DPR – 2006-2007 – Section 2-3
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Previous - Table of Content - NextDepartmental Performance Report - 2006-2007
2.3 Summary of Performance Assessment by Indicator
Figure 12 presents an assessment of NRTEE performance against a five-level performance scale for each performance indicator (with one exception where information is insufficient to make an assessment). All performance indicators support the strategic outcome, "Federal policy development on environment and economy issues and decisions in other key sectors is influenced by NRTEE advice on selected issues." The shaded area indicates NRTEE performance for the reporting period. Figure 12-Summary assessment of performance by indicator|
Performance Scale |
|||||
|
Performance Indicator |
Major gap |
Below target |
Approaching target |
At target |
Above target |
|
Quality policy research |
Negative feedback from external experts/Round Table members. Research reports are of poor quality. Information often incomplete or not reliable. |
Uneven feedback. Research products are of variable quality. Rework required. Some concerns about inaccuracies. Research results are often not seen as relevant or useful. |
Most research received positive feedback. Projects generally met expectations. Some quality concerns, but corrected before they reach stakeholders. Complaints are minimal. |
Research is very well perceived. High quality analysis. Most research is relevant and actionable. Nearly all research results have been used for developing policy recommen-dations. NRTEE has developed a strong reputation for the quality of its research. |
Research has received awards and special recognition. Research produced significant new knowledge. Highly innovative. NRTEE is viewed as a significant centre of excellence in sustainable development. |
|
Effective stakeholder consultations |
Limited stakeholder consultation. NRTEE consultations are not well known. |
Periodic stakeholder consultation. Low level of stakeholder participation in NRTEE events. Difficult to attract participants. Organization of consultation sessions is uneven. |
Ongoing consultation. Size of audience is increasing. Feedback at stakeholder consultations is generally positive. NRTEE events are generally well received, and are seen as useful and timely. |
Frequent consultation with stakeholders. High participation in NRTEE events. Events are perceived to have high added value. NRTEE is perceived as a leader able to bring players together to discuss current and emerging issues. |
Stakeholders at large are aware of NRTEE activities. NRTEE is not able to accommodate all participants. Media visibility at a national level. |
|
Useful policy advice and recommen-dations |
Few references from the government. NRTEE advice is not perceived to be addressing high priority sustainable development issues. Frequent complaints about quality of briefings. Government does not have a lot of confidence in NRTEE. Advice is not seen as timely. |
Occasional references from the government. NRTEE recommenda-tions are often out of date. Limited usefulness. NRTEE reports and documents are of uneven quality. |
Increasing number of references from the government. NRTEE is often called upon by policy makers for advice on issues. Positive feedback received informally. Few complaints. Advice is timely. Information is generally seen as relevant. |
Frequent references from the government. Extensive contact with government decision makers at all levels. High stakeholder satisfaction. Policy analysis is seen as relevant, timely, and useful. NRTEE is perceived as a leader able to bring players together to discuss issues, and foster best practices and information sharing. Briefings are always high quality. |
NRTEE is often called upon to provide strategic advice at senior government levels. NRTEE advice and recommenda-tions have received special notice from the government. NRTEE recommenda-tions are often cited. High level of acceptance of NRTEE recommenda-tions. |
|
Effective communica-tion of NRTEE results |
External communica-tions are limited. Target audiences are not well defined. Role of NRTEE is not well understood. Limited media coverage. |
Low level of interest from external stakeholders. Communications products are of variable quality. Limited range of communication products. Limited reach. Role of NRTEE is still vague. Occasional media coverage. Few requests for publications. |
Feedback re communications products is generally positive. Good mix of communication products. Target audiences are well defined. Size of audience is increasing. Strong use of website. Some media coverage. Moderate number of requests for publications. |
Broad range of communications products. Perceived to be of high quality. Communications reach broad range of target audiences. High demand for publications. High visibility with stakeholders. Frequent media coverage); generally positive. High number of hits on NRTEE website. |
NRTEE has been cited for its communications products. A lot of positive feedback from external stakeholders. NRTEE is seen as the leading national resource centre in sustainable development. |
|
Increased awareness and understanding by federal decision makers of NRTEE advice on selected issues |
Little or no knowledge of sustainable development issues addressed by NRTEE. NRTEE is not well known by federal decision makers. |
Limited awareness among federal decision makers. Low level of participation and interest in sustainable development within their departments. NRTEE is rarely called up for advice and support. |
Awareness of sustainable development is increasing in departments and is reflected in program activities. Positive feedback from decision makers re NRTEE events. |
Sustainable development is considered in all program decisions. Decision makers have high level of awareness of challenges and potential solutions. NRTEE has helped increase understanding of issues. |
Departments have comprehensive sustainable development programs in place. Departments are devoting significant resources to sustainable development. Major contribution to public policy. |
© 2013