Review of the National Defence Headquarters Move Coordination

Final Report – Feburary 2016

7055-63 (ADM(RS))

Reviewed by ADM(RS) in accordance with the Access to Information Act. Information UNCLASSIFIED.

 Slide 2

Acronyms and Abbreviations

L1

Level One

MAP

Management Action Plan

OCI

Office of Collateral Interest

OPI

Office of Primary Interest

PMO

Project Management Office

DGHQT

Director General Headquarters Transformation

ADM

Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources-Civilian)

DND

Department of National Defence

HR

Human Resources

SSC

Shared Services Canada

VCDS

Vice Chief of the Defence Staff

IM/IT

Information Management/Information Technology

PWGSC

Public Works and Government Services Canada

Back to Table of Contents


Slide 3

Rationale

  • Identified as a topic in the departmental Risk-Based Audit Plan for fiscal years 2015/16 to 2017/18
  • Complex project with multiple stakeholders, including Department of National Defence (DND), Shared Services Canada (SSC), and Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC)
  • Subject to high public scrutiny
  • High overall cost

Table 1. Total Project Costs by Department. This table indicates the amount that each department is spending on the project.

Table Summary

This table indicates the amount that each department is spending on the project. It has two columns. The left-hand column lists the departments, and the right-hand column lists the amount in millions. Read across each row to determine the amount per department.

 

DepartmentProject Costs ($ Millions)
DND 217
PWGSC1 458
SSC 146
Total 821

Footnote 1 Includes the purchase price of the Campus at approximately $208 million, excluding GST/HST.

Back to Table of Contents  


slide 4

Statement of Conformance

The review followed the Institute of Internal Auditors' International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. Based on its professional judgment, the review team examined sufficient relevant evidence and obtained sufficient information to provide a reasonable level of assurance to support the review's conclusions.

 Back to Table of Contents 


Slide 5

Background – Project Timeline and Objective

Figure 1. Project Timeline. This figure presents the project milestone dates.

Text Description for Figure 1

This figure is a timeline that lists dates in alternating sequence above and below the line. The timeline is represented by a long black horizontal line that crosses the page from left to right. Markers radiating out above and below the timeline represent the various milestones of the project. The first is the DND Accommodation Strategy in 2008, followed by the acquisition approval on November 18, 2010. Next, there is the purchase closing on December 17, 2010, and then in December 2013 expenditure authority was granted. December 2015 was the initial Phase 1 move-in date, which was delayed until September 2016. Phase 1 is scheduled to be completed in March 2017. Phase 2 would then start in July 2017 and completed by March 2018. Phase 3 is scheduled to start January 2019 and completed by March 2019, which completes the project timeline.

  • The 2008 DND Accommodation Strategy stated a clear desire to consolidate DND's strategic and administrative functions.
  • On November 18, 2010, approval was granted to acquire the Nortel Carling Campus located at 3500 Carling Avenue. The closing of the purchase was on December 17, 2010.
  • In December 2013, expenditure authority was granted to implement Phase 1, plan and design Phase 2, and preliminarily plan Phase 3.
  • The objective of this project is to provide a real property solution that does the following:
    • consolidates up to 8500 civilian and military personnel by fiscal year 2019/20 – leading to an efficient, effective, and sustainable defence organization;
    • strengthens the DND and Canadian Armed Forces security posture in the National Capital Region;
    • permits the introduction of modern information management/information technology (IM/IT) solutions that will improve national and allied inter-operational capabilities; and
    • improves the affordability and quality of the government's real estate portfolio.
  • The Campus Project Charter states that the priorities of cost, schedule, and scope must be met to ensure the successful completion of the Carling Campus and the timely accommodation of DND personnel.

 Back to Table of Contents 


Slide 6

Background – Project Phases

Figure 2. Carling Campus. This figure is an aerial view of Carling Campus with details of the move-in phases on the left.

Text Description for Figure 2

This figure shows an aerial view of the Carling Campus. Boxes superimposed on the image identify the building names as well as the phase during which occupancy will commence for that building. Buildings 6, 7, 8, and 9 will commence occupancy during Phase 1. The Pavilion, Service Centre, and Buildings 2, 3, and 5 will be occupied during Phase 2. Building 10 will commence occupancy during Phase 3. Lastly, Buildings 1 and 4 will not be occupied and are therefore out of scope.

To the left of the aerial image are three chevrons one above the other. These are labelled Phase 1 (green), Phase 2 (yellow), and Phase 3 (red) with text boxes next to them listing the details of each phase. The text box next to the Phase 1 chevron states the following:

  1. Initial move in – December 2015
  2. Move-in date delayed to September 2016 mainly due to seismic upgrades
  3. Move completed by March 2017
  4. Expected number of occupants: 3410

The text box next to the Phase 2 chevron states the following:

  1. Initial move in – July 2017
  2. Move completed by March 2018
  3. Expected number of new occupants: 3900

The text box next to the Phase 3 chevron states the following:

  1. Initial move in – January 2019
  2. Move completed by March 2019
  3. Expected number of new occupants: 1190

Back to Table of Contents


Slide 7

Background – Expected Outcomes

  • Once the Carling Campus is fully occupied, the number of DND offices in the NCR will be reduced from over 40 locations to approximately 7, including the following:
    • a western consolidation, including the Carling Campus, for administrative, strategic, and operational command functions;
    • a Gatineau hub for strategic functions;
    • a downtown executive footprint; and
    • additional smaller locations where DND will be retaining an occupancy for arm's length organizations, recruitment, and for other special operations.
  • The move is expected to help achieve savings in the range of $600 million2 over 25 years from the reduction of Ottawa downtown leases.

Footnote 2: Project Brief dated January 2015.

Back to Table of Contents


Slide 8

Background – Expected Outcomes (cont'd)

  • Defence Team members will occupy a total of 125,436 m2 of usable office space at Carling Campus, plus 17,218 m2 of special purpose space, and 7518 m2 of DND-managed retail space, for a total of 150,172 m2.
  • This move, along with Workplace 2.0, will necessitate a change in culture at DND. It is about rethinking the space and tools the Department uses to do its work. The Department wants tools that support mobility, flexibility, and collaboration.
    • The three pillars to change include the workplace, the back office, and the way DND works. The move embodies modernizing physical assets of workspace, updating policies and procedures to support the Department's work, and providing the latest technologies to allow staff to connect, collaborate, and communicate within the Department and across government.3

Footnote 3: Government of Canada Workplace 2.0 Fit-up Standards, April 2012.

Back to Table of Contents


Slide 9

Background – Stakeholders

Key Stakeholders

  • PWGSC is the mandated custodian of the Campus and is the single project authority accountable to Treasury Board for project delivery.
  • DND is the tenant of the buildings and grounds and is responsible for the definition of the requirements. It remains accountable for the design and implementation of the IT infrastructure within DND for command and control networks.
  • SSC is the provider of IT infrastructure services to support DND's business operations (some classified and all unclassified networks, telephones, email, etc.).

Back to Table of Contents


Slide 10

Background – Roles and Responsibilities

Figure 3. Departmental Roles and Responsibilities. This figure demonstrates each department's responsibilities.

Text Description for Figure 3

This figure demonstrates each department's responsibilities. It is a Venn diagram with three overlapping circles. Within each circle is the name and role of the department. Outside of the circles are boxes that list the departments' responsibilities. Arrows pointing from the boxes to the circles indicate which department or departments these responsibilities belong to.

The top circle, coloured yellow, is labelled PWGSC, Project Manager, and Property Custodian. The responsibilities listed for PWGSC include purchase, design, fit-up, construction, contracting, schedule management, submissions, performance measurement, and overall project management.

The bottom-left circle, coloured blue, is labelled DND, Client/Tenant. The responsibilities listed for DND include the command and control network, Top Secret network, and IT infrastructure. An arrow pointing from the DND circle to the PWGSC circle is labelled DND requirements identification.

The bottom-right circle, coloured peach, is labelled SSC, Service Provider. The responsibilites listed for SSC include unclassified IT Infrastructure, emails, and telecommunications. An arrow pointing to the overlapping area between the DND and SSC circles has a label indicating that these two departments share responsibility for the classified IT infrastructure.

Back to Table of Contents


Slide 11

Background – Governance Committees4

Figure 4. Governance Structure. This figure shows the structure and roles of the Carling Campus governance committees.

Text Description for Figure 3

This figure is a project governance structure with five levels, one above the other. It shows the reporting structure of the governance committees for the project. The bottom row has three side-by-side boxes to represent the project management teams of DND, PWGSC, and SSC. Each of these boxes has an arrow pointing up to the next level (one box), which is the Joint Project Management Committee. This committee is comprised of directors and is responsible for controlling the scope and resource allocations, preparing project status updates, conducting performance measurement, and directing ongoing activities. It meets weekly.

An arrow points up to the next level, which is the DG Interdepartmental Steering Committee, which is comprised of DGs and directors. This committee is the principal decision-making body. It oversees the progress of the project, and it meets at least monthly.

An arrow points up to the next level, which is the Senior Project Advisory Committee. This committee is comprised of ADMs and DGs, and ensures overall direction of the project is consistent with each department's commitments and expectations. It meets quarterly or as required.

An arrow points up to the highest level, which is the Executive Steering Committee. It is comprised of DMs and ADMs. This committee provides strategic leadership and direction and facilitates issues resolution. It meets as required.

Footnote 4: Project Charter dated February 19, 2014.

Back to Table of Contents


Slide 12

Objective and Criteria

Objective:

To assess the effectiveness of the governance, controls, and related risk management practices in place for the move to Carling Campus.

Criteria:

  • Processes are in place to promote the gathering of sufficient, complete, timely, and accurate information on Level One (L1) client requirements.
  • Authority, responsibility, and accountability for IM/IT at Carling Campus are clear and communicated.
  • Impacts to current retention have been considered and addressed.
  • Policies and procedures are in place to protect departmental assets.

Back to Table of Contents


Slide 13

Scope 

The review scope included the following:

  • requirements gathering and design processes for the fit-up of workspace at Carling Campus;
  • design and implementation of IT infrastructure under DND's responsibility;
  • physical security and IM/IT security risk; and
  • elements that may impact DND human resources (HR) as a result of the move.

The review focused primarily on Phase 1 of the move – Chief Military Personnel, Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources – Civilian) (ADM(HR-Civ)), and Assistant Deputy Minister (Information Management) (ADM(IM)) requirements.

The review scope excluded the following:

  • overall management of the Carling Campus Project as PWGSC is the single project authority; and
  • SSC's service delivery management strategies and performance related to the Carling Campus project.

Back to Table of Contents


Slide 14

Methodology and Approach

Methodology:

  • Interviews – conducted interviews with the following stakeholders:
    • key Project Management Office (PMO) personnel for the Carling Campus move;
    • clients from each L1 organization moving to Campus during Phase 1;
    • representatives from the Communications Security Establishment and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on similar move initiatives; and
    • PWGSC as the overall project manager.
  • Document Review – reviewed relevant policies, project documentation, committee meeting documents, and documentation received from L1 clients.
  • Site Visits – visited the Carling Campus to conduct interviews.

Approach:

Engagements such as these lend themselves better to a review so as to promote the timeliness of reporting and allow the Department to take advantage of lessons learned. A review primarily focuses on inquiries and analyzing documents provided by clients. It does not provide the same level of assurance as an audit.

Back to Table of Contents


Slide 15

Finding 1: Requirements Gathering Process

The processes used to gather L1 requirements were not formalized or adequately communicated in the early stages of the project to promote the collection of sufficient, complete, timely, and accurate information. More detailed instructions and guidance were subsequently issued based on lessons learned from Phase 1.

Good Practice

The PMO switched from accepting requirements in text form to requiring that criteria be chosen from a drop-down list, thus increasing standardization among the requirements received.

Condition:

  • A broad process was in place to gather the requirements submitted by L1 clients moving to the Carling Campus. However, the specifics were not well documented or communicated in the early stages of the project.
    • After some trial and error, more detailed instructions and a user reference guide were developed and distributed to L1 coordinators.
  • An informal process was in place to review and approve the accuracy of submitted L1 client  requirements and change requests.
    • The review process was not documented, but it included verification site visits with the L1s.

 

  • L1 clients found it difficult to meet deadlines given by the PMO for the submission of requirements, which may have affected the accuracy of their submissions.
    • For example, the PMO requested ADM(HR-Civ) to provide concurrence with the DND Position on Enclosed Office Allocation in Workplace 2.0 by close of business the next day.

 Back to Table of Contents


Slide 16

Finding 1: Requirements Gathering Process (cont'd)

Cause:

  • The requirements gathering process continued to be refined as the PMO found ways to improve it. Therefore, the process was never comprehensively documented.

Impact:

  • It is possible that incomplete or inaccurate requirements may have been gathered, which could result in delays or in increased costs to the Department.

A formal recommendation is not warranted. However, the Vice Chief of the Defence (VCDS)/PMO was briefed to suggest documenting lessons learned and good practices from the requirements gathering process for potential future moves or similar initiatives.

 Back to Table of Contents


Slide 17

Finding 2: IM/IT Responsibility

Authority, responsibility, and accountability for the design and implementation of classified IM/IT material at the Carling Campus are not clearly defined in the project charter. Through consultation with key stakeholders, DND was able to determine its responsibility for the design and implementation of classified systems at the campus.

Condition:

  • In the early stages of the review, interview results and briefing materials indicated that the departments were still determining stakeholder network responsibilities. Over the course of the review, significant work ensued to concretely determine responsibility.
    • The PMO completed a gap analysis to determine which responsibilities needed to be clarified.
    • DND concurred with a presentation delivered by SSC outlining responsibilities.
  • Contingency planning has not been developed in the event that workstations and/or unclassified networks are not ready in time.

Back to Table of Contents


Slide 18

Finding 2: IM/IT Responsibility (cont'd)

Causes:

  • An overall memorandum of understanding exists between DND and SSC, but it is not specific to the Carling Campus project.
  • Initially, roles and responsibilities were not clearly communicated and are only broadly defined in the Project Charter.
  • There were conflicting mandates between DND and SSC on responsibility for command and control networks.
  • The delay in the move has reduced the risk of IM/IT infrastructure not being ready on time.

Impact:

  • DND may not obtain all the equipment required when needed, which would delay the installation of the IM/IT infrastructure.

A formal recommendation is not warranted. However, the VCDS/PMO and ADM(IM) were briefed to suggest they continue to monitor the schedule for the implementation of IM/IT infrastructure at the Carling Campus and regularly reassess the risk of delays.

 Back to Table of Contents


Slide 19

Finding 3: Retention of HR

While impacts to retention have been considered, information has not been formally or comprehensively gathered to support informed decision making and to address risks to employee retention.

Good Practice

Identified employee concerns are tracked in a risk register and ranked based on impact and probability scores.

Condition:

  • No formal departmental survey has been conducted to determine employees' concerns with the Carling Campus move or their willingness to move.
  • Information about potential impacts to retention has primarily been gathered anecdotally or through informal discussions.
  •  Not all the L1s examined have considered employee turnover as a result of the move to Carling Campus in their HR plans.
  •  Strategies have nonetheless been developed to reduce potential impacts to employee retention. These include the following:
    • completing a transportation study;
    • the ADM(HR-Civ) Job Swap Initiative;
    • addressing transportation concerns with local transit authorities OC Transpo and STO; and
    • Campus tours.

Cause:

  • There was no requirement to formally identify employee concerns at the departmental or ADM levels.

 Back to Table of Contents


Slide 20

Finding 3: Retention of HR (cont'd)

Impact:

  • Succession/retention planning may be based on incomplete information.
  • Not all potential impacts on retention may have been identified, or the importance of an identified concern may have been understated/overstated.
  • Potential program delivery issues may arise if retention issues materialize.

Recommendation 1

The VCDS, in collaboration with ADM(HR-Civ), should ensure more formal information gathering means are undertaken to comprehensively identify employee concerns with the move to Carling Campus in order to develop mitigation plans to address risks to employee retention.

OPI: VCDS

 Back to Table of Contents


Slide 21

Finding 4: Security

Policies and procedures are in place to protect departmental assets and records. Due to the move and changes to the work environment brought about by the implementation of Workplace 2.0, the PMO is planning to reinforce awareness of existing security policies and procedures.

Good Practice

A Director General Defence Security representative travels to the Carling Campus once a week to work and attend meetings. This allows the PMO to easily obtain advice/interpretation on security policies.

Condition:

  • Elements such as remote access to computers, Wi-Fi, lower cubicle walls and other essential elements of the Workplace 2.0 setup will require significant changes to the departmental security culture.
  • Director General Defence Security has identified VoIP5 as a security risk on campus due to potential hacking concerns.
    • The DND PMO is developing scenarios to manage this risk.

 

  • The Department is planning to reinforce security policies and procedures for employees that will be moving to the Carling Campus.

Footnote 5: VoIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) refers to the provision of voice communication services over the Internet.

Back to Table of Contents


Slide 22

Finding 4: Security (cont'd)

Cause:

  • New technology and a new way of working (Workplace 2.0) pose new security risks.

Impact:

  • Departmental assets and information could be placed at risk.
  • The Department may not be able to take full advantage of the benefits of a Workplace 2.0 setup or new technology.

A formal recommendation is not warranted. The VCDS/PMO is planning a security reinforcement briefing for employees moving to the Carling Campus.

 Back to Table of Contents


Slide 23

Conclusion

With the exception of formal and comprehensive information gathering of employee concerns, appropriate governance, controls, and risk management practices are in place to support a successful move to the Carling Campus.

To ensure the move continues as planned, the PMO is doing the following:

  • documenting lessons learned and good practices from the requirements gathering process to assist with potential future moves or similar initiatives;
  • monitoring the schedule for the implementation of IM/IT infrastructure at the Carling Campus and regularly reassessing the risk of delays; and
  • developing a plan to reinforce awareness of security policies and processes to promote a smooth transition to the Carling Campus and minimize the potential for future security incidents.

 Back to Table of Contents


Slide 24

Recommendation

Recommendation 1

The VCDS, in collaboration with ADM(HR-Civ), should ensure more formal information gathering means are undertaken to comprehensively identify employee concerns with the move to Carling Campus in order to develop mitigation plans to address risks to employee retention.

OPI: VCDS

 Back to Table of Contents


Slide 25

Management Response

The Management Action Plan (MAP) shown in tables 2 and 3 is being produced in response to the Review of the National Defence Headquarters move coordination to Carling Campus.

The MAP shows the development and implementation of activities that will satisfy a more formal information gathering process to comprehensively identify employee concerns with the move to Carling Campus.

Many activities regarding employee concerns have already been implemented for Phase 1 employees but were not available during the review. As such, in Table 2 the MAP will present activities that are already well underway, and in Table 3 it will show the planned activities that form the backbone of this MAP.

 Back to Table of Contents


Slide 26

 

Table 2 – Detailed MAP (In Progress)*

Table 2. Detailed In Progress MAP. This table lists the MAP activities that are already underway.

Table Summary

This table lists the management action plan activities that are already underway. It has four columns. For each activity in the left-hand column, read across the row to determine the OPI, the OCI, and the deadline.

 

ActivityOPIOCI6Deadline
Implement a positional mailbox to answer employee questions VCDS/DGHQT7 ADM (Public Affairs) September 1, 2015 (completed)
Gather employee HR concerns associated with the move to Carling Campus VCDS/DGHQT Affected Phase 1 L1s November 15, 2015 (completed)
Review and answer HR questions regarding the move to Carling Campus VCDS/DGHQT ADM(HR-Civ) Preliminary findings presented to Transformation and Accommodation Committee November 26, 2015 (completed) Final document presented to Transformation and Accommodation Committee February 2016
Communicate the results of the move-related HR questions and answers VCDS/DGHQT ADM(HR-Civ) March 1, 2016

* Note: These activities are already underway to address employee concerns regarding the move to Carling Campus.

Footnote 6: OCI: Office of Collateral Interest

Footnote 7: DGHQT: Director General Headquarters Transformation

Back to Table of Contents  


slide 27

Footnote 1 Includes the purchase price of the Campus at approximately $208 million, excluding GST/HST.
Footnote 1 Includes the purchase price of the Campus at approximately $208 million, excluding GST/HST.

Table 3 – Detailed MAP (Upcoming)*

Table 3. Detailed Upcoming MAP. This table lists the MAP activities that have not yet commenced.

Table Summary

This table lists the management action plan activities that have not yet commenced. It has four columns. For each activity in the left-hand column, read across the row to determine the OPI, the OCI, and the deadline.

 

ActivityOPIOCIDeadline
Implement a job swap initiative within the Department ADM(HR-Civ) VCDS February 15, 2016
Prepare a formal employee questionnaire to gather employee concerns and future retention outcome VCDS/DGHQT ADM(HR-Civ) L1s February 15, 2016
Implement formal information gathering VCDS/DGHQT L1s May 15, 2016
Review findings by L1s and prepare departmental report VCDS/DGHQT ADM(HR-Civ) September 30, 2016
Prepare and implement mitigation plans to prevent employee exodus and prepare a recruitment strategy L1s ADM(HR-Civ) Mitigation plans by November 15, 2016 Recruitment strategy by December 15, 2016

* Note: These activities are planned to achieve the departmental goal of a formal information gathering process to comprehensively identify employee concerns with the move to Carling Campus.

Footnote 1 Includes the purchase price of the Campus at approximately $208 million, excluding GST/HST.
Footnote 1 Includes the purchase price of the Campus at approximately $208 million, excluding GST/HST.
Date modified: