UMCC – HR Sub-Committee 1 March 2010 Susan Nutbrown

1. Strategic Frameworks for Managing and Evaluating Civilian Learning and Professional Developmentand Personal Learning Plan Completion Rates • UMCC – HR Sub-Committee • 1 March 2010 • Susan Nutbrown • Director, Learning and Professional Development Strategies and Policies

2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE • PURPOSE • CONTEXT • Director General Learning and Professional Development (DGLPD) and Director Learning and Professional Development Strategies and Policies (DLPDSP) Mandates • Objective • ABOUT THE FRAMEWORKS • DEVELOPMENT APPROACH • USING THE FRAMEWORKS - EXAMPLES • PERSONAL LEARNING PLAN COMPLETION RATES • DISCUSSION/QUESTIONS

3. PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION • Promote awareness of the: • Civilian Learning and Professional Development Management Framework • Civilian Learning and Professional Development Evaluation Framework • Evaluation Toolkit • Report on the: • FY 2009-2010 Personal Learning Plan Completion Rate

4. CONTEXT – Our Mandate • DGLPD ensures that: • employees have access to learning activities and professional development programs, enabling them to be effective in the exercise of their functions and preparing them for future organizational challenges; • managers have access to directives, advice and support, enabling a competent staff working in a healthy organization capable of adapting to a changing organizational context; • the Department of National Defence is compliant with its legislative obligations linked to learning and professional development, and that the funds invested in learning respond to organizational requirements and corporate priorities. • DLPDSP • develops, promotes, validates and implements civilian learning and professional development policies, and • exercises functional leadership with respect to civilian learning and professional development strategies and policies, evaluation, monitoring and reporting.

5. CONTEXT - Objective • Raise awareness of the new Frameworks that provide strategic guidance and mechanisms for the effective management of civilian Learning and Professional Development in National Defence.

6. PURPOSE The CivilianLearning and Professional Development Management Frameworkis intended to inform and influence key stakeholders as well as encourage ongoing improvement by those with direct responsibility for civilian LPD in DND. The Civilian Learning and Professional Development Evaluation Frameworkcomplements the first frameworkand focuses on building capability. It is intended to assist Level 1s with all of their LPD evaluation efforts. HIGHLIGHTS Principle-based Strategic perspective Alignment with key Departmental and Public Service strategies, policies, business practices and initiatives. Adapted from the Australian Public Service (APS) ABOUT THE FRAMEWORKS

7. DEVELOPMENT APPROACH • RESEARCH – 5 Perspectives • Canadian Forces (e.g., Canadian Defence Academy) • Other Government Departments • Public Service • Private Sector • International • Focused on smart practices and strategic alignment • Consultative – Documents reviewed by HRBMs, LCC Managers, Training Providers and Managers • DevelopmentTimeframe – 1 year

8. Civilian Learning and Professional Development Management Framework • Background: • Functional Authority (FA) Research Project (Jan – Mar 2008) • Level 1 organizations (L1s) indicated a need to align LPD priorities with the management improvement objectives of government and indicated the need for further clarification and guidance with respect to the ADM(HR-Civ) FA. • Replacing the 2003 DND Civilian Learning and Professional Development Framework. • Components of the Framework: • 7 Principles • 36 Elements • Practical DND examples • Diagnostic checklist • Online on the DIN at: • http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/hrciv/documents/pdf/Civ_LPD_Mgmt_Framework_e.pdf

9. Civilian LPD Management Model

10. Civilian Learning and Professional Development Evaluation Framework • Background: • FA Research Project (Jan – Mar 2008) • L1s indicated they would like assistance and support with regard to expertise in evaluation as it relates to performance measurement. • Evaluation Working Group (Fall 2008) • Representatives from DGLPD, ADM (Materiel), Canadian Defence Academy • Adopted the Australian Public Service (APS) evaluation model • Components of the Framework: • a description of the 6 levels of evaluation • a process for how to develop and plan an evaluation strategy • guidance on how to build and sustain evaluation capability • supplemented by an evaluation toolkit • Online on the DIN at: • http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/hrciv/documents/pdf/Civ_LPD_Evaluation_Framework_e.pdf

11. Evaluation Model

12. USING THE FRAMEWORKS - EXAMPLES

13. PERSONAL LEARNING PLAN COMPLETION RATE(MID-YEAR RESULTS) • Results: • 84.22% PLP completion rate at mid-year reporting (presented at Jan 2010 CHRC) • does not meet PCO Clerk’s 90% completion rate target • Inconsistent achievement of PLP completion rates across L1s • Implications: • Greater support required for PLPs and • employee development • Recommendations: • Increase awareness of informal learning activities • as LPD opportunities • Increase promotion of PLP process, guides and tools • Online on the DIN at: • http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/hrciv/dglpd/dlpdsp/plp/en/home_e.asp?reference=110970001

14. QUESTIONS?