an assessment, the IAG will send a list of questions to the Project Management Advisor (PMA) assigned to the project, who will then reach out for answers.

IAG members are generally subject matter experts at the working or manager level. All members work in ESDC’s enabling branches. Members work in the following branches:

• CFOB, Investment and Performance Management (IPM). CFOB-IPM chairs the IAG.
• HRSB provides expertise on human resource and staffing considerations.
• IITB, Enterprise Alignment (EA) assesses the degree of alignment with ESDC’s enterprise IT direction.
• SSPB provides expertise on ESDC’s strategic priorities and policies.
• TMB, Business Architecture Alignment Office (BAAO) provide expertise on the degree of alignment with ESDC’s business architecture.

The IAG consults experts in areas such as legal services and data as needed.

The IAG bases its assessment on the project documentation for every Gate 0, Gate 1, Gate 2 and change request (CR) submission. Please note that the project team does not need to submit documentation directly to the IAG; once the completed project documentation is provided to the appropriate Project Management Advisor (PMA), it will then be submitted to Assurance and Financial Analysis (AFA) and/or the IAG simultaneously, as required.

As part of the standard documentation, the following information is required for any proposals and projects to adequately assess them:

Gate 0 (information captured in the investment proposal)

• What is the driver for the proposal? Why should it be pursued, and why should it be pursued at this time?
• Is the proposal non-discretionary? If so, the investment proposal should include a direct reference to the relevant evidence (such as a budget commitment, ministerial announcement, legislation, etc.) and provide the strategic priorities that the proposal supports.
• Are there any dependencies or linkages to other projects in ESDC’s portfolio? Is the proposal one of many impacting the same IT systems or processes? If so, the investment proposal should specify which project(s) and/or system(s).
• Is this proposal building on the work of another investment project, either completed or in-flight? If so, specify the project(s) and any lessons learned that are being applied.
• If this proposal is approved, is it expected to create a foundation for any subsequent linked proposals?
• At a high level, what are the benefits associated with pursuing this proposal?
• Is this proposal dependent on any external partners?
• If this proposal does not proceed, what is the consequence for the organization?

Gate 1 (information captured in the business case)

• How is the current situation impacting the business owner’s client(s), and who are they?
• The business case should include a robust options analysis which considers multiple options (at least two in addition to the option of maintaining status quo) to meet the project objective.
• What measurable benefits will this investment produce?
• Some of the information provided at Gate 0 may no longer be relevant or can be expanded on, therefore update those sections.

Gate 2 (information captured in the project charter)

• Has the Enterprise Architecture Review Board (EARB) been consulted before seeking Gate 2 approval? In most cases, EARB endorsement is required before seeking Gate 2.
• If any of the information provided at Gate 0 or 1 is no longer relevant or can be expanded on, an updated business case may be required.
• Please note that the information captured at Gate 2 and 3 establishes a baseline against which project success is measured when the project is closed, in support of the departmental Operational Project Management Capacity Assessment (OPMCA) and Management Accountability Framework (MAF).

Change Request (information captured in the change request form)

• What is the driver for the change request? Why should it be approved, and why is it being submitted at this time?
• Does the CR introduces new risks or issues in the project? Have these been assigned, analyzed and prepared for mitigation?
• If the CR is not approved, what is the consequence?
• Does this CR have an impact on whether the project is non-discretionary (e.g. has a non-discretionary component been added or de-scoped)?
• Does this CR have an impact on the benefits identified in the business case, or on benefits realization?

The IAG is an advisory group, meaning that it makes a recommendation to a decision-making governance body (MPIB or DGPOC) about the value and risk of approving an investment. It may recommend that an investment proceed, be considered for deferral, or be halted. The IAG also recommends an investment category for each proposal and approved project. This investment category, and a prioritization score calculated when a project seeks Gate 2 approval, are used to recommend the relative priority of each project within the investment portfolio.

The IAG’s assessments and recommendations are intended to provide MPIB and DGPOC members with additional independent information with which to make informed decisions about the composition of the investment portfolio. Because the IAG is an advisory group and not a decision-making entity, all recommendations from the IAG (including investment category) can be approved or altered by MPIB or DGPOC.

A minimum of three working days before the MPIB or DGPOC meeting at which a proposal/project is scheduled to seek approval for Gate 0, Gate 1, Gate 2, or a Change Request, the IAG’s investment assessment will be emailed to the project manager and any key contacts identified by the project’s PMA. This is intended to give the project manager an opportunity to review the IAG’s findings in advance of the proposal or project being presented at MPIB or DGPOC. Except in the case of factual errors, if the project manager has concerns regarding the IAG’s recommendation the presenter of the proposal/project is encouraged to address these concerns in the presentation to the committee. However, a response can also be shared with the IAG in writing at NC-INVESTISSEMENT-INVESTMENT-GD

For example, if the IAG has recommended that a proposal or project be categorized as a discretionary business improvement, but the project manager, business owner, or sponsor feels it should be categorized as a non-discretionary policy agenda investment, this can be raised for discussion at the MPIB or DGPOC presentation. The committee would then make the final decision about the category.

If the project manager or another stakeholder notices a factual error in the IAG’s assessment after it is emailed to them, they are encouraged to respond to NC-INVESTISSEMENT-INVESTMENT-GD to notify the chair of the IAG.

The IAG is distinct from AFA. While AFA advises MPIB and DGPOC members on the quality and completeness of documentation and readiness of the project to proceed, the IAG assesses the value and alignment of the proposal or project in the context of the portfolio and departmental priorities. The IAG also considers the portfolio impact of a project or proposal. For example, if multiple proposals impact the same IT systems or resources, the IAG will advise senior management of the potential overlap or opportunity for alignment, and might recommend to MPIB or DGPOC that the proposal owner explore this opportunity to align.

ESDC has five investment categories, two of which are considered non-discretionary (mandatory) and three of which are considered discretionary.

Non-Discretionary

• Policy agenda investments are directed by a mandatory commitment such as legislation, regulations, TB policy, departmental mandate letters, or Government of Canada (GoC) budget commitments.
• Risk response investments address a serious and current risk/issue to the organization. They are generally reactive in nature and their main goal is to completely address a risk/issue for the affected business line.

Discretionary

• Strategic transformation investments seek to deliver more effectively on a specific departmental strategy by transforming or significantly altering current practice; they must be strongly aligned to the Strategic Framework. The Department is encouraged to pursue this type of investment when it has decided, as an organization, to transform the way it does business.
• Business improvement investments are aimed at improving existing systems, processes or technology to enhance performance indicators or resolve operational challenges; they may also help mitigate risks to the organization, whether perceived or confirmed. Unlike risk response investments, they are proactive.
• Life Cycle Management investments are aimed at ensuring that existing systems remain functional, generally in response to a current or imminent issue, such as a product reaching end of support. The Department is encouraged to pursue this type of investment when the current system is expected to reach end of life.

Non-discretionary investments will automatically be prioritized above discretionary projects on the Approved Project List (APL). If a project contains both discretionary and non-discretionary components, the committee will consider whether there would be value in pursuing each component separately.

The IAG is responsible for giving each project a prioritization score when it seeks Gate 2 approval. A prioritized project list is shared with MPIB and DGPOC members on a weekly basis.

Project score is based on the following criteria assessed by the IAG:

• Criticality: the level of need to pursue a proposal, with consideration to whether it will address a serious risk to the organization.
• Urgency: indicates the degree of pressing necessity to undertake and/or complete a project within a fiscal year, taking into account any mandatory deadlines for implementation.
• Achievability: evaluates the likelihood that the organization can deliver what this project documentation proposes, including whether benefits can be delivered as planned and whether the project will be completed within the planned schedule, budget, scope. Historical data on past investments may eventually be used to assess this criterion.
• Cost/Benefit (Organizational Value): Assesses the value of the anticipated benefits in the context of the estimated costs. This criterion is currently under development based on the Directive on Benefits Management.

Each of the four criteria above is given a rating of high, medium, low, or none.

For more detailed information on each IAG assessment, including those that do not contribute to the overall IAG score (such as strategic alignment, business architecture alignment, and enterprise alignment), project managers are encouraged to refer to the Standard on Investment Prioritization (DOCX, 460 KB) or contact their PMA with any questions.