7 / 32
December 2016 //
Canadian Government Executive /
7
Nestor
Arellano
Patrice
Dutil
The Ways andMeans
of Deliverology Success
I
n the first year of Prime Minister Jus-
tin Trudeau’s term in office, deliver-
ology has become a sort of buzzword
in Ottawa. Shortly after winning the
elections last year, the Liberals imported
the delivery method developed by Sir Mi-
chael Barber, chief adviser to former Brit-
ish Prime Minister Tony Blair, and flew
Barber to Canada several times to provide
Trudeau’s cabinet with advice and recom-
mendations on how departments can ap-
ply his methods and deliver on priorities.
At the CGE Leadership Summit on “Per-
forming, Measuring, Reporting: Deliverol-
ogy in Practice” held in Ottawa in October,
it became apparent that not only have
some Canadian government executives
and managers embraced deliverology,
they have given it a distinctly Canadian
flavor as well.
The sold-out event featured some of the
country’s top management experts as well
as executives from various government
and non-government organizations who
are either using deliverology or have seen
deliverology in action.
Deliverology has often been criticized
for being too heavy on “command and con-
trol.” However, Canadian practitioners of
deliverology appear to place an emphasis
on accountability and collaboration. That
was the consensus among many of the
summit attendees.
Tony Dean, the Ontario Secretary of the
Cabinet from 2002 to 2008 (and now Sena-
tor), gave the keynote address. Ontario
applied many of the Barber principles in
Deliverology
shaping its educationa and health goals
during his time in office. He explained the
development of deliverology in the Tony
Blair administration and attributed its suc-
cess in achieving the government’s goals
to firm and steady pressure. He noted that
some aspects of deliverology met pushback
from department heads and managers who
chafed at the heavy top-down approach.
He related that adjustments were made
and that executives understood that the
exercise was far more about “accountabil-
ity” than about “command and control.”
This was something the public service was
comfortable with.
Dean said the Trudeau Liberal’s ap-
proach towards deliverology appears to
be “focused on collaboration and capacity
building.” He said there is clear indication
that extra effort is being made to engage
department heads, managers and even
frontline workers in the process, get their
inputs and involve them more in the deci-
sion making.
Dean emphasized that many of deliver-
ology “success factors” were within reach
in most departments in Ottawa. The idea,
for instance, of focusing on a few priorities
with clear accountabilities and aligned
budgets, was not new. Every department
does it, and it does not mean that other
functions be neglected.
He pointed to the necessary sponsorship
from the prime minister as something that
could be beneficial to many departments.
Chief political executives do not always
have the time or inclination to keep a line-
of-sight on delivering priorities. Tony Blair
showed it was possible, as did Dalton Mc-
Guinty in Ontario. He also observed that
regular “stock-take” sessions with senior
politicians and public service officials had
to be seen as a positive development, but
argued that its success depended on the
collection of good usable data for policy
and measurement.
The emphasis on a collaborative devel-
opment of information and on regular
progress reports had to be welcomed, as
was the need for transparency of targets
and public reporting. In an age where calls
for “open government” are heard daily, this
new reality was unavoidable. Finally, he
urged that departments find a way to align
their budgets with priorities. “That’s the
key in deliverology,” said Dean.
Prof. Greg Richards of the Telfer School
of Management at the University of Ot-
tawa, along with Murray Kronick and
Kasia Polanska of Interis-BDO, delivered
the lunchtime address on “Deliverology
in Practice.” Their objective was to cap-
ture the conventional wisdom on this
management technique as it has been
applied around the world. Their conclu-
sion was that Deliverology did deliver on
better coordination and accountability.
It also proved to be very effective tool in
helping governments focus on key policy
commitments. The long-term impact on
governments was still in doubt, however.
Past experience has shown that change
management techniques are difficult to
execute, and ambitions like Deliverology
will put any executives to the test.
Their study of past experiences of De-
liverology showed that it was possible to
achieve as long as government depart-
ments used an evolutionary, not revolu-
tionary approach, and scaled up steadily to
reach realistic targets and tolerances. They
advised that the newmethod of measuring-
and-delivering would likely require amulti-
disciplinary set of talents—especially in
structuring the data so that it can be traced
and monitored regularly. Responsibility for
results had to cascade down to the lowest
levels of the bureaucracy. Not surprisingly,
it was critical to secure senior management
commitment and to engage all staff in the
transition to a Deliverology method of mea-