Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 03

May/June 2018 // Canadian Government Executive / 39 audit Figure 2: Analyzing a Service Blueprint Figure 3: A Hypothetical (High Level) Service Blueprint Example for Border Infrastructure Funding Source: Service Blueprinting, March 2018. Shirley Steller, ISED. Canadian &US Communities Contractors / Implementers Border Corporation Monitor project implementation Funding Agency Government ‘Partners’ / Stakeholders, border services etc. Awareness and support for border capacity improvement Engagement in planning capacity, constraints analysis Analytical work to refine and improve infrastructure around border Collect data from recipients for use in monitoring and to assess results Identification of priorities for investment and action Identification of capacity constraints forborder crossing connecting Can +US Negotiation and management of agreement Assessment, review and selection of project Engagement in proposal development for Border infrastructure expansion Good faith negotiation of agreement and conduct of project by proponents Completion of projects as per expectations of key stakeholders Support for announced project Improved infrastructure and Can-US investments complement each other Reduced wait times and congestion, mitigation of emissions improved processing times and efficiency for border crossing a b c d d d d d e a b c d e Key Conditions and Factors Economic, political, cultural, societal and / or environmental conditions affect selection, conduct and impacts of the project. Funding availability, historical context, program design (Fund assistance instrument). Governance (roles, reporting, relationships, accountability structures) affect project selection and conduct. ‘Fit’ of funding assistance rules and requirements with project management practice. Engagement (trust) and support of key co-delivery and community stakeholders. Available technical capacity vs. project requirements. the line and the supplier is shown in lay- ers below the line. Over time, this has been refined to include what has been known as ‘onstage’ and ‘backstage’ components. Fig- ure 2 shows an example of a process flow that in reality shows where an information services/program and referral service user has a connection to a services program. Note how there are onstage and back- stage and even ‘back-backstage’ support functions. These can be seen as critically affecting the success of the provider-user (server-client) relationship. In terms of public mission-oriented functions such as programs, they can be seen as influences on results. The dashed-line ellipses in Fig- ure 2 show how an analysis of service and flows (based on document reviews and key person consultations) reveals some ar- eas of uncertainty and potential problems. Also note how one would see the tradi- tional domain of audit (backstage support – affecting delivery), and the other the typical domain of evaluation (behaviors conducted by service recipients after the fact). In this way, both audit and evalua- tion can use such blueprinting to analyse and guide further testing and inquiry. Services blueprinting – or in this case, line of visibility and stakeholder differen- tiation – can also be used at a high level and considered along with key influenc- ing factors, assumptions and risks which may occur along the way. Figure 3 shows such a high level chart. The above blueprint strategically identi- fies key conditions and factors – both inter- nal and external to the initiative – which will need to be considered. This level of blueprinting will be useful for strategic discussions, broad lessons learned and a high level evaluation of success. In summary, the authors have each in- dependently used services blueprinting – usually developed in consultation with key informant stakeholders over more than one iteration – to help clarify just what has been being done with what and for whom inwhat sequence over time. This has in turn been used to develop a basic understanding of process and information flows and rela- tionships, as well as the interface between support, backstage and onstage suppliers and users. Increasingly, this type of model- ling has acted as the front end to more de- tailed data analysis related to transactions, as well as to stimulate broad strategic dis- cussions of influence and the worth of an initiative. While this type of modelling may not be for everyone, we have found that it provides at minimum a useful complement to more conventional viewpoints. In addi- tion, the services blueprint/line of visibility model may be one of the unique tools that can bring the interests and strengths of au- ditors and evaluators together. S teve M ontague is a partner with Performance Management Network, a lecturer at Carleton University and one of the founders of Performance Planning Exchange. S hirley S teller is a Manager within the Results and Delivery Unit, Innova- tion, Science and Economic Develop- ment Canada.