Audit of Integrated Planning
Audit Report, December 2024

• 1. Executive Summary
  • 1.1 Background
  • 1.2 Why this is important
  • 1.3 Objective and scope
  • 1.4 Overall audit opinion
  • 1.5 Key audit findings
  • 1.6 Statement of conformance
• 2. Detailed report
  • 2.1 Background
  • 2.2 Significance of the audit
  • 2.3 Audit objective and scope
  • 2.4 Audit criteria and methodology
  • 2.5 Findings and recommendations
  • 2.6 Conclusion
  • 2.7 Management response to recommendations
• Appendix A: Integrated planning at CIHR
• Appendix B: Relevant audit criteria

Contents

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Background

Integrated planning (IP) is an approach that aligns key elements from an organization's operational, financial, and human resource plans with its strategic goals. Through this alignment, IP ensures that key functions and stakeholders within the organization work together towards a shared set of priorities, efficiently using resources and adapting to changes in the business environment.

In 2021, CIHR launched the 2021-2031 Strategic Plan: A Vision for a Healthier Future, which included five key priorities along with a commitment to organizational excellence. Recognizing the need to provide comprehensive and coordinated support for the implementation of the Strategic Plan, CIHR established the IP Unit, a group within the Planning, Evaluation, and Results (PER) Branch.

1.2 Why this is important

An audit of Integrated Planning (IP) is identified as a priority in CIHR's 2024-25 Risk-Based Audit Plan (RBAP) for three key reasons:

• At the time of the audit, the IP process was in its fourth year of implementation but had not yet undergone a review.
• Planning has been identified as a top risk area in CIHR's most recent Corporate Risk Profile.
• Good planning is essential for the efficient and effective allocation of human and financial resources, enabling senior management to achieve their objectives and meet the mandate of the agency.

1.3 Objective and Scope

The objective of this audit is to provide independent assurance that CIHR's IP process is adequately designed and implemented as intended. The scope of this audit includes:

• Efficiency (design) and effectiveness (implementation) of the IP process; and,
• Oversight and leadership.

The audit covers fiscal years 2023-24 (Year 3 of the Strategic Plan) and 2024-25 (Year 4 of the Strategic Plan, in progress at the time of this audit), with additional information scoped in as needed to address the key areas above.

1.4 Overall Audit Opinion

CIHR's initial efforts to develop an IP process, though commendable given the absence of central agency directives, have not fully met their intended goals. Despite a strong commitment to building a robust framework, design challenges hindered effective implementation, leading to problems with utility. Contributing factors include oversight challenges and frequent changes in operational leadership. The audit also recognizes that the design and implementation of the process occurred during a challenging period, as CIHR was managing pandemic-related pressures and organizational changes, making it difficult to prioritize IP.

Looking ahead, it is advised that management redesign its IP approach with a focus on practicality and "return on investment", considering its current needs, the implications from Budget 2024, and expected reductions across government in the years ahead. The new approach should be "fit for purpose", shifting from a point-in-time process to one that adapts to changing priorities and the need to reallocate resources throughout the year.

1.5 Key Audit Findings

CIHR has embarked on a significant initiative in developing its first IP process. This effort is particularly noteworthy because, within the Government of Canada, IP is not a mandatory practice and lacks direct support from a center of excellence, standardized framework, or specific policy or directive. The absence of clear and up-to-date direction presents a considerable challenge, as it requires organizations to navigate the complexities of IP with limited support. As such, ensuring that IP operates well is inherently difficult.

After four years of implementation, CIHR is now at a juncture. The findings and recommendations from this audit offer senior management an opportunity to reflect on the relevance and effectiveness of IP within the agency.

Finding 1) Management's specific needs for IP are not defined.

• While the agency has the appropriate high-level objectives in place, key elements are missing to enable the operationalization of these objectives in a manner that would support effective IP.

Finding 2) IP is administratively burdensome and resource intensive.

• The current IP process is heavy, requiring significant time and resource commitment to consult with various stakeholders, complete the templates and review the information with appropriate parties. Additionally, the process collects a large volume of data, much of which is not used for priority setting or resource allocation.

Finding 3) IP lacks sufficient integration and is not used to set priorities or allocate resources throughout the year.

• CIHR's IP has limited integration with financial planning. The agency took a step forward in 2023-24 by launching the annual financial and operational planning exercises at the same time. While this led to better coordinated efforts, IP and financial planning continue to operate as separate exercises with distinct objectives. Similarly, IP has limited integration with any planning that occurs within the HR function.
• IP is not used to set priorities or allocate or reallocate resources throughout the year. The current IP process provides a point-in-time view of planned activities across the agency at the beginning of the fiscal year. However, when significant new initiatives arise during the year that affect these activities, there is not a clear pathway for decision-making in place that relies upon IP information.

Finding 4) Effective IP is hampered by limited oversight and frequent changes in operational leadership.

• Formal oversight is lacking to ensure that the IP process is aligned with management's needs and achieving its objectives. Furthermore, frequent changes in leadership at the operational level have made it difficult for any one person to own the IP process and course correct.

Management's response to the audit findings and recommendations can be found in Section 2.7.

1.6 Statement of Conformance

The Audit of Integrated Planning conforms with the Policy on Internal Audit as supported by the results of the quality assurance and improvement program.

The Office of Internal Audit (OIA) thanks management and staff for their assistance and cooperation throughout the audit.

John-Patrick Moore
Chief Audit Executive, Office of Internal Audit
Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Tammy Clifford
Acting President
Canadian Institutes of Health Research

2. Detailed Report

What is Integrated Planning?

Integrated planning (IP) is an approach that aligns key elements from an organization's operational, financial, and human resource plans with its strategic goals. Through this alignment, IP ensures that key functions and stakeholders within the organization work together towards a shared set of priorities, efficiently using resources and adapting to changes in the business environment. For IP to be successful, it must include relevant, timely, and accurate information for decision making; risk management; performance measurement and monitoring; and regular reporting to senior management. When done well, IP improves decision making by focusing stakeholders on key priorities, directing resources to where they are needed most, and increasing transparency and accountability by clearly demonstrating how resources contribute to organizational goals ^{Footnote 1}.

2.1 Background

In February 2021, CIHR launched the 2021-2031 Strategic Plan: A Vision for a Healthier Future, which included five key priorities along with a commitment to organizational excellence. Recognizing the need to better support the implementation and delivery of the Strategic Plan, the President approved the creation of the Integrated Planning and Results Branch (now known as Planning, Evaluation and Results – PER) in December 2020. This new branch was established to facilitate a shift to a fully integrated approach to planning and to support a coordinated, whole-of-agency approach to decision making. Within PER, the new IP Unit was created, its work dedicated to primarily supporting the strategic plan. The Unit was also charged with supporting priority setting and resource allocation more broadly across the agency. As part of their work, the IP Unit was to build upon efforts that had already begun within the agency to enable activity-based and "bottom-up" budgeting and planning. For information on CIHR's IP process, see Appendix A. Since 2021, the agency has been actively working to improve its IP process by applying lessons learned each year.

The establishment of the IP Unit occurred during a particularly challenging period for the agency, marked by shifting priorities, new initiatives, and significant management changes. For example:

• At the time of the IP Unit's inception, CIHR was still operating under its Business Continuity Plan (BCP) due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout 2021, like many other government entities, the agency focused on supporting the government-wide pandemic response while gradually resuming activities that had been paused under the BCP.
• In March 2022, CIHR reorganized its business with the creation of the new Learning Health Systems Portfolio. Within this portfolio, CIHR saw the creation of several new branches, expanding CIHR's reach within the research ecosystem. This reorganization, along with others, led to leadership transitions at the Director General and Vice-President levels across the organization.  Within the Government and External Relations Portfolio, which houses the PER Branch, a new Associate Vice-President accountable for IP was appointed in April 2022.
• In July 2023, the president who approved the creation of the function and was instrumental in promoting and sustaining the agency's approach to IP left the agency. CIHR has been under interim leadership since.

These significant organizational changes placed considerable demands on senior management, making it challenging to maintain a consistent focus on IP.

2.2 Significance of the audit

An audit of IP is identified as a priority in CIHR's 2024-25 Risk-Based Audit Plan (RBAP) for three key reasons:

• At the time of the audit, the IP process was in its fourth year of implementation but had not yet undergone a review.
• Planning is identified as a top risk area in CIHR's most recent Corporate Risk Profile.
• Good planning is essential for the efficient and effective allocation of human and financial resources, enabling senior management to achieve their objectives and meet the mandate of the agency.

2.3 Audit Objective and Scope

The objective of this audit is to provide independent assurance that the IP process is adequately designed and implemented as intended. The scope of this audit includes:

• Efficiency (design) and effectiveness (implementation) of the IP process;
• Oversight and leadership.

The audit covers fiscal years 2023-24 (Year 3 of the Strategic Plan) and 2024-25 (Year 4 of the Strategic Plan, in progress at the time of this audit), with additional information scoped in as needed to address the key areas above.

2.4 Audit Criteria and Methodology

Audit criteria are based on a risk assessment. The sources of criteria include:

• Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) Core Management Controls – A Guide for Internal Auditors;
• The TBS Integrated planning handbook for deputy ministers and senior managers; and,
• Report of the Expert Panel on Integrated Business and HR Planning in the Federal Public Service.

Please refer to Appendix B for the detailed audit criteria. The criteria guide the audit fieldwork and form the basis for the overall audit conclusions.

Three methods have been used to collect and assess the evidence against the audit criteria:

• Documentation review (e.g., flowcharts, policies, guidelines, processes and procedures, committee minutes and materials, communications, financial information, etc.);
• Benchmarking with five federal public service organizations;
• Consultation with 19 key stakeholders involved in the process: Vice-Presidents (VPs), Associate Vice-Presidents (AVPs), Governing Council^{Footnote 2} (GC) members, Senior Leadership Committee^{Footnote 3} (SLC) members, Senior Operations Committee^{Footnote 4} (SOC) members, Priority Steering Committee^{Footnote 5} (PSC) members, Directors General (DGs), Deputy Directors (DDs), and members of the PER Branch.

2.5 Findings and Recommendations

CIHR has embarked on a significant initiative in developing its first IP process. This effort is particularly noteworthy because, within the Government of Canada, IP is not a mandatory practice and lacks direct support from a center of excellence, standardized framework, or specific policy or directive. The absence of clear and up-to-date direction presents a considerable challenge, as it requires organizations to navigate the complexities of IP with limited support. As such, ensuring that IP operates well is inherently difficult.

After four years of implementation, CIHR is now at a juncture. The findings and recommendations from this audit offer senior management an opportunity to reflect on the relevance and effectiveness of IP within the agency to date. Looking ahead, it will be important for management to optimize its planning efforts in light of Budget 2024 and potential reductions signalled by government in the coming years.

Efficiency – Design of the IP Process

Expectation: IP is designed to:

• Establish organizational priorities and set targets/goals;
• Make timely decisions to align human and financial resources (allocation and reallocation) with organizational priorities and targets;
• Adjust organizational priorities and reallocate resources (during the year); and
• Communicate priorities and targets/goals to ensure alignment of branch activities/plans

Finding 1) Management's specific needs for IP are not defined. Urgency: Moderate

In early 2021, CIHR formed a new branch which included a function dedicated specifically to IP. Documentation from the time of inception showed that the broad objectives of IP were initially to set annual organizational priorities and support the allocation of resources to priorities. The objectives of IP were then formalized in what is known as the "roadmap". The roadmap serves as a foundational document and is accompanied by supporting materials, such as a briefing note and presentation, which explain the design of the IP process and timelines for CIHR's annual planning. Additionally, the roadmap is supported by a flow chart that outlines the operational steps taken each year to implement the process and develop a mature IP model.

Although the agency has established appropriate high-level objectives, the audit found that key elements are missing to enable the operationalization of these objectives in a manner that would support effective IP. These elements include:

1. Identification of Primary Client: The agency has not specified whether IP results and deliverables are intended for a specific individual or a committee. The involvement of a dedicated client or office of primary interest is important because it helps in setting clear objectives and identifying the key components needed for success. By working directly with this client, the agency can create a process tailored to their specific needs and requirements. Without a defined client, the audit found that IP products are sometimes distributed to various committees (for information or discussion) without a specific purpose or clear intended outcome.
2. Decisions: The agency has not specified the types of decisions the IP process intends to support. Examples of decisions that IP could support (that are not currently articulated) include identifying, triaging and reshuffling priorities throughout the year; establishing timelines and milestones; determining whether to initiate, speed up or halt specific work; determining whether to fund/de-fund specific activities; and managing risk.
3. Information Requirements: Without a clear understanding of which decisions IP is intended to support, the type, level and format of information needed by management remains undefined. Consequently, a substantial amount of data is collected within the process, but not used by management to make decisions (see Finding 3).

Impact
Insufficient time and effort spent on the design of a process diminishes the likelihood that it can be implemented in a manner that achieves the intended results.

Recommendation

1. Management should update its IP approach to:
   • Identify the primary client that the process is intended to serve;
   • Define the types of decisions that the process is intended to support throughout the year;
   • Identify the type and level of information required to address management's needs. Information requirements should consider key financial and HR data inputs.

Efficiency – Administration and Resources

Expectation: IP is designed to minimize administrative burden and ensure an efficient use of organizational resources.

Finding 2) IP is administratively burdensome and resource intensive. Urgency: Low

In 2008, the Clerk of the Privy Council convened a panel of experienced external and internal executives to review integrated business and human resources plans (prepared by departments and agencies) and identify best practices. The panel's report emphasized that "The requirement for simplicity cannot be overstated. Piling on controls, templates, processes, and tools will not yield clarity."   In other words, IP is intended to be agile, tailored to the unique needs of the organization, and only as complex as required to achieve its objectives.

Administrative burden
The audit found that CIHR's IP process is heavy, taking about eight months from its annual launch to the completion of the cycle, which includes publishing the Strategic Plan progress report and the following year's action plan. It involves multiple steps and points of intersection across the agency. DGs are required to consult with various stakeholders – such as other DGs, AVPs, Institutes, and Priority Steering Committees – and complete numerous templates. DGs are also expected to review and vet information through appropriate reporting lines. This process requires a significant time and resource commitment, putting pressure on the agency's limited capacity.

The audit also found that much of the heaviness of the IP process comes from the large volume of data collected during the IP process, much of which is not used for priority setting or resource allocation at either the organizational or branch levels. In 2023-24, data on 308 activities across 26 branches and offices were collected, mostly involving daily operations. However, 59% of this data was neither synthesized nor reported to senior management for decision-making. Additionally, many DGs report preferring to use their own planning tools and data for branch planning rather than leveraging what is provided as part of the IP process.

Investment in IP
Expenditures
Over the years, the agency has made a considerable investment in IP ($901K in FY 2023-24) relative to its small operating budget ($79.9M in FY 2023-24). Furthermore, this investment has grown, increasing by 22% between 2021-22 and 2023-24, due largely to growth in salary and to a lesser extent growth in non-salary expenditures.

Size of the function

As part of the audit, benchmarking was conducted to determine if the agency's level of resourcing in the IP Unit is in line with similar agencies and other organizations. Results show that comparatively, CIHR has a significantly larger planning function. Specifically, when comparing the size of the IP Unit to the planning functions of CIHR's "sister" granting agencies – the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) – CIHR has 25% more planning staff (9 versus 7) than these two agencies combined (see Table 1). Additionally, documentation from the time the Unit was established did not include an analysis or explanation for this level of staffing. Findings suggest that, when compared to other organizations, the agency may be disproportionately allocating resources to IP without a clear justification.

Table 1: Benchmarking Exercise

Impact
Excessive data collection without clear alignment to decision-making can overwhelm management with irrelevant information creating a missed opportunity to have critical decisions informed by the right information. Furthermore, when investments are directed towards activities that do not yield the intended results, limited organizational resources can inadvertently be diverted away from priority work.

Recommendation

2. Building upon Recommendation 1, management should:
   • Simplify the IP process, ensuring the process (including data collection) is only as complex and administratively onerous as needed to achieve the objectives;
   • Assess the level of organizational resourcing required, ensuring the minimum level is used to achieve IP objectives.

Effectiveness – Implementation of the IP Process

Expectation: IP is implemented to effectively:

• Establish organizational priorities and set targets/goals;
• Make timely decisions to align human and financial resources (allocation and reallocation) with organizational priorities and targets;
• Adjust organizational priorities and reallocate resources (during the year); and
• Communicate priorities and targets/goals to ensure alignment of Branch activities/plans

Finding 3) IP lacks sufficient integration and is not used to set priorities or allocate resources throughout the year. Urgency: N/A

Integration
Guidance provided by TBS^{Footnote 1} advocates an approach to organizational planning that integrates planning elements from key functions – namely Human Resources (HR) and Finance – to remove silos and make practical decisions related to common organizational goals.

The audit found that CIHR's IP has limited integration with financial planning. The agency took a step forward in 2023-24 by launching the annual financial and operational planning exercises at the same time. While this led to better coordinated efforts, IP and financial planning continue to operate as separate exercises with distinct objectives. Similarly, IP has limited integration with any planning that occurs within the HR function. Financial and HR inputs are critical to providing management with an organizational-level perspective to help identify priorities and make informed, top-down decisions.

Priority setting and resource allocation throughout the year
The audit found that IP is not used to set priorities or allocate or reallocate resources throughout the year. The current IP process provides a point-in-time view of planned activities across the agency at the beginning of the fiscal year. However, when significant new initiatives arise during the year that affect these activities, there is not a clear pathway for decision-making in place that leverages IP information. The 2023-2025 Corporate Risk Profile identifies this gap as the top risk, noting that the agency lacks a process to evaluate new initiatives and plan for how they will be supported (e.g., funding sources, staffing, accountability, etc.).

IP supports monitoring and reporting on the Strategic Plan
Rather than being used for priority setting and resource allocation, the agency's IP process is primarily used for monitoring and reporting on the CIHR Strategic Plan 2021-2031. The IP Unit gathers data to develop and publish annual action plans, which serve as the main reporting mechanism for both the Governing Council (GC) and the public. This data also supports bi-annual internal reporting to senior management and GC through a dashboard that tracks the status, risks, and issues associated with each priority in the Strategic Plan. Consultations with key stakeholders noted that dashboards are useful in identifying areas of the strategic plan that require attention and discussion. While the value of this work is recognized for tracking and monitoring purposes, it is important to note that the fundamental purpose of IP extends far beyond these activities.

Senior Leadership Retreat
At the end of the 2023-24 fiscal year, financial pressures imposed on the agency necessitated the immediate alignment of resources with a clear set of priorities. To address this requirement, senior management organized a parallel ad hoc planning process, known as the Senior Leadership Retreat.  This ad hoc process consisted of three consecutive meetings, bringing together senior leaders with the appropriate authorities to articulate a common set of priorities for the agency. The process also involved discussions concerning how resources would be distributed and aligned at the portfolio level. After the retreat, priorities were communicated to DGs, allowing DGs to align their branch plans with the broader direction. It is important to note that this work occurred outside the agency's IP process. Furthermore, IP products – such as the consolidated list of branch activities, individual branch plans, Year 3 or 4 Strategic Plan action plans – were not directly used as key inputs to support the retreat. While opportunities for improvement exist, the retreat offered a new approach to planning, one that is focused, rapid and unencumbered by heavy process or excessive information.

Impact
The lack of a well-established IP process that enables management to align resources with priorities throughout the year can result in the generation of unrealistic or incompatible priorities. Furthermore, decisions made without a full understanding of the agency's human resource and financial realities can lead to resource misallocation, unexpected budgetary challenges, and increased operational pressures.

Recommendation

Deficiencies in the design of the IP process (Findings 1 and 2) hampered effective implementation (Finding 3). In addressing the audit's design-related recommendations, IP will be enabled to work more effectively and is more likely to deliver the expected results. No additional recommendations.

Governance – Oversight and leadership

Expectation:
Oversight exists to:

• Monitor, review and evaluate key management processes such as IP, ensuring processes are effectively designed and implemented, and risks are mitigated;
• Ensure management is held accountable for the successful design and implementation of key management processes.

Leadership exists to:

• Implement, actively manage and direct activities, ensuring management processes such as IP align with senior management's vision.

Finding 4) Effective IP is hampered by limited oversight and frequent changes in operational leadership. Urgency: Moderate

Committee-level Oversight
The audit found that IP lacks formal oversight at the senior committee level. A review of the Terms of Reference for SLC, SOC, and GC shows that none of these committees are explicitly assigned an oversight role to help ensure the successful implementation of IP. As a result, no single committee oversees the process to ensure it aligns with management's objectives and challenges are addressed in a timely manner. This lack of oversight is also evident in committee meeting minutes. For example, during the audit period, SLC rarely discussed concerns about the efficiency, cost, or effectiveness of IP. Moreover, recommendations for improving its design or execution are infrequent, even though the proposed IP approach is presented to SLC annually for review before its launch.

Leadership
Single point of accountability
The audit found that accountability for IP is clear. A review of job descriptions shows that accountability for the design and delivery of CIHR's corporate strategic planning and reporting is assigned to the role of Associate Vice-President, Government and External Relations (AVP-GER).

Leadership at the operational level
Under the accountable Associate Vice-President (AVP), the Director General of Planning, Evaluation and Results (DG-PER) is responsible for implementing and maintaining an effective IP process. The audit found frequent leadership changes at this level. Although an indeterminate DG had been in place since 2021, from April 2023 through July 2024, the DG role rotated between four individuals over eight separate acting appointments. Additionally, none of those acting in the DG role were initially hired by CIHR for their organizational planning expertise. Rather, these actors came from other areas within the organization such as Research Programs^{Footnote 6}, suggesting that direct and specific experience with planning at the entity level may have been limited within the Branch.

Current Work to Improve Governance
The audit noted that management has been actively working to improve governance across key areas through a governance renewal initiative in recent years. This initiative aims to enhance overall governance structures, bolstering oversight and accountability. However, the progress of this work has been frequently interrupted and reprioritized due to several external and internal challenges, including the pandemic, major organizational restructuring, and frequent changes in leadership. These disruptions have necessitated shifts in focus, impacting the pace of management's efforts. Most recently, a revised internal management governance structure was developed, but implementation has been deferred until the arrival of a new president. Despite these challenges, the initiative remains a critical component of the agency's commitment to organizational excellence in its Strategic Plan. Once fully implemented, it is anticipated that this work will support strengthening oversight, leadership and accountability within essential corporate areas, such as IP.

Impacts
Oversight – Without formal oversight, longstanding concerns with IP have not been adequately addressed (e.g., utility of the IP process and the administrative burden). The IP process has continued to roll out across the agency year after year with little documented scrutiny. As a result, inefficiencies persist, and the process remains misaligned with the needs of management.

Leadership – Without stability in leadership at the operational level, it is difficult for any one leader to own the IP process, ensure the work is aligned with management's needs, and establish a new direction for IP, if required.

Recommendation

3. Building upon Recommendation 1, management should:
   • Establish the appropriate level of oversight to ensure IP is designed and implemented effectively;
   • Ensure IP is supported at the operational level by a single leader with the relevant experience to design and implement an effective approach.

2.6 Conclusion

CIHR's effort to develop its first IP process is a significant step forward to improving organizational planning. Although the initial bottom-up approach has not yielded the desired outcomes, valuable lessons have been learned that will enhance future planning efforts. The audit recommendations in this report aim to encourage continuous improvement, stressing the importance of effective planning as government departments and agencies anticipate resource reductions in the years ahead. By adopting a flexible and streamlined planning approach, grounded in clear objectives and decision points, CIHR can remain focused on its priorities, stay responsive to emerging needs, and align its limited resources with its strategy and mandate.

2.7 Management Response to Recommendations

It is good practice that all recommendations be cleared within an 18-month window of the approval of an audit report. To that end, the OIA uses a color-coded system to assist management with the prioritization of remedial actions.

The color-coding, outlined below, takes into consideration the urgency with which recommendations should be addressed, the complexity of the recommendation and/or the underlying issues or causes for concern, and the level of risk to which the Agency is exposed as a result of the issue identified.

Appendix A: Integrated planning at CIHR

Integrated planning at CIHR is led by the IP Unit within PER. According to the IP Unit's Intranet page, the Unit directly supports the implementation of the Agency's Strategic Plan, and is responsible for the following:

• Develop and implement an IP process that links strategic, operational, and resource planning processes;
• Support the Agency in the identification, cross-functional assessment, and prioritization of annual strategic commitments and operational activities;
• Oversee the development of Annual Strategic Plan Action Plans;
• Support monitoring and reporting on Strategic Plan progress, risks, issues, and results (including performance measurement); and,
• Support Priority Steering Committees in their role as an advisory body responsible for monitoring the implementation approach of their Priority.

The annual IP process at CIHR (as seen in the diagram below) spans the year as follows:

• October to December (Q3) – review and update of the Strategic Plan Action Plan for the next fiscal year. Strategic Plan mid-year reporting for current year disseminated to stakeholders.
• January to March (Q4) – operational planning occurs for next year, Strategic Plan year-end reporting for current year is prepared.
• April to June (Q1) – Strategic Plan Action Plan for current year is published, Strategic Plan year-end reporting for previous year is disseminated.
• July to September (Q2) – key improvements to planning validated, Strategic Plan mid-year reporting for current year is prepared.

Diagram 1: CIHR's Annual Integrated Planning, Monitoring, and Reporting Cycle

Appendix B: Relevant Audit Criteria

The criteria used for assessing the audit objectives were informed by the following sources:

• Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) Core Management Controls – A Guide for Internal Auditors;
• The TBS Integrated planning handbook for deputy ministers and senior managers; and,
• Report of the Expert Panel on Integrated Business and HR Planning in the Federal Public Service.

The following are the key criteria used for the audit report. They have been simplified for reporting purposes.

Note 1: Audit work was completed against this criterion. However, once the audit had identified that key elements were missing from the design of IP, it was determined that including the findings for this criterion would not add further value to the report.

Date modified:

2025-03-07