Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MANITOBA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................... 2
PART A: LEADING AND MANAGING POLICY DEVELOPMENT............................................... 3
1. Leadership Direction and Support ............................................................. 3
2. Human Resources .................................................................................... 8
3. Infrastructure Support ............................................................................. 9
PART B: POLICY PROCESS ATTRIBUTES ........................................................................11
4. Issue Identification ................................................................................13
5. Issue Analysis ........................................................................................15
6. Generating Solutions ..............................................................................18
7. Consultation ..........................................................................................24
8. Performance Measurement.......................................................................26
PART C: POLICY PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES .......................................................................30
9. Purpose.................................................................................................32
10. Evidence ...............................................................................................35
11. Options .................................................................................................38
12. Logic ....................................................................................................41
13. Consultation ..........................................................................................43
14. Presentation ..........................................................................................44
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ...........................................................................................46
RELEVANT COURSES AVAILABLE THROUGH ORGANIZATION AND STAFF
DEVELOPMENT (OSD) MANITOBA CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ............................................48
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................51
INTRODUCTION
This guide is in direct response to the widespread interest generated by the November 2001
report of the Office of the Auditor General of Manitoba entitled, A Review of the Policy
Development Capacity Within Government Departments. We were contacted by various
Manitoba Government policy staff seeking information on where they could find “how to”
guides on policy development. Through our work in this area, we determined that there is a
gap in terms of available guides to assist policy practitioners. The fundamental purpose of
this guide is to promote excellence in policy development. The Guide is aimed at:
• those in a leadership or management position whose responsibilities include the policy
function (see Part A); and
• policy analysts (see Parts B and C).
Guidance is provided for each of the attributes in the model of effective policy development
contained in the above-mentioned November 2001 report. We have tried to provide some
practical suggestions on how to handle the more challenging aspects of policy development.
In this regard, we have included the perspective of some current and former cabinet
ministers with respect to the role of policy options in the policy development process
(Section 6.9). We encourage you to review that section of the Guide as it sheds light on
the expectations of cabinet ministers.
By no means is this Guide the final word on policy development. Each of you has your own
practical experience of what works well and what does not. Moreover, practical experience
is not static. With each piece of policy work is an opportunity to refine one’s approach
based on previous experience.
DEFINITIONS
Policy
In this Guide, policy refers to those plans, positions and guidelines of government which
influence decisions by government (e.g., policies in support of sustainable economic
development or policies to enhance access to government services by persons with
disabilities). There are various types and forms of policy. Among the range of policy types
are: broad policy which enunciates government-wide direction; more specific policy which
may be developed for a particular sector (the economy) or issue-area (child welfare);
operational policy which may guide decisions on programs, and project selection. With
respect to the forms that government policy can take, it is reflected most typically in
legislation, regulations, and programs. These are often referred to as policy instruments.
Policy Development
The activity of developing policy generally involves research, analysis, consultation and
synthesis of information to produce recommendations. It should also involve an evaluation
of options against a set of criteria used to assess each option.
Policy Analyst
Within the context of the Manitoba government, “planning and program analysts” are often
engaged in policy work among other things. Likewise, much of what a legislative analyst
does is essentially policy work. Also, program delivery staff may be involved in policy
development. Thus the term policy analyst is used in this Guide to refer to all such staff
and other positions whose duties include the activities associated with policy development
described above.
Consultation
In this Guide, consultation refers to seeking input (i.e., advice, reactions, clarifications,
etc.) during the policy development process from individuals within government and those
external to government.
Each of these attributes is interrelated and together they form the foundation of an
organization’s capacity to perform. They form part of the model of effective policy
development that is explained in the November 2001 report of the Office of the Auditor
General of Manitoba entitled, A Review of the Policy Development Capacity Within Government
Departments (available at www.oag.mb.ca). For more information on each of these
attributes, refer to the November 2001 Report.
Part A deals with each of the above listed attributes from the perspective of what policy
leaders and managers can do to facilitate organizational effectiveness in policy
development.
Demanding Excellence
Another essential ingredient to effective leadership and management of the
process is the expectations that leaders/managers place on their staff. Policy
leaders/manager should demand and expect excellence from policy analysts. This
can be accomplished by communicating to policy analysts the expected standards
in terms of the quality of the work (e.g., encouraging certain improvements from
staff or challenging the rigorousness of the analysis and realism of policy
options, and so forth).
Policy analysts can benefit from opportunities to attend briefings and discussions
with a department’s executive and the minister (even if their attendance is
1.3 What Does Providing Staff With The Necessary Resources Entail?
Providing policy analysts with resources does not simply mean allocating more
manpower to get the job done. Allocating more staff or more time to a particular
policy exercise may not always be feasible. Resources in this context include
other aspects as identified in the accompanying box.
Leads/managers should keep in mind that giving staff access to the types of
resources identified above is one way to demonstrate to them senior
management’s commitment to excellence in policy development.
Additionally, policy leaders/managers need to set the priorities and trade-offs for
policy analysts. This is one way to address time constraints.
Effective Communication
Effective communication is using plain English, knowing what to highlight, and
being conscious of the fact that those on the receiving end of policy advice
(whether in written or oral form) are generally not going to be conversant with
the subject matter. This is a critical point that cannot be over emphasized. All
too often, the policy product fails to take into account that the audience is not
an expert in this field. Those involved in leading the policy process need to
review policy products to ensure that they meet the criteria in Part C.
1.5 Risks Associated With Not Providing Leadership Direction And Support
The risks associated with not providing leadership direction and support are:
– untimely response to policy requests;
– staff with limited understanding of the dimensions of the issue/problem due
to lack of contact with external organizations, lack of data, limited or poor
communication from leaders/managers regarding direction from
government, etc.;
One of the biggest challenges is with data. Sometimes the data one wants has
not been compiled. At other times, it exists in a form that is not suitable for
one’s purpose without adjustment or manipulation (e.g., the level of aggregation,
the geographic boundaries, or the data elements included in a statistic).
Collecting previously uncollected data or making adjustments to existing data is
often costly and time consuming. In some cases, it won’t be possible to create
the desired data within the time frames of a given policy exercise. Challenges
such as these need to be identified and reported on, and a strategy for dealing
with them needs to be put in place. See Section 3.2.
Once the above information is gathered, leaders/managers should ensure that the
documented data problem is communicated “up the ladder”. One way to do this is to
include it in your policy products (data gaps potentially affect the ability to provide
adequate evidence and analysis of problems/issues as well as the assessment of options).
Policy decision-makers need to be aware of the basis on which they are making those
decisions.
Have we developed a concrete plan for how we will systematically address the
gaps (the specific items, their cost, level of priority and schedule for
implementation? See Section 3.2.
Does the department flag data and other infrastructure gaps in policy products in
order to ensure that decision-makers are fully aware of the basis on which they
are making decisions?
The process of developing public policy is an activity that generally involves research,
analysis, consultation and synthesis of information to produce recommendations. It should
involve an evaluation of options against a set of criteria used to assess each option. An
effective policy process is one that is generally characterized by the following five
attributes:
Issue Identification
Issue Analysis
Generating Solutions
Consultation
Performance Monitoring
These attributes form part of the model of effective policy development that is explained in
the November 2001 report of the Office of the Auditor General of Manitoba entitled,
A Review of the Policy Development Capacity Within Government Departments (available at
www.oag.mb.ca).
Part B deals with each of the above listed attributes in terms of how to go about putting
them into practice. Keep in mind as you read this guide that policy development is not a
linear process with each step being completed before the next one begins. On the contrary,
the process is iterative and dynamic with the various steps feeding into each other (refer to
the above-mentioned November 2001 Report for more information on this point).
Before we deal with each of the attributes in the model, we begin by framing the discussion
with a word about the importance of communication from policy analysts to policy
leaders/managers throughout the policy process.
Likewise, policy analysts should keep in mind the saying, “you’ll never know unless you ask”!
This means, don’t always wait for policy leaders/managers to identify or offer resources.
Identify for leaders/managers the resources you believe are necessary for you to enhance your
capabilities in policy development. There may be times when you will be in the best position
to identify the resources you would like to have access to in order to be more effective.
To clearly define the problem, one has to distinguish the symptoms or effects of a
problem from the actual problem. The examples below illustrate the difference
between describing an existing situation (symptoms) and tracing what is
occurring back to its root cause to identify the actual problem.
Example
A person complains to their doctor that they are suffering from watery eyes and a stuffed up nose.
These are symptoms and not the problem. These symptoms could mean the problem is: an allergy,
the flu, a cold, a reaction to dust or any number of other potential ailments. Getting the diagnosis
right (i.e., getting the problem right) is essential to effective treatment.
Example
An employee survey shows that employees are not entirely clear on procedures to follow in relation
to a particular task. The above symptom could mean the problem is any of the following:
inadequate communication from management on procedures, conflicting procedures, difficult to
understand procedures, under qualified staff. Depending on which one of these is identified as the
problem(s), the solution would be quite different.
Example
School grades are declining. This may be a symptom of any number of issues such as: an unstable
home environment or malnutrition, both of which can affect ability to concentrate; a reflection of
teachers’ skills; or the curriculum has changed to more challenging expectations of students. If the
conclusion is that the issues are socio/economic in nature the potential solution shifts from an
education based response to a social services based response or depending on the circumstances, to a
combination of educational and social policy initiatives.
Tip Λ
Symptoms describe • Housing condition is in decline; vacant and boarded up housing is on the
What increase; real estate sales in the neighbourhood have declined.
Causes describe • Vandalism, absentee landlords, low income households cannot afford
Why repairs, neighbourhood perceived as unsafe.
Policy addresses • The causes and not the symptoms.
Why
Have we drilled down far enough to get to the causes of the problem?
Have we defined the problem clearly enough to give focus and direction to the
process of developing options to address the problem? For instance, it would not
be sufficient to define a problem by saying, “socio/economic problems are
affecting the scholastic performance of school children”. This would not give
adequate guidance on where to turn in exploring policy options.
Have we defined the problem in such a way that we can track changes over time
once the selected policy solution is implemented? Part of clearly defining the
problem includes describing in qualitative and quantitative terms such aspects as
how often the problem occurs, when it occurs, its impact when it occurs, etc.
Having defined the problem, did we also identify what the desired state is (i.e.,
the outcome sought)? This question is closely related to the previous question.
To know if the problem is abating, one has to have a sense of the preferred state
in order to be able to measure progress in relation to the desired outcome.
Gathering comparative data is also useful as a way to find out how the problem
may have been handled elsewhere. It is especially important to find out how
solutions to the problem have worked elsewhere. The latter is important in the
next step that relates to generating solutions.
Don’t collect comparative data just for the sake of doing it! Comparative data is
only meaningful if you do something with it. So once you have comparative
data, analyze it by asking yourself, “so what, how does this influence my
understanding of the what and the why of the problem we are facing here”? See
Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
Time pressures, data availability, and cost of data in some cases will impact on
your ability to collect and analyze what you may ideally want to be able to
access. Be selective and strategic in what you choose to collect. Ask yourself,
what would be the most useful investment of time in data collection given the
various constraints we may be facing.
Example
Depending on the policy issue you are dealing with, here are some types of comparisons that can be
helpful in the process of trying to understand the dimensions of the problem:
• trends at other similar locations within your jurisdiction (between neighbourhoods, districts,
communities, ecological areas, sectors, etc.)
• trends in other Canadian jurisdictions;
• data on national averages;
• data on city-wide averages;
• historical data (which may point to cyclical trends; or may lead the analyst to see that the current
situation did not always prevail thereby leading the analyst to “drill down” further to determine
what events/conditions have produced the present situation – understanding this can help in
directing you to the potential solutions to the problem);
• international trends.
Tip Λ Find out about the relevant trends that are impacting on the symptoms that are
manifesting. As with comparative data, when collecting background contextual or
historical information, ask yourself, “so what, how is any of this information helping
me to gain an understanding of the issues and what clues is this information giving
me about potential remedies”?
Have you obtained comparative data wherever feasible? More importantly, how
are you using that information in the policy development process? How has it
affected your thinking about the problem? How can the information be used in
the decision-making process?
Have you examined the context in which the problem is manifesting? More
importantly, how are you using that information in the policy development
process? How has it affected your thinking about the problem? How can the
information be used in the decision-making process?
Tip Λ
Examples of Working Parameters
• That the policy selected has to be one that can be implemented within the framework of
existing legislation.
• That the policy selected has to be one that will not require renegotiations or amendments to
an existing tri-level agreement.
• That no new funding requirements will result from the selected policy, but reallocations of
existing resources may be considered.
• That the policy selected is endorsed by a particular client group or stakeholder group.
• That the policy selected must contribute to government’s priority or directives in a particular
area.
• That the policy selected will have a cost neutral impact on households.
Tip Λ
Examples of Principles/Values
• That citizens have a right to universal health care.
• That every child should have access to a safe living environment.
• That all households should have clean drinking water.
• Environmental protection must guide development decisions.
• Affordable housing is an entitlement of citizens.
• That local government autonomy should be enhanced.
• That government accountability to its residents needs to be advanced.
It should be noted that there is a fine line between the principles/values and the
actual policy. Sometimes the principles/values become the policy.
Tip Λ
Examples Of Policy Options
• To foster small business development.
• To foster innovation in small business development.
• To stimulate research and development in small business technologies.
• To stimulate employment growth in the small business sector.
Some fairly typical criteria that tend to apply in most policy development contexts include factors
such as:
• How well the policy option meets the conceptual framework (see Section 6.2);
• time frame for implementation of a policy option;
• impact of a policy option on clients/stakeholders;
• potential adverse impacts of a policy (i.e., in fixing one problem, is another one created or is
another existing problem made worse);
• reaction of clients/stakeholders to policy option;
• cost implications;
• administrative ease of implementation of a policy option;
• legal considerations;
• inter-departmental impact (many problems are cross-cutting – i.e., the policy response may
affect the work of other departments and/or the policy response may have to come from a
cluster of inter-related departments);
• degree to which a policy option is consistent with other relevant government policies,
procedures and regulations;
• potential risks (worst case scenario) associated with a policy option and actions that could be
taken to deal with the potential adverse impact.
Give Us Options
• The response we received from them was that professionalism in policy development
includes not only putting forth policy alternatives, but also alerting a
minister/cabinet to the pros and cons of the policy options even in the case of an
option favoured by a minister/cabinet. It was pointed out that to do otherwise is
to put government at risk of being blind-sided. Ministers also noted that just
because political decisions may sometimes be counter to the administration’s
recommendations is no justification for staff not to explore policy options and to
communicate their merits and potential limitations or risks.
Did we evaluate each option using a common set of criteria? See Section 6.8.
SECTION 7: CONSULTATION
7.1 The Who, What, When, Where, Why And How Of Consultation
An important step in the policy development process is deciding on the best
approach to consultation. When it comes to consultation, there is not a one size
fits all circumstances. Consultation has to be tailored to meet: the time frames,
resource availability and nature of the policy issue(s) at hand.
Who • Determining who needs to be consulted: other departments, one’s minister, other
ministers, other levels of government, other jurisdictions, committees of Cabinet,
various external client/stakeholder groups, general public?
What • What should be the subject matter of the consultation? Whether to consult on issue
identification, the range of options, the preferred options, the assumptions, the
principles, the outcomes, etc.?
When • Determining the timing of consultations and when you have consulted enough – i.e.,
when to end the consultations. Should it take place during the preliminary
information gathering stage when you are trying to get a handle on the nature of the
problem? Should one wait until there is some internal coalescing around the
principles and expected outcomes that will guide the process? Should it be at each
step in the process? Should some individuals/groups be consulted at some stages in
the process and others consulted at other phases of the policy development process?
Where • At which location(s) should consultation take place? Is it more appropriate to consult
some individuals/groups at certain locations and other individuals/groups at different
venues?
Why • Why does a particular individual, department or group need to be consulted? What
type of exchange is one hoping to have with each person/group? Is the purpose of
the consultation to gather information, to obtain feedback/reaction? Is it that
through the consultation there is also the aim of disseminating information?
Answering why makes you aware of what you want to get out of the consultation and
helps shape the “how” and “where” of consultation.
How • Determining the best methods for consultation. Should one hold workshops, round
table discussions, public meetings? Should the internet be used to disseminate
information on the policy review and as a way to solicit feedback? Should a discussion
paper be released? Should sub-groupings of clients/stakeholders be brought together
for consultations? Cost is often a consideration in such choices and decision. See
Section 7.5.
Tip Λ Use the Consultation Checklist (see Section 7.2) to help you develop a proposed
consultation plan that you believe is the best fit given the particular circumstances
you are working under. The consultation plan can also be a tool to facilitate
discussion and endorsement by whomever is directing or coordinating the policy
initiative as well as any other officials who’s endorsement is required.
Tip Λ As a general rule, consultations within the organization (in this case, internal to
government) should precede external consultations. Failure to consult internally at
the outset can often cause resistance and other difficulties in the policy
development process. In particular, do not overlook inter-departmental
consultations on problems/issues that cut across more than one department.
Tip Λ Part of consultation is also about informing people with respect to what is going on
and how it may possibly impact them. This is especially true when it comes to
letting other departments/central government know what may be in the works.
Tip Λ Follow-up your consultations with a thank you letter that tells them that you will
advise them of the outcome of their input. Letting clients/stakeholders know how
their input was used including an explanation of why their suggestions were not
implemented if that is the case is important to fostering positive on-going relations
with them in future.
Is the proposed consultation process realistic given the resources that are
available?
– What will it cost?
– How much staff time will it require?
– What type of expertise will it require (e.g., will you need a web page to be
developed, workshop facilitators, simultaneous translation services at a public
meeting, etc.)?
– Which skills do we have in-house and which ones need to be out-sourced?
Another avenue for finding meaningful indicators for policy objectives is to look
to the programs and initiatives through which policy is implemented. If certain
programs or activities are being undertaken as a way to implement a policy, then
measuring how well those are doing may reflect on the policy (i.e., if a program
is not doing well, it may or may not mean the policy is the problem).
Have we defined the problem/issue and the expected outcome of the proposed
policies in such a way that we can measure performance of the policy solutions?
See Section 4 on Issue Identification.
Our model of effective policy development includes six attributes that relate to the policy
product:
Section 9 - Purpose
Section 10 - Evidence
Section 11 - Options
Section 12 - Logic
Section 13 - Consultation
Section 14 - Presentation.
For more information on each of these attributes, refer to the November 2001 Auditor
General’s Report entitled, A Review of the Policy Development Capacity Within Government
Departments (available at www.oag.mb.ca).
Part C deals with each of the above listed attributes from the perspective of what policy
analysts can do to ensure excellence in their policy products. Keep in mind that at
different stages of the policy process, the type of policy product you put forward is likely to
change depending on the audience being targeted and the stage in the process. For
instance, policy proposals may be the subject of a cabinet submission at the early stage of
the process and may be transformed at later stages of the process into speaking notes for
the minister responsible if he/she has to deliver a speech on the proposed policies.
SECTION 9: PURPOSE
Example
• The vacancy rate for low-income multiple dwelling units has averaged 1%
between 1988 and 1990 in Winnipeg. (Low-income is defined by Statistics
Canada as having an average annual household income of $14,000).
Reason For Explain why this problem is being brought forward at this time. It could be a
Bringing whole host of reasons including the persistence of the problem, its magnitude,
Problem legislative requirements, ministerial direction, central government direction, and
so forth.
Forward
Example
• Ensuring the availability of affordable housing is enshrined in the provincial
housing legislation.
• The department of housing has monitored the above problem for the past three
years and it would appear that it is not a temporary trend. Over the past three
years the vacancy rate for low income multiple dwelling units has fluctuated
between 1% and 1.6%.
Example
1. Increased demand for low income multiple dwelling units.
2. Inadequate supply of low income multiple dwellings.
3. Increase in homelessness.
Context Address questions such as: when did the problem/symptoms arise; what trends
may have contributed to the problem; is the problem expected to be a long-term
issue; are other geographic locations facing the same situation?
Example
• Historically Winnipeg has had a good supply of low income multiple dwelling
units with an annual average vacancy rate of approximately 5% over the period
1970 to 1985.
• There have been no low-income multiple housing starts since the termination
of Federal funding incentives under program “X” in 1986. The Province’s 50%
contribution in the Federal program “X” ended with the termination of Federal
funding.
• The Province of Manitoba has a small program that supports the expansion of
temporary shelters for low-income households.
• Other provinces are facing a similar situation especially in Ontario and British
Columbia where there is no funding support to shelters.
Desired Be as specific as possible about the change that a policy response is expected to
Change achieve.
(Outcome)
Example
• To return the vacancy rate for low income multiple dwellings to its historical
rate of 5% annually.
You need to make a reasoned and persuasive case for the positions you are
putting forward in the policy product. To do this, you need facts to substantiate
your arguments and the proposed policy direction. Here is an example of the
type of statement that needs backing-up with evidence:
Let’s examine what needs to be added to the above example by way of evidence
through the Evidence Checklist table.
An Evidence Checklist
What Evidence Is Missing? Why Should This Evidence Be Added?
• Data on the amount of decline • To determine whether the decline in municipal investment is
in financial investment in significant enough to explain the current condition of the
municipal infrastructure. infrastructure (i.e., whether the condition is primarily the result
of less funding).
• What explains the decline in • Relevant because it may contain the seeds of the solution (refer
investment over the past 20 to Section 4 on the significance of properly understanding the
years? problem and its symptoms).
• Might there be other key • Are we sure that financial investment is the only key factor
reasons for the worsening contributing to the worsening condition of municipal
condition of municipal infrastructure? (A key question as it relates to proper diagnosis
infrastructure? of the problem and ultimately the potential policy solutions.)
• Data on the actual condition of • Allows us to know the severity and magnitude of the problem
each category of municipal and how much of the infrastructure, by type, is reaching a
infrastructure. critical breaking point.
• Given that resources are not limitless, this type of information
helps in prioritizing which infrastructure may receive funding (if
the recommendation is for some type of funding initiative) and
which infrastructure needs to be upgraded or replaced first.
• Is there any evidence that we • Decision-makers need to know if there are limitations to the
consider essential but that is information provided and the nature of the data constraints as
not available to us? well as the resources required to generate/obtain such data.
Have we reviewed our policy product to determine if each piece of data included
is relevant (i.e., can we justify to ourself why it is essential to include)? See
Sections 10.1 and 10.2.
Some departments hold the view that it is redundant to include policy options in
each iteration of a policy initiative that is in development. Their view is that
once the minister responsible, cabinet or a committee of cabinet have decided on
the policy option that they want to have developed for further discussion, there
is no need to include in future policy papers/submissions all the options that
were considered and rejected. In some instances this approach may be
appropriate while in others it may not. Factors to consider are whether the
decision to focus on a particular option was made at an oral briefing. If so, it is a
good idea in the written policy paper/submission to cover what the options are
that were rejected and why. This can be achieved in the briefest way especially if
a table such as the one in Section 11.2 is used. The options that were rejected
can also be in an appendix to a policy paper/submission.
Another argument that is sometimes heard as the reason for not including the
policy options in a policy paper/submission is that the minister knows the
subject area well and knows that options were considered and has decided to
submit to cabinet his/her recommended policy solution. This is all well and
good, however, when the minister is asked questions about various options,
he/she cannot be expected to recall the various arguments and evidence that
relates to the pros and cons of the rejected options. Thus, it is useful to include
in a submission information on options so that the minister’s colleagues who
have not been involved at earlier stages of option selection know about the
various alternatives that were considered.
Tip Λ Be as consistent as possible in the format of presenting each option. This makes it
easier for persons receiving the information to compare the options and more
importantly to draw conclusions based on such comparisons. For example if you
have discussed one option in terms of its legal feasibility, comment on that aspect in
relation to each option.
Tip Λ If you feel that it is necessary, in certain circumstances, to provide a fair amount of
information about options then provide the details in an attachment.
If we were making a decision based on our presentation of the options and their
relative merits, would we find that the information we provided is adequate for
us to make choices? If not, identify the additional evidence or explanations that
need to be included to round out the picture (it may be that the “logic” needs
strengthening). See Section 12.
The invented example below is typical of the type of gap in logic that is often
found in policy papers:
“Without incentives the eco-tourism sector will not
reach targeted potential growth levels. Manitoba’s
varied habitats within easy access offer Manitoba a new
economic growth opportunity. It is recommended that
government develop a package of incentives for eco-
tourism operators in Manitoba”.
There are big leaps in logic in the above example. Was a case made for the
recommended incentives? Was evidence provided to substantiate the point that
without incentives this sector will not meet its potential growth? Was evidence
provided to persuade us of the economic worthwhileness of investing in this
sector?
As you can see, there is a close link between logic and evidence. The two go
hand in hand. If you do not have evidence, it is unlikely you will have logic. On
the other hand, if you have a logical policy paper, it is more likely that you will
have done a good job of providing evidence.
Tip Λ If time permits, have an external reader review the policy product (i.e., someone
from your department or another department who has not been involved in the
particular policy initiative). Often our intimate knowledge of the policy area makes
it more challenging to step back and identify gaps in logic. Someone who has
limited or no knowledge in the given subject area is therefore a perfect litmus test
for determining logical flow of the material to be presented.
Have we had an external reader review the policy product to determine if he/she
can follow the logic of what we are trying to say? See Section 12.2.
Use attachments judiciously. Don’t include attachments simply on the basis that
someone might be interested in their content. Likewise, don’t treat attachments
as a general “dump” of information, statistics and technical material. Each
attachment should meet the test of the criteria here on the policy product. This
means, converting the content of attachments into brief, clear, simply written
documents that add value to the policy product. The person reviewing a policy
product should be able to easily extract the relevance of each attachment.
Tip Λ If time permits, have an external reader review the policy product (i.e., someone
from your department or another department who has not been involved in the
particular policy initiative). Often our intimate knowledge of the policy area makes
it more challenging to step back and identify if we have been as clear and concise as
we could be in our presentation. Someone who has limited or no knowledge in the
given subject area is therefore a perfect litmus test for determining if we have been
brief and to the point without compromising comprehension of the material.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Charles Lusthaus, et. al. Enhancing Organizational Performance. Ottawa: The
International Development Research Centre. 1999.
Fellegi, Ivan. Strengthening Our Policy Capacity. A report of the Task Force on
Strengthening the Policy Capacity of the Federal Government. April 1995.
Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. Good Public Policy. March
2000.
Potter, Ian. Policy Analysis in Government (A Policy Wonk’s Travel Guide). The
Learning Centre. (no date). http://learnet.gc.ca/eng/lrncentr/online/policy.htm
Schacter, Mark. What Will Be, Will Be: The Challenge of Applying Results-Based
Thinking to Policy. Ottawa: Institute on Governance, 2002. (www.iog.ca)
State Services Commission, New Zealand. The Policy Advice Initiative. 1995.
Topics
The Focused Conversation Method:
• Provides a structure for clear dialogue and reflection.
• Probes beneath the surface.
• Encourages a diversity of perspectives.
Workshop Method:
• Engages the participation of each group member.
• Focuses the group’s consensus.
• Builds an effective team partnership.
• Enables you to facilitate large groups.
Topics
• What are projects, project management and project managers.
• Know the destination: goals and objectives.
• Project terms of reference.
• Laying a route: work breakdown, structure, schedule, critical path and budget.
• The human side: resources, responsibilities and relationships.
• Making headway: controlling scope and reporting progress.
• Reaching the destination: pulling it all together.
For those who have to make choices in a demanding work environment and would benefit
from a proven model for picking the most suitable alternative.
Topics
• A comprehensive and effective process for making decisions.
• How to apply the decision making process to your work situation.
• The conditions that support good decision making practices in the workplace.
For those who act in an advisory or consulting capacity and help clients solve organization
problems or implement change.
Topics
• Identify the strengths you bring to a consulting relationship.
• Clarify what clients need as opposed to what they want in order that you can provide a valuable service.
• Learn an effective process and the related techniques to increase the likelihood that your advice will be
used.
• Increase your effectiveness in working with clients.
• Apply what you learn to a “back home” situation.
Topics
• Definition and Uses of Focus Groups.
• Qualitative Research.
• Steps in Focus Group Method.
• Conducting the Focus Group.
• Reporting the Findings.
Topics
• Writing for the Reader • Formatting
• The Writing Process • Parallel Structure
• Controlling Sentence Length • Report Overview
• Writing with Energy and Enthusiasm • Word Watch
• Camouflaged Verbs • Guidelines for Capitalization
• Active vs Passive Voice • Guidelines for Writing Numbers
• Controlling Paragraph Length • The Apostrophe
• Topic Sentences • Subject and Object Pronouns
• Creating Flow • Guidelines for Punctuation
• Characteristics of Effective Reports
Topics
• Create your professional presentation.
• Define your objectives.
• Develop your opening and closing, and determine your content.
• Create visual aids and handouts.
• Make your presentation FUN.
• Communication styles.
• Controlling your presentation anxiety.
• Your body: make every move count.
• Delivering your presentation with POWER.
• Marking a script.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank the following persons for reviewing this document:
Vision
As a leader in promoting enhanced accountability of government to the citizens of
Manitoba, the Office of the Provincial Auditor will contribute to greater public trust and
confidence in the institutions of government.
Mission
To contribute to effective governance by the Manitoba Legislature, we provide the Members
of the Legislative Assembly with independent assurance and advice on:
government accountability information;
compliance with legislative authorities;
and the operational performance of government.
Values
IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
Respect Honesty
Integrity Openness
Report Prepared By
Marianne Farag, Principal
Copies of this report may be obtained by contacting:
Office of the Auditor General Desktop Publisher
500 - 330 Portage Avenue Sandra Humbert
Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R3C 0C4
PHONE: (204) 945-3790 Printed By
FAX: (204) 945-2169 Rinella Printers Limited
EMAIL: contact@oag.mb.ca
WEBSITE: www.oag.mb.ca Cover Design
Gator Design