Introduction

For my assignment #2 in my statistics for public sector managers course, I have created an infographic regarding food insecurity issues in Canada.  Food insecurity exists throughout Canada and in my infographic you can see how much of a policy problem this truly is for Canadians.  In my infographic, I have compiled data from Statistics Canada to create an infographic that public managers as well as policy advisors can use to visualize the problem that currently exists.

What is Food Insecurity?

Food insecurity is simply when one or more members of a household do not have proper access to the quantity or variety of food that they need to sustain due to the lack of money/resources.  Although low income is often the most common reason for food insecurity, it is important to note that households that rely on government benefits as their main source of income have much higher rates of food insecurity than households with alternative sources of income (Statistics Canada 2015). The most recent statistics from Statistics Canada indicate that up to 8.3% of Canadian households have experienced food insecurity, with places such as Nunavut, having a rate of food insecurity of over 36% (Statistics Canada 2015).

Infographic

https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1-eym4jQgCqPAaAfqxtnF6PpI4HmovAeZcZKpNh4aMU8/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/e/2PACX-1vQ04mn6NYciVXlmUYxiycxa6dHjkfMJoP0bXZNHUcn87p_nDFk1uPhrHE2qKkkmbXG6Xz68GY_p66M4/pub?w=1224&h=2016

Conclusion

It is well known in the media that the northern parts of Canada have considerably higher rates of food insecurity as well as specific groups of people such as Indigenous peoples and single mothers/fathers/families.  Furthermore, researchers have found that people who experience food insecurity often lead to other health issues such as poor functional health, long term-physical and/or mental disabilities, major depression and a perceived lack of social support (Statistics Canada 2015).  The infograph that I have created can hopefully serve as a tool for public managers and the general public to understand that there is a need for meaningful policy to fix food security issues.

References

Hawkins, Emma and Shirin Roshanafshar. 2015. Food Insecurity in Canada. Health at a Glance. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.

Health Canada. Household Food Insecurity in Canada Statistics and Graphics (2011 to 2012). Accessed December 7, 2019. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/nutrition-science-research/food-security/household-food-security-statistics-2011-2012.html.

Saskatchewan Food Costing Task Group. 2015. The Cost of Healthy Eating in Saskatchewan. Accessed December 6, 2019. https://www.dietitians.ca/Downloads/Public/2015-The-Cost-of-Healthy-Eating-in-Saskatchewan.aspx

Statistics Canada. Food Security by Aboriginal Identity. Table: 41-10-0009-01 (formerly CANSIM 577-0009).

Statistics Canada. Household Food Security by Living Arrangement. Table: 13-10-0385-01.

Statistics Canada. Household Food Insecurity. Table: 13-10-0472-.01.

In this blog post I will be discussing the issue of persuasive presentation versus manipulation.  Persuasion and manipulation are very similar concepts as they both involve reaching the same end goal but the methods to reaching the end goal are very different.  Persuasion involves presenting the client or decision maker with all the information that you know of and arguing why they should pick your solution the problem. Manipulation is a lot sneakier than persuasion as you often misdirect the client or decision maker by not presenting all the information or by only presenting the “good” information or data to make them pick your solution. People who manipulate others often lie about the information they are presenting as well as they present their idea in an unfair way.  When presenting information to a decision maker such as a Minister, it is very important to ensure you convey your finding in a way that are both honest and meaningful to the decision maker while sticking only to the results.

Policy analyst must ensure they advance knowledge while avoiding harm and ensuring the methods and data presented are relevant and appropriate without favouritism. The job of a policy analyst is to present the results in a straightforward and non misleading way which may involve avoiding visualization techniques if it will sway a person’s thoughts. As a policy analyst you must ensure that the information you are trying to communicate is understandable and does not sway the persons opinion based on the way it is presented.  You should also ensure that the information is not changed in an unfair way to serve one’s purpose and ensure the decision maker knows all the facts without hiding them in a manipulating way.

As a policy analyst it is very important to remember that you are trying to present data and information in an ethical way. If you know that the decision maker may be influences by visual rhetoric you must ensure you avoid any biases and stick to the facts.  You want to present your information and data in an ethical way while still ensuring your analysis resonates with the person you are presenting for.  Always ensure that you advance your knowledge in a way that is relevant to the reader while remaining fair to your audience.

In this blog post I will be discussing probabilities and why the understanding of probability statements are important for good public policy writing.  Public policy is very important to everyone as it reflects the actions of the government as well as the funding priorities for all services that directly affect citizens in a given country.  Probability events are also very important to everyone involved as the probability of likely events with huge consequences have direct impact on the lives of people and actions should be taken to lessen the impact.  

The media as well as government often use probability statements in certain events (i.e. election, climate change) that directly correlates to citizens putting pressure on government which leads to public policy writing to start or stop issues from happening.  These probability statements are typically statements such as, “a 70% chance of winning”, “a one-in-five hundred year event,” or even terms such as “possibility” and “likelihood”.  These statements are very important as not everyone who listens and reads the media understands probability statements and what they actually mean to citizens.

Probability Statements

So how can we know the actual probability of an event?  Government should use historical evidence and data as a starting point but often governments do not have the evidence needed as well as people in government often add their biases where decisions are based on potential value of losses and gains rather than actual outcomes of the event. 

A prime example of a probability of an event is the super volcano in Yellowstone National Park. I remember about 20 years ago, the media discussed the likeliness of the Yellowstone national park super volcano erupting as if the government should be planning for it now to ensure that the western hemisphere isn’t wiped out by this catastrophic event.  The United States Geological Survey (USGS) which uses science and data to predict catastrophic events estimates the probability of Yellowstone national park erupting is 1 in 730,000 in any given year, meaning it is very unlikely. While the volcano erupting would be catastrophic and the consequences are huge if it does erupt, the probability is very low and most citizens should not be concerned.

A local example of a why these probability statements are so important for public policy writing and formation is the probability of how much climate change will effect the crops within the province of Saskatchewan.  If citizens can understand the risks that are associated with climate change and how the province of Saskatchewan relies on good climate (i.e. warm weather and moisture) for food security, many citizens would be questioning why our policies do not reflect this.  It is important for the citizens of the country to understand the possibilities and likelihood of food security becoming a problem in the province with climate change and the lack of food sustainability.

Citizens should be aware of probability statements and how probabilities correlate with public policy. While likely events with huge consequences may be disruptive to citizens everyday lives, they are worth discussing and having citizens know the repercussions of not facing the “reality” of the problem.  When citizens understand how probabilities work and why governments use these statement, they understand the problems that we ought to start working on.  Furthermore, certain events are likely to happen but may not ever happen but the government as well as citizens should be prepared and have plans to ensure that our communities are kept safe.

In this blog post I will be discussing how I created my own Wellbeing Index (WI) in Google Sheets (found here: Link) using data from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Reports (found here: Link). In creating my own WI, I used the concept from the UNDP Human Development Index and used different indicators within various dimensions to find the “wellbeing” of 174 different countries.

My wellbeing index used the following three dimensions: “Mobility and Communication”, “Heath”, and “Work, Employment and Vulnerability”. In the dimension mobility and communication, I chose the indicator – internet users, total (% of population).  In the health dimension, I chose the indicator – life expectancy at birth (years). In the work, employment and vulnerability dimension, I chose the indicator – employment to population ratio (% ages 15 or older).  The indicators that I used to create my wellbeing index was from data in the 2015 year. 

Indicators Used

The first indicator – internet users, total (% of population) was used in my wellbeing index as access to the internet is very important in our day and age. Having access to the internet allows individuals to be able to access technology and while it is not necessary to an individual’s wellbeing, it is necessary to communicate with the outside world.  Having access to the internet makes it easier to find information and become more educated which can make an individual’s life “better”.

The second indicator – life expectancy at birth (years) was used in my wellbeing index and in the HDI index.  This indicator is straight forward, the longer the life expectancy in years, the better the country is doing in terms of wellbeing.

The third indicator – employment to population (% of ages 15 and older) was used in my wellbeing as the higher percentage of people employed in each country, the more money individuals have.  I believe that individuals that are employed are generally happier than those that do not have employment as they are able to buy their basic needs and other materials that can make life easier.

Process Used

In creating my own wellbeing index, I had to download the data for the indicators above for the 2015 year and copy/paste them into my google sheet workbook.  I then completed a data inspection of all the countries and removed all the countries that did not have complete data sets.  After deleting and cleaning up the data, I was able to calculate an index for each of the indicators that I chose. Lastly, I calculated my wellbeing index based on the indicators I chose and compared my top countries from my wellbeing index to those top countries of the HDI index.

Difference in Approach

The Human Development Index (HDI) was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the main criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. My wellbeing index is comprised of 3 indicators that are very different from the indicators used in the HDI.  The HDI is a very excellent index that measures individuals living long and healthy lives, being educated and having a good standard of life whereas my index is more focused on an individuals happiness.  My indicators that I choose are more focused on living a long healthy life while having access to technology and having money to be able to buy basic needs and more! While the index that I created is a very different way of looking at wellbeing, I believe that the HDI is an overall better index and measure of how well a country is doing in terms of wellbeing.

In this blog post, I will be discussing data provided by the University of Regina (U of R) of employees with a total salary of $100,000.00 or greater in 2018 and 2019.  The U of R publishes salaries of employees on an annual basis to have greater accountability to staff, students, donors, governments and the general public. You can find this PDF of salaries that the U of R posts here (U of R Salaries). In my blog post I will also be analyzing this data provided by the U of R for errors as well as calculating basic arithmetic/counting calculations to find out what this information can provide us.  I have provided a copy of the Spreadsheet that I used in my analysis to give the reader a closer look at this data and why this data is important for the general public.

The spreadsheet that I provided in the link above has two separate worksheets within in to analyze the data. The first worksheet is the original data provided from the U of R (titled – 2018-19 data) for 2018 and 2019. It also includes various new columns in the spreadsheet that were used to analyze the data as well as columns that would be of interest if the University included. The second worksheet (titled – Arithmetic & Counting Calculations) is basic arithmetic and counting calculations based on the first worksheet to get a better understanding of this data. I will discuss each worksheet in the spreadsheet in detail below.

2018-19 Data Worksheet

The first worksheet originally included 10 columns and 541 rows.  After working in the worksheet, it now includes 18 columns as I have added several columns that I believe are needed to get a better understanding about the salaries at the U of R.

• Columns A and B includes the last name and first name of the employee that works for the U of R.
• Columns C and D includes the salary information for 2018 and 2019.  In the Collective Agreement (2017-2021), the salary is a base salary that is dependent on the employees’ position. Furthermore, the base salaries have minimum and maximum ranges that include increments that an employee is awarded in July of each year up to a maximum range (i.e. July 2017, July 2018, July 2019, July 2020).  If a new collective agreement is not signed by June 30, 2021, the increments stipulated shall be awarded to eligible staff members until a new contract is signed. The salary ranges also may include merit payments that go beyond the maximum ceiling of the salary ranges. These merit increments can be applied by employees and are based on exceptional performance.  There is a review committee in place to review these applications and decide whether merit payments are awarded to a given employee that has applied.
• Columns E and F includes administrative payments to employees in 2018 and 2019.  These payments are stipends, meaning they are fixed payments for roles that an employee make take out that is outside their normal job description. These include acting opportunities such as department heads or for additional research for their department.
• Columns G and H includes market supplements in 2018 and 2019.  Market supplements are used to assist in recruiting academic staff members or retaining members in positions at the U of R.  These market supplements may be paid when it can be demonstrated that competitive pressures exist in the academic market. Furthermore, market supplements paid to employees shall not exceed 2.5% of the total salary budget. These market supplements must be a written proposal by a department head, a group of academic staff members or the Dean and are reviewed by a committee each year in July.
• Columns I and J includes the total salaries for 2018 and 2019. These total columns are the sum of the columns “Salary”, “Administrative”, and “Market Supplement” and are entered manually in the original spreadsheet with no formulas in place.
• Columns K and L includes total salaries (sum of the columns “Salary”, “Administrative”, and “Market Supplement”) with the use of formulas for 2018 and 2019.
• Columns M and N includes the differences between the total salary with use of formulas and the total salary that were entered manually.  

There was one error that I came across in the original data that was provided for me.  If you look at the spreadsheet on row 201, I have highlighted the difference in the 2019 total reported for Mark Haidl. The total salary reported with the formula that I have added into the spreadsheet (=SUM (Salary, Administrative, Market Supplement)) shows that there is a difference of $3,558.  After looking at the data, the error is an input/clerical error as Mark Haidl did not receive any extra administrative or market supplements on top of his salary and the salary was simply recorded wrong in the spreadsheet for 2019.  Having found only one minor error, I would not question the accuracy of the spreadsheet provided.  

In 2018, there were 467 employees that made over the $100,000 threshold whereas in 2019, there were 504 employees that made over the $100,000 threshold.  This is a difference of 37 more employees in the 2019 year than the previous year.  Also, there were 73 employees that made above $100,000 in 2019 who either weren’t employed at the U of R in 2018 or did not meet the threshold of the $100,000 in the previous year.  This means that the university has likely increased wages to meet the costs of living increases or simply the University has hired more employees in the 2019 year.

Arithmetic & Counting Calculations Worksheet

The second worksheet in the spreadsheet includes some basic arithmetic and counting calculations based on the total salary formula that I have included in the first worksheet of data. These statistical measures include number of employees, total salary, mean, median, mode, maximum, minimum, range, skewness and the differences between the 2018 and 2019 years. I have also included the growth rate for some of the statistical measures where it made sense.

In the worksheet I first calculated the total salaries for 2018 versus 2019.  In 2019, the sum of the total salaries was $69,203,654 and in 2018, the sum of the total salaries was $63,265,758. This is a difference of $5,937,896 and a growth rate of 9.4%. While this growth rate is high, it includes 37 more employees in 2019 than in 2018 which means it is not that accurate of a number. The mean, median and mode were very similar when comparing 2018 and 2019 salaries, with the mean and median being around the $130,000 mark and the mode being around the $105,000 mark. Although, these numbers are highly skewed as in both years, the skew is above 2. This mean that there were some outliers in the dataset with high salaries such as the University President (Dr. Vianne Timmons).

When examining the growth rate to determine the increase of salaries between 2018 and 2019, I found the growth rate to be 9.4%. This number represents the total sum of all salaries from that given year and then calculating the percentage of growth in that year. The second measure of the growth rate can be calculated when you only include those employees who made over $100,00 in both 2018 and 2019. This number is 4.9% and is a more accurate measure of growth rate for the University and its employees.  This number only includes employees employed in both 2018 and 2019 and is more accurate as it measures the increase of an employee’s salary from year to year instead of each year.  When you take the growth rate from employees that were only making over $100,000 each year, it is not a fair representation of the dataset. It is also not possible to say that the average salary at the U of R decreased between 2018 and 2019 because if you look at my numbers there was an increase in the total salary and as indicated above, the mean increased by over $1,836 between 2018 and 2019.

Additional Column Headings Needed

In the spreadsheet, I believe there are some additional columns needed to have a better understanding of salaries at the U of R. In my analysis, I have added the following columns in the worksheet: Department, Level of Pay Increment, Position Type, Starting Salary and Age/Close to Retirement.

I believe these columns are needed as I would like more information about the employee and the position that they currently hold.  By having the department listed, it allows the public to know whether the U of R has more administrative costs or market supplement costs for a given department as well as it indicates the total salary for each department within the university. This may be helpful to tell if the University needs help recruiting or retaining employees.  The current level of pay increment is also interesting, as this allows citizens to see if the employee is new. It is evident that the longer an individual has been employed with an organization the more the person generally earns within the organization. I also feel like having the starting salary and position type would be interesting as it would let students, donors and the general public know where most of the money is being put into in terms of employees. Lastly, I would like to include the column of age/close to retirement to be able to see the demographics of employees of the University and whether the closer an employee is to retire the more the person earns.

While having some of these extra columns would be interesting, it may include too much information on employees and could breach individual’s privacy.  While I believe the university does a good job by posting their employees by name and a breakdown of their information, having these additional columns may breach some of the privacy of employee’s.

Privacy and Open Government

The U of R is very open by publishing its employees’ salaries online, by doing this it does raise some questions regarding the protection of personal privacy versus the publics’ right to know.  I believe in this situation that the public does have the right to know as it includes their tax dollars and the amount of privacy that is “breached” is very minimal. I believe the public interest is being served as having this data online in an open and transparent way allows students, parents, donors, governments and the general public to see where their money is going in terms of salaries. It allows for accountability to the public that an institution such as the U of R is operating in a fair and consistent manner. 

My opinion does not change whether the information was published online, as opposed to previously being only available at the library as a paper copy.  I would like to commend the University by posting this information online where it is easier to access for the general public and a quicker way to be able to draw information from.

Lastly, the U of R website includes a small disclosure with this data.  It states that the University is able to exclude certain salaries of $100,000 or greater where such disclosure could threaten the safety of an individual. I believe this is a reasonable exception to being open and transparent with the general public.   While I did not investigate the specific policy that would warrant this disclosure, I believe that if someone’s privacy could be threatened by releasing this information it is better to exclude the individual from the data.  There are some drawbacks of a policy that individuals can ask to have their salary protected as it may allow the data set to become more skewed.  In closing, I believe that we should try to protect employees and keep them safe from threats if necessary, whether this non-disclosure may negatively affect the data set.

In this blog post, I will be reflecting on my experience playing the “Uber Game” and my thoughts on trying to make a living as an Uber driver.  I believe this game is a great simulation as you really get an understanding of what it would be like to be an employee for a company like Uber. Furthermore, many policy questions arise from this simulation game and makes you question whether online scenario/simulation tools should be used to make citizens aware of various other policy issues.

The Uber game is a simulation game designed to question how you would operate as an employee for the company Uber and throughout the game it often makes you question your morals to ensure you reach your goal of $1000 in one week.  In this game you will sometimes have to make questionable decisions to ensure you can pay your mortgage and make a ‘living’ for your family.  The game is quite clever as you must choose different options throughout the game that may not be what a person would do in a real-life situation.  There were various times in the game that I wanted to choose a different option but knew that if I did, I would not reach my goal for the week.

The experience of playing this simulation game did have some influence of what I think of Governments facilitating in sharing economy companies.  Before playing the game, I knew very little about sharing economy-based companies such as Uber.  After playing the simulation and seeing what an individual might have to do to ensure they can survive, I was a bit hesitant about a Government facilitating using sharing economies.  Governments must ensure that these companies that use sharing economy models for their goods and services have good regulatory practices in place to ensure workers are treated and paid fairly for their work.  In the Uber example, the company can take full advantage of workers without the Government being involved and this is very concerning as a citizen.  In many sharing economy-based companies the lack of Government oversight can lead to serious abuse by the companies and Governments must be aware of the various challenges this could cause in the future.

As you can see, I did reach my goal of making over $1000 for the week but at the cost of choosing options that weren’t always ethical. Governments must ensure that regulatory practices are in place for companies such as Uber to ensure citizens are kept safe and employers follow standard labour practices.

A public policy problem that I would like to engage citizens on would be public transportation in the city of Regina. As many citizens of Regina that use public transportation (i.e. Regina Transit Bus Riders) know, our public transportation is very terrible compared to various other big cities (Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, etc).  The use of an online simulation tool could raise awareness on this issue by showing citizens the pros and cons of our transit system.  By creating a simulation, you could show citizens the reality of taking a city bus and how long an individual must wait to get places moving through the city of Regina.  In the simulation, it could focus on various seasons in the year in order to show that in our very cold winter months, our citizens often must wait up to an hour to take a bus to get anywhere in the city and the health implications that can arise from being outside in the cold.  The simulation could also go through the various costs of public transportation, so citizens are aware of the rising costs of public transportation as well as to get feedback to design future policies for better transportation. 

The type of data that would be needed to ensure this simulation is realistic is mainly data that is easily assessible by the public.  This data includes; the various times for public bus routes throughout the year (month-to-month), the location that the buses arrive and depart from, the costs of public transportation for citizens and the city of Regina current cost for the system currently in place. This type of simulation would be interesting to see on a municipal level as many people are not aware of the problems that currently exist in public transportation and this would be eye opening for many citizens in Regina.

• 

Photo Credit: https://www.techfunnel.com/hr-tech/continuous-performance-management-best-practices/

By : Josh Wesaquate

March 16, 2019

Article

This article is based on the findings of a multi-case research study conducted by the following authors:

Swee Chua Goh (Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada)

Catherine Elliott (Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada)

Greg Richards (Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada)

The article reports on and discusses how 5 various Canadian public sector organizations are implementing performance management.

Overview of the article

Despite the widespread use of Performance Management (PM), there still exists a criticism for its effectiveness to promote performance improvement.  While no clear substantive evidence exists on the benefits of PM, the public sector continues to spend a remarkable amount of resources on gathering performance data. This article discusses the findings of a study from 5 various federal and provincial levels of government and the efficacy of PM in Canadian public sector organizations.

The findings of the cross-case analysis will be presented in three parts.

1. Challenges and Barriers to Implementing PM.

2. Success Factors for Effective PM Implementation.

3. Contextual Factors that Influence PM.

1. Challenges and Barriers to Implementing PM:
   • Organization structure and alignment – it is very difficult to keep all units of an organization focused on the overarching goal. It is also difficult if PM is not integrated in the overall culture of the organization.
   • Planning reporting and accountability requirements – it is a challenge to integrate rigid, standardized and constraining reporting and accountability mechanism from the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). These requirements do not reflect organization realities and day to day business.
   • Poor data management – it is difficult to access too much data and not necessarily the right amount of data for decision-makers in a timely manner.
   • Organizational capacity for PM –  there is a weak capacity from the lack of resources, training and knowledge. It’s challenging for organizations that find PM as bothersome and simply taking away time from real business of the organization.
   • Changing mindsets and ownership – there seems to be a lack of ownership of PM and it is seen as a bureaucratic exercise. There is a need for a PM culture within the organization for it to be successful.
2. Success Factors for effective PM implementation:
   • Clear vision and focus – organizations must talk about PM culture and reinforce this message by allocating resources and time. There is a need to link PM to the organization ability to achieve its overall mission.
   • Integrating among PM initiatives – organizations should appoint a single person or group responsible for overseeing PM. This group or individual should ensure the use of PM is integrated into everyday operational activities.
   • Build in individual capacity across the organization – organizations must invest in training and communication methods to ensure all staffs at all levels understand the PM system, its purpose and its application.  There needs to be an emphasis on learning from performance measures, rather than using it for “finger pointing”. This PM must be sustained through integrating with other existing PM tools such as budgeting, planning and balanced scorecard.
3. Influence of contextual factors:
   • Organizational size – organizations that were smaller experienced more successful PM implementation and fewer challenges and barriers. While larger organizations must have the “think big, act small” mentality to successfully implement PM. Larger organizations require mitigating practices such as having strong leadership, clear vision for PM and commitment to capacity building.
   • Complexity of operating environment – departments with more complex environments (unclear goals, multiple stakeholders, etc.) have more barriers and challenges to having success in PM implementation. Organizations with less complex operating environments found it easier to develop performance measures that were useful for managers and employees.
   • Operating mandate and form – there needs to be a clear operational mandate in the organization. The findings from the study found that organizations with clearer mandates found it easier to have reliable performance data that is easily accessible to managers and employees, thus encouraging use.  It is easier for organizations with more independence to implement PM initiatives as they have more flexibility with their budget and staffing resources to meet the objections from the initiatives.

Conclusion

The findings of the research study suggest that public sector organizations continue to face challenges and barriers to implementing PM in their specific organization.  There is no “one size fits all” implementation of PM in public sector organizations. The studies did find that there are a few successful factors to improve the effectiveness of PM implementation.  Furthermore, the issue of context is an important factor to consider as it influences the “successful nature” of PM in public sector organizations. The study’s findings does provide support that public sector organization can use PM as a management tool for improving performance and it is here to stay for the time being.

Relevance to Public Sector Managers

• PM can be used as a way to improve performance as well as be used for decision making, innovation and creating change in your organization.
• The issue of context is an important factor to consider within your organization. Look at your organization’s size,  the complexity of your operating environment and the operating mandate and form, to find a strategy that will work within your specific organization.
• Ensure as a manager that your organization can develop a PM culture before implementing PM initiatives. As a manager you must link PM to your organization’s ability to achieve its overall mission.  If you do not know your organization’s overall mission, do the research.
• If you can, invest in training and communication methods so your employees understand the importance of a PM system and its application to your work.
• Most public sector organizations cannot escape the requirements to gather performance measures for reporting to TBS, as a manager you should look at the success factors and implement them into your organization.