User Guide

December 2009

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Background
3.0 Objective
4.0 Survey content
5.0 Sample design
6.0 Data collection
7.0 Data processing
8.0 Weighting
9.0 Data quality
10.0 Guidelinges for tabulation, analysis and release
11.0 File usage

1.0 Introduction

The Survey on Living with Chronic Diseases in Canada (SLCDC) is a cross-sectional survey sponsored by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) that collects information related to the experiences of Canadians with chronic health conditions. The SLCDC will take place every two years, with two chronic diseases covered in each survey cycle. The 2009 survey focused on arthritis and hypertension.

There are two questionnaires for this survey-one questionnaire for arthritis and one questionnaire for hypertension. The SLCDC asked respondents about a number of issues related to chronic health conditions, including diagnosis of a chronic health condition, care received from health professionals, medication use and self-management of their condition.

The target population for this survey is Canadians aged 20 years or older who have been diagnosed with arthritis or hypertension living in private dwellings in the ten provinces. Residents of the three territories, persons living on Indian Reserves, residents of institutions, and full-time members of the Canadian Armed Forces are excluded from this survey. Data collection for the SLCDC took place in February and March 2009.

The purpose of this document is to facilitate the manipulation of the SLCDC data file and to describe the methodology used.

Any questions about the data set or its use should be directed to:

For custom tabulations or general data support:Client Custom Services, Health Statistics Division: 613–951–1746
E–mail: hd-ds@statcan.gc.ca

2.0 Background

The central objective of the Survey on Living with Chronic Diseases in Canada (SLCDC) is to gather information related to the experiences of persons living with chronic diseases, including diagnosis of a chronic health condition, care received from health professionals, medication use and self-management of their condition. The survey was sponsored by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The SLCDC is a cross-sectional survey and was a follow-up to the 2008 Canadian Community Health Survey.

3.0 Objective

The purpose of the SLCDC is to provide information on the impact of chronic disease on individuals, as well as how people with chronic disease manage their health condition. More specifically, the survey had the following objectives:

• To assess the impact of chronic health conditions on quality of life
• To provide more information on how people manage their chronic health conditions
• To identify health behaviors which influence disease outcomes
• To identify barriers to self-management of chronic health conditions

4.0 Survey content

This section provides a general discussion of the consultation process used in survey content development and gives a summary of the final content selected for inclusion in the SLCDC.

The SLCDC content was developed based on an ongoing consultation process between the Health Statistics Division at Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), with significant input from members of expert advisory groups in the areas of arthritis and hypertension. Content selection was based on objectives and data requirements specified by PHAC. Members of the PHAC project team were consulted on a regular basis throughout development and testing of the SLCDC questionnaires. The end result of the consultation process was two SLCDC questionnaires: (1) an arthritis-specific questionnaire and (2) a hypertension-specific questionnaire.

A summary describing each of the modules on the arthritis and hypertension questionnaires is provided in Section 4.2.

4.1 Qualitative testing

As previously stated, the 2009 SLCDC consisted of two different questionnaires; an arthritis questionnaire and a hypertension questionnaire. The questionnaires were developed by Statistics Canada, in collaboration with PHAC. Hypertension and arthritis expert groups were also consulted during content development. The questionnaires were translated by the Official Languages and Translation Division of Statistics Canada. Both questionnaires (in English and French) were tested by Statistics Canada´s Questionnaire Design and Review Centre (QDRC) using one-on-one interviews.

Qualitative testing was conducted to assess the content and flow of the SLCDC questionnaires. The questionnaires were administered face-to-face with respondents. The one-on-one interviews explored the four steps in the cognitive process of responding to the questionnaire: understanding the question and response categories, recalling/searching for the requested information, thinking about the answer and making a judgment about what to report, and reporting the answer.

English testing was conducted in May 2008 in Ottawa, Ontario, followed by French testing in June 2008 in Montreal, Quebec. The frame used to select respondents for the interviews was the 2007 and 2008 CCHS. A total of 32 participants took part in the testing, representing a cross-section of persons who reported having either arthritis or hypertension diagnosed by a doctor or other health professional, or who had reported experiencing symptoms of arthritis (joint pain or stiffness) in their CCHS interview. All qualitative interviews were conducted by trained interviewers from QDRC and observed by members of the SLCDC project team, including personnel from STC´s Health Statistics Division and PHAC. Some of the key findings from the qualitative testing are discussed below.

Key findings from the arthritis questionnaire:

In general, the questions seemed to work well for participants with either arthritis or joint symptoms. However, for some participants, especially those with very minor symptoms, some of the questions did not seem applicable because symptoms were not severe enough to cause any problems. It was suggested that a lot of the questions were geared to people with more severe symptoms. A few participants felt that their condition was not serious enough to be included in the target population of the survey, however, these individuals were still able to answer most questions and said the survey was probably relevant.

Following qualitative testing, a decision was made to include only individuals who had received a diagnosis of arthritis from a health professional in the SLCDC target population. Individuals with joint symptoms but no diagnosis of arthritis would be excluded from the target population.

Key findings from the hypertension questionnaire:

Overall, participants reported the hypertension questionnaire to be straightforward and easy to answer. In general, respondents did not find the questions to be overly sensitive, with the exception of some of the questions related to self-management (for example, losing weight, cutting down on alcohol intake, etc.). Some respondents also had difficulty recalling their diastolic and systolic blood pressure measurements the last time their blood pressure was measured by a health professional.

Following qualitative testing, questions were modified to reduce the impact of sensitive topics, for example, weight loss, alcohol use, and smoking, and to address instances where certain questions were not applicable for some respondents. To assist respondents in reporting their systolic and diastolic measurements, ranges were included as a response category option, in addition to allowing respondents to report their blood pressure measurement in exact values.

4.2 Final questionnaire content

This section outlines the modules comprising the content of the SLCDC arthritis and hypertension questionnaires. The arthritis questionnaire was made up of 13 modules, and the hypertension questionnaire of 10 modules.

5.0 Sample Design

5.1 Target population

The 2009 Survey on Living with Chronic Disease in Canada (SLCDC) targets Canadians who have arthritis or hypertension diagnosed by a health professional, aged 20 years or older, living in private dwellings in the ten provinces. Residents of the three territories, persons living on Indian Reserves or Crown lands, in institutions, full-time members of the Canadian Forces and residents of certain regions are excluded from this survey. These exclusions represent 2% of the overall Canadian population.

5.2 Domains of interest

The SLCDC is designed to produce reliable estimates at the national level by age group and sex. The targeted age groups are 20 to 44 years old, 45 to 64 years old, 65 to 74 years old and 75 years old and older.

5.3 Sampling frame

The SLCDC used the 2008 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) to select its sample. The SLCDC is built under a two-phase design where the first phase is the CCHS sample and the second phase, the SLCDC sample.

The CCHS sample (first-phase) is selected from multiple frames. The first frame is an area frame designed for the Canadian Labour Force Survey (LFS). The second is a list frame of telephone numbers. About half of the CCHS sample is selected from the area frame and the other half is selected from the list frame. For more detailed information on the CCHS sampling process, refer to the 2008 CCHS User Guide.

The SLCDC sample was selected from respondents to the 2008 CCHS who were aged 20 years or older as of December 2008 and who reported having been diagnosed by a health professional with arthritis or hypertension. Note that the CCHS respondents who reported only being diagnosed with high blood pressure during pregnancy were excluded from the hypertension sample.

5.4 Sample size and allocation

In order to produce reliable estimates at the national level by age group and sex, a stratification of CCHS respondents by age group and sex was performed based on the age groups of interest: 20 to 44 years old (20 to 44), 45 to 64 years old (45 to 64), 65 to 74 years old (65 to 74) and 75 years and older (75+) for each of the chronic conditions. Therefore, the CCHS respondents were classified into eight categories four age groups and two sex groups (female and male).

An overall sample of 7,062 persons for arthritis and 9,055 for hypertension were selected from 13,549 and 17,437 CCHS respondents respectively. The sample was inflated by 1.4 to take into account the out-of-scope rate (for example, respondents who were deceased or moved outside Canada) estimated at 10% and the non-response rate estimated at 20%. The distribution of the first phase sample and the SLCDC sample by stratum is given in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 for each chronic disease.

To reduce response burden, it was decided that all sampled respondents could receive only one questionnaire, either the hypertension questionnaire or the arthritis questionnaire. For people having the two conditions, they were split in two groups: one group assigned to the hypertension questionnaire and the other group to the arthritis questionnaire. The sample allocation by questionnaire was done proportionally to the size of the number of 2008 CCHS respondents for each condition.

The sample for each chronic condition was selected using systematic sampling after the units were sorted by province, CCHS collection period and age. Exclusions were performed before the sample selection. Units were excluded if they did not have sufficient information to conduct the survey, such as missing telephone numbers on the CCHS, or to perform analysis, such as not agreeing to share or link the CCHS data. These exclusions represented 18% of the first phase sample and were taken into account at the estimation stage since they are part of the population of interest.

6.0 Data collection

Collection for the SLCDC took place in February and March 2009. Over the collection period, a total of 10,707 valid interviews were conducted using computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI).

6.1 Computer-assisted interviewing

Computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) offers two main advantages over other collection methods. First, CAI offers a case management system and data transmission functionality. This case management system automatically records important management information for each attempt on a case and provides reports for the management of the collection process. CAI also provides an automated call scheduler, i.e. a central system to optimize the timing of call-backs and the scheduling of appointments used to support CATI collection.

The case management system routes the questionnaire applications and sample files from Statistics Canada´s main office to regional collection offices (in the case of CATI). Data returning to the main office take the reverse route. To ensure confidentiality, the data are encrypted before transmission. The data are then unencrypted when they are on a separate secure computer with no remote access.

Second, CAI allows for custom interviews for every respondent based on their individual characteristics and survey responses. This includes:

• Questions that are not applicable to the respondent are skipped automatically.
• Edits to check for inconsistent answers or out-of-range responses are applied automatically and on-screen prompts are shown when an invalid entry is recorded. Immediate feedback is given to the respondent and the interviewer is able to correct any inconsistencies.
• Question text, including reference periods and pronouns, is customised automatically based on factors such as the age and sex of the respondent, the date of the interview and answers to previous questions.

6.2 SLCDC application development

For the SLCDC, a CATI application was utilized. The application consisted of entry, survey content, and exit components.

Entry and exit components contain standard sets of questions designed to guide the interviewer through contact initiation, respondent confirmation, tracing (if necessary) and determination of case status. The survey content component consisted of the SLCDC arthritis and hypertension questionnaire modules, which made up the bulk of the application. Testing and development of the CATI application began in September 2008. This consisted of three stages of internal testing: block testing, integrated testing and end-to-end testing.

Block testing consists of independently testing each content module or "block" to ensure skip patterns, logic flows and text, in both official languages, are specified correctly. Skip patterns or logic flows across modules are not tested at this stage as each module is treated as a stand alone questionnaire. Once all blocks are verified by several testers, they are added together along with the entry and exit components into an integrated application. This newly integrated application is then ready for the next stage of testing.

Integrated testing occurs when all of the tested modules are added together, along with the entry and exit components, into an integrated application. This second stage of testing ensures that key information such as age and gender are passed from the sample file to the entry and exit and survey content components of the application. It also ensures that variables affecting skip patterns and logic flows are correctly passed between modules within the survey content component. Since, at this stage, the application essentially functions as it would in the field, all possible scenarios faced by interviewers are simulated to ensure proper functionality. These scenarios test various aspects of the entry and exit components including; establishing contact, confirming that the correct respondent has been found, determining whether a case is in scope and creating appointments.

End-to-end testing occurs when the fully integrated application is placed in a simulated collection environment. The application is loaded onto computers that are connected to a test server. Data are then collected, transmitted and extracted in real time, exactly as would be done in the field. This last stage of testing allows for the testing of all technical aspects of data input, transmission and extraction for the SLCDC application. It also provides a final chance of finding errors within the entry, survey content and exit components.

6.3 Interviewer training

In late January and early February 2009, representatives from Statistics Canada´s Collection Planning and Management Division visited four of the five regional offices participating in the collection of the SLCDC data (Halifax, Sherbrooke, Toronto and Edmonton). The purpose of the visits was to train the regional office project managers and teams of interviewers for the SLCDC arthritis and hypertension surveys. Members of the SLCDC project team from Health Statistics Division also attended the training sessions to present information about the background and development of the SLCDC, and to offer additional support and clarify any questions or concerns that may have arisen. The project manager from the Winnipeg regional office was trained in Edmonton and then trained the Winnipeg interviewers.

The focus of these sessions was to make interviewers comfortable using the SLCDC application and familiarise interviewers with survey content. The training sessions focused on:

• goals and objectives of the survey
• survey methodology
• application functionality
• review of the questionnaire content and exercises
• use of mock interviews to simulate difficult situations and practise potential non-response situations
• survey management

One of the key aspects of the training was a focus on minimizing non-response. Exercises to minimise non-response were prepared for interviewers. The purpose of these exercises was to have the interviewers practice convincing reluctant respondents to participate in the survey.

6.4 The interview

Sample units selected from the frame were interviewed from centralised call centres using the CATI application. The CATI interviewers were supervised by a senior interviewer located in the same call centre.

To ensure the best possible response rate attainable, many practices were used to minimise non-response, including:

Introductory letters

Before the start of the collection period, introductory letters explaining the purpose of the survey were sent to the targeted respondents. Mailing address information was not available for all respondents from the 2008 CCHS. For cases where mailing addresses were not available, an introductory letter was not sent out. The introductory letters explained the importance of the survey and provided examples of how the SLCDC data would be used.

Initiating contact

Interviewers were instructed to make all reasonable attempts to obtain interviews. When the timing of the interviewer´s call was inconvenient, an appointment was made to call back at a more convenient time. Numerous call-backs were made at different times on different days.

When a respondent was no longer available at the phone number provided on the 2008 CCHS, tracing of the respondent was initiated. In order to trace respondents, alternate contacts provided by the respondent on the 2008 CCHS were contacted to obtain the respondent´s new telephone number.

Refusal conversion

For individuals who at first refused to participate in the survey, a letter was sent from the regional office to the respondent, stressing the importance of the survey and the targeted respondent´s participation. This was followed by a second call from a senior interviewer, a project supervisor or another interviewer to try to convince the respondent of the importance of participating in the survey.

Language barriers

To remove language as a barrier to conducting interviews, the regional offices recruit interviewers with a wide range of language competencies. When necessary, cases were transferred to an interviewer with the language competency needed to complete an interview.

Proxy interviews

Proxy interviews were not permitted for the SLCDC.

6.5 Field operations

The SLCDC consisted of one two-month collection period. However, the SLCDC sample was divided into two, with half of the sample starting collection in February and the other half starting collection in March. The regional collection offices were instructed to use the first two weeks of each month to resolve the majority of the sample, with the next two weeks being used to finalize the remaining sample and to follow up on outstanding non-response cases. All cases were to have been attempted by the second week of each month.

Transmission of cases from the regional offices to head office was the responsibility of the regional office project supervisor, senior interviewer and the technical support team. These transmissions were performed nightly and all completed cases were sent to Statistics Canada´s head office.

6.6 Quality control and collection management

During the SLCDC collection period, several methods were used to ensure data quality and to optimize collection. These included using internal measures to verify interviewer performance and the use of a series of ongoing reports to monitor various collection targets and data quality.

CATI interviewers were randomly chosen for validation. Validation during CATI collection consisted of senior interviewers monitoring interviews to ensure proper techniques and procedures (reading the questions as worded in the application, not prompting respondents for answers, etc.) were followed by the interviewers. In addition, members of the survey team from head office visited a number of regional offices to observe collection at various times during the collection period.

A series of reports were produced to effectively track and manage collection targets and to assist in identifying other collection issues. Cumulative reports were generated daily showing response rates, refusal rates and out-of-scope rates. The link and share rates were calculated weekly. Customised reports were also created and used to examine specific data quality issues that arose during collection.

One issue that arose during data collection was a higher than expected out-of-scope rate. It was found that many respondents who indicated that they had hypertension or arthritis on the 2008 CCHS said that this was not the case on the SLCDC. Because of this issue, specific instructions were sent out to the regional offices explaining procedures that should be followed when interviewers encountered an out-of-scope case. In addition, out-of-scope cases from the beginning of the collection period (which did not follow the new out-of-scope procedures) were sent back to the field for follow-up by senior interviewers. Upon follow-up of the out-of-scope cases, these cases were then classified in one of three ways:

• Out-of-scope: these cases included respondents who reported having arthritis or hypertension on the 2008 CCHS, but when called for the SLCDC said that they did not have the condition. Part of this could be due to the wording of the questions on the CCHS and the SLCDC as the SLCDC placed more emphasis on the condition being diagnosed by a health professional. Many respondents reported that they never had the condition diagnosed by a health professional. Rather, they had symptoms and self-diagnosed their condition. Other respondents thought that they had arthritis but actually had a condition which wasn´t arthritis, such as osteoporosis. These respondents were true out-of-scope cases and were not included in the survey.
• In-scope: These cases included respondents who said that they did not have the condition. However, upon follow-up, it was determined that these respondents had been diagnosed with arthritis or hypertension by a health professional but their symptoms were controlled either by medication or life-style modifications. These respondents should not be out-of-scope and attempts were made to interview them.
• Refusals: Some respondents did not want to participate in the survey and said that they did not have the condition in order to be screened out. Attempts were made to determine whether an out-of-scope case was actually a refusal.

The impact of the out-of-scope cases on weighting and data quality will be discussed in Chapters 8 and 9, respectively.

7.0 Data processing

7.1 Editing

Most editing of the data was performed at the time of the interview by the computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) application. It was not possible for interviewers to enter out-of-range values and flow errors were controlled through programmed skip patterns. For example, CAI ensured that questions that did not apply to the respondent were not asked.

In response to some types of inconsistent or unusual reporting, warning messages were invoked but no corrective action was taken at the time of the interview. Where appropriate, edits were instead developed to be performed after data collection at Head Office. Inconsistencies were usually corrected by setting one or both of the variables in question to "not stated".

7.2 Coding

Pre-coded answer categories were supplied for all suitable variables. Interviewers were trained to assign the respondent´s answers to the appropriate category.

In the event that a respondent´s answer could not be easily assigned to an existing category, several questions also allowed the interviewer to enter a long-answer text in the "Other-specify" category. All such questions were closely examined in head office processing. For some of these questions, write-in responses were coded into one of the existing listed categories if the write-in information duplicated a listed category. For all questions, the "Other-specify" responses are taken into account when refining the answer categories for future cycles.

7.3 Creation of derived and grouped variables

To facilitate data analysis and to minimise the risk of error, a number of variables on the file have been derived using items found on the SLCDC questionnaire. Derived variables generally have a "D" or "G" in the fifth character of the variable name. In some cases, the derived variables are straightforward, involving collapsing of response categories. In other cases, several variables have been combined to create a new variable. The Derived Variables Documentation (DV) provides details on how these more complex variables were derived. For more information on the naming convention, please go to Section 11.3.

7.4 Weighting

The principle behind estimation in a probability sample such as the SLCDC is that each person in the sample "represents", besides himself or herself, several other persons not in the sample. For example, in a simple random 2% sample of the population, each person in the sample represents 50 persons in the population.

The weighting phase is a step which calculates, for each record, what this number is. This weight appears on the microdata file, and must be used to derive meaningful estimates from the survey. For example, if the number of individuals who have ever experienced joint symptoms of pain, aching, or stiffness related to their arthritis is to be estimated, this would be done by selecting the records referring to those individuals in the sample with that characteristic and summing the weights entered on those records.

Details of the method used to calculate these weights are presented in Chapter 8.

8.0 Weighting

In order for estimates produced from survey data to be representative of the covered population, and not just the sample itself, users must incorporate the survey weights in their calculations. A survey weight is given to each person included in the final sample, that is, the sample of persons having answered the survey. Each respondent´s weight corresponds to the number of persons in the entire population that are represented by the respondent.

As described in Chapter 5, the SLCDC survey frame is based on respondents to the 2008 CCHS. The starting point for the SLCDC weighting process is therefore the 2008 CCHS share weight. For more information on this weight see the 2008 CCHS User Guide.

8.1 Sample weighting

Table 8.1 presents an overview of the different adjustments that were part of the weighting strategy for the SLCDC, in the order in which they were applied.

8.1.1 Proxy-link-phone adjustment

The first step of the weighting for the SLCDC was to drop those CCHS respondents aged 12 to 19 and those in the Territories since they were not part of the target population. The next step was to adjust for the fact that some people were excluded from the SLCDC even if they were part of the target population mainly for practical reasons. The list of excluded people and the reasons for their exclusion are as follows:

• People with invalid phone numbers were excluded since it is impossible to contact them given that the SLCDC was a telephone survey.
• People who did not agree to share or link their 2008 CCHS information were excluded. This is because the intent of the SLCDC was to link the SLCDC survey responses with the 2008 CCHS. This linked survey file will then be provided to the survey share partners such as the survey sponsor, the Public Health Agency of Canada.
• People for whom their 2008 CCHS interview was done by proxy were excluded since the SLCDC questionnaire could not be answered by proxy.

Since these excluded people were in the population of interest, adjustments were made to allocate their weights to the remaining CCHS respondents. The adjustment process starts with the share weights from the 2008 CCHS. The probability of each sharer in the CCHS to be part of the sampling population was predicted using a logistic regression and auxiliary variables from the CCHS. From the predicted probabilities, response homogeneous groups (RHG) were created.

The adjustment was calculated within each RHG as follow:

The weight wgtCD1 was calculated as wgts3*adjCD1, where wgts3 is the final 2008 CCHS share weight. After the adjustment was calculated, the excluded units were dropped from the file.

8.1.2 SLCDC selection criteria adjustment

In the SLCDC sampling design, CCHS respondents were stratified by age groups and sex (see Chapter 5). In each stratum (age group by sex) a unit could have only one condition (arthritis or hypertension) or both conditions (see Graphic 8.1 below). For response burden purposes, every respondent sampled could receive only one questionnaire, either the hypertension questionnaire or the arthritis questionnaire. That led to a different adjustment for units with only one condition versus for units with both conditions.

Graphic 8.1: Overlap of the two conditions

The adjustment for units with only one condition was calculated within each stratum as follow:

The adjustment for units with both conditions was calculated within each stratum as follow:

The weight for those who received the arthritis questionnaire was calculated as wgtCD2a=wgtCD1*adjCD2a. Similarly, the weight for those who received the hypertension questionnaire was calculated as wgtCD2h=wgtCD1*adjCD2h. After the adjustment was calculated, the non-selected units were dropped from the file.

8.1.3 Out-of-scope in SLCDC adjustment

After collection, the units were classified in two main groups. The first group is the resolved cases formed by the units confirmed through survey contact to be in-scope (i.e. in the target population) or out-of-scope (i.e. not in the target population). All the in-scope units were respondents. The second group was the unresolved units. For the units in the unresolved group, it was not possible to know if they were in our target population (in-scope) or not (out-of-scope) since no follow-up contact was made. Therefore, a logistic model was used to estimate the probability for an unresolved case to be in-scope. The resolved cases were used to determine the logistic model that predicted as well as possible the probability of being in-scope. The model was then applied to the unresolved cases to predict the probability of each unresolved unit to be in scope.

The weight for the unresolved units who received the arthritis questionnaire was calculated as wgtCD3a=wgtCD2a*p_inscope, where p_inscope is the predicted probability of being in scope. Similarly, the weight for unresolved units who received the hypertension questionnaire was calculated as wgtCD3h=wgtCD2h*p_inscope. This adjustment had the effect of reducing the total weight of the unresolved units by the predicted number of out-of-scope units in the population that they represented. After the adjustment was calculated, the resolved out-of-scope units were dropped from the file.

8.1.4 Non-response in SLCDC adjustment

Note that all the unresolved cases are now considered as non-respondents since their weights have been adjusted for out-of-scope and all the resolved cases that remained (in-scope units) are respondents. A logistic model using mainly CCHS auxiliary variables was built to predict the probabilities of being a respondent. From the predicted probabilities, response homogeneous groups (RHGs) were created. To make sure that the non-response adjustment did not change the estimated number of people with a condition at the stratum level or at the regional level, the RHG were created within each stratum by region since these were important domains of interest. Sometimes in order to meet the quality criteria´s (minimum of 20 units by RHG and at least 50% respondent in each RHG) of the RHG creation, RHG from different regions were grouped together. But two RHG from different stratum were not allowed to be grouped together.

The adjustment was calculated within each RHG as follow:

The arthritis weight wgtCD4a was calculated as wgtCD3a*adjCD4a. Similarly, the hypertension weight wgtCD4h was calculated as wgtCD3h*adjCD4h. After the adjustment, the non-responding units were dropped from the file.

8.1.5 Share-link (final) adjustment

Only the information for the people who agreed to share and link their SLCDC data will be released (98% of respondents agreed to share and link). Since the people who did not agree to share or link their information are in the population of interest, adjustments were made to allocate the weights of the non-sharers / non-linkers to the remaining units. The probability of a respondent agreeing to share and link their SLCDC data was predicted using a logistic regression. From the predicted probabilities, response homogeneous groups (RHGs) were created the same way as in 8.1.4.

The adjustment was calculated within each RHG as follow:

The final arthritis weight wgtCD5a for the respondents who received the arthritis questionnaire and agreed to share and link their SLCDC data was calculated as wgtCD4a*adjCD5a. Similarly, the final hypertension weight wgtCD5h was calculated as wgtCD4h*adjCD5h. After the adjustment was calculated, the respondents who did not agree to share or link their 2009 SLCDC data were dropped from the file.

The weights wgtCD5a and wgtCD5h correspond to the final 2009 SLCDC weight that can be found in the arthritis and hypertension data files with the variable name WTSX_S.

8.2 Bootstrap weights

Coordinated bootstrap weights were used for SLCDC because of its dependence on the CCHS 2008 sample. Hence, the starting point for the SLCDC bootstrap weights was the 500 replicates from the 2008 CCHS share bootstrap file. Each bootstrap replicate was adjusted using the five adjustments listed in Table 8.1.

9.0 Data quality

9.1 Out-of-scope cases

As mentioned earlier in the User Guide, a higher than expected number of cases were out-of-scope. While every effort was made to reduce the out-of-scope cases, 17% of the arthritis cases and 13% of hypertension cases were out-of-scope. Reasons for this include:

• Respondents were incorrectly classified as having arthritis on the CCHS. For example, a number of respondents reported that their arthritis had not been diagnosed by a health professional, a requirement to be included in the SLCDC. In addition, some respondents thought that they had arthritis but really did not (i.e. osteoporosis).
• Respondents said that they did not have the condition because they no longer have symptoms.
• Respondents were conditioned from the CCHS to answer no to certain questions knowing that they would then be screened out of the survey (these could be considered refusals).

As a result of the high out-of-scope rate, the total number of people having the condition differs between the CCHS and the SLCDC. The CCHS likely included some respondents who reported having the condition but really do not (false positives). However, the SLCDC likely excluded some respondents who really do have the condition but said that they did not to avoid completing the survey (false negatives). Which survey is used depends on the needs of the data user. The CCHS provides a time series of arthritis and hypertension prevalence rates. In addition, the CCHS data can be used when looking at co-morbidities with other conditions. However, the SLCDC is able to measure detailed information about the quality of life and health behaviours of the arthritis and hypertension population.

9.2 Response rates

A total of 16,117 people were selected to take part in the 2009 SLCDC: 7,062 for the arthritis questionnaire and 9,055 for the hypertension questionnaire.

For the arthritis questionnaire, of the resolved cases (those that could clearly be determined to be in- or out-of scope), 979 cases were no longer in the SLCDC target population (for example, due to death, moving outside of Canada, not having the chronic condition, etc). Of the 5,820 estimated eligible people, 4,565 responded to the survey and agreed to share their data with the share partners and link back to their CCHS responses. This resulted in an overall response rate of 78.4%. The table below contains a summary of the SLCDC response rates by age group and sex for arthritis.

For the hypertension questionnaire, of the resolved cases (those that could clearly be determined to be in- or out-of scope), 903 were no longer in the SLCDC target population. Of the 7,862 estimated eligible people, 6,142 responded to the survey and agreed to share their data with the share partners and link back to their CCHS responses. This resulted in an overall response rate of 78.2%. The table below contains a summary of the SLCDC response rates by age group and sex for hypertension

9.3 Data interpretation

The SLCDC was a follow-up survey that collected additional data from targeted respondents from the 2008 CCHS. Therefore, the CCHS and the SLCDC share the same 2008 survey population. Data that were collected for the SLCDC during February and March 2009 appear on the data files along with data collected from the CCHS during 2008. The data collected by the SLCDC reflect the status of the 2008 survey population for the February and March 2009 reference period, while data collected through the CCHS reflects the same survey population but for the 2008 reference period. Interpretation of estimates from the SLCDC should consider the reference period if it is felt that this would affect the responses from respondents. For example, the proportion of people with arthritis who are taking prescribed medication can be measured at 38.6%. Information on medication use was collected as part of the SLCDC follow-up so this information reflects the 2008 population as of February or March 2009. In a similar analysis, the proportion of people with hypertension who consider themselves as overweight can be measured at 61%. Information on obesity was collected as part of the CCHS so this reflects the 2008 population as of 2008. This slight nuance should only be an issue if it is felt that the collection period would have an effect on the response.

9.4 Survey errors

The estimates derived from this survey are based on a sample of persons. Somewhat different estimates might have been obtained if a complete census had been taken using the same questionnaire, interviewers, supervisors, processing methods, etc. as those actually used in the survey. The difference between the estimates obtained from the sample and those resulting from a complete count taken under similar conditions, is called the sampling error of the estimate.

Errors which are not related to sampling may occur at almost every phase of a survey operation. Interviewers may misunderstand instructions, respondents may make errors in answering questions, the answers may be incorrectly entered on the questionnaire and errors may be introduced in the processing and tabulation of the data. These are all examples of non-sampling errors.

Over a large number of observations, randomly occurring errors will have little effect on estimates derived from the survey. However, errors occurring systematically will contribute to biases in the survey estimates. Considerable time and effort were taken to reduce non-sampling errors in the survey. Quality assurance measures were implemented at each step of the data collection and processing cycle to monitor the quality of the data. These measures include the use of highly skilled interviewers, extensive training of interviewers with respect to the survey procedures and questionnaire, observation of interviewers to detect problems of questionnaire design or misunderstanding of instructions, procedures to ensure that data capture errors were minimized, and coding and edit quality checks to verify the processing logic.

9.4.1 The frame

The 2009 SLCDC was a supplement to the 2008 CCHS, which is based mainly on an area frame and a telephone frame. The coverage of the 2009 SLCDC should then be the same as the CCHS, which is estimated at 98% of the Canadian population. It is unlikely that the under-coverage introduces any significant bias into the survey data.

9.4.2 Non-response

A major source of non-sampling errors in surveys is the effect of non-response on the survey results. The extent of non-response varies from partial non-response (failure to answer just one or some questions) to total non-response. In the case of the 2009 SLCDC, only complete responses were kept for the survey. It has to be mentioned that respondents tended to complete the questionnaire once they started the interview. Total non-response occurred because the interviewer was either unable to contact the respondent, or the respondent refused to participate in the survey. Total non-response was handled by adjusting the weight of individuals who responded to the survey to compensate for those who did not respond.

It is important to note that the SLCDC interview took place between three and 14 months after the 2008 CCHS interviews. During the SLCDC some units were unable to be reached because they moved or changed phone number. For these unresolved cases, an estimated portion of in-scope units and out-of-scope units was derived based on respondents and out-of-scope units resolved. The out-of-scope portion was estimated at 17% for arthritis and 13% for hypertension. This was taken into account at the estimation stage.

See Chapter 8 for more details on weighting adjustments for non-response.

9.4.3 Measurement of sampling error

Since it is an unavoidable fact that estimates from a sample survey are subject to sampling error, sound statistical practice calls for researchers to provide users with some indication of the magnitude of this sampling error. This section of the documentation outlines the measures of sampling error which Statistics Canada commonly uses and which it urges users producing estimates from this microdata file to use also.

The basis for measuring the potential size of sampling errors is the standard error of the estimates derived from survey results. However, because of the large variety of estimates that can be produced from a survey, the standard error of an estimate is usually expressed relative to the estimate to which it pertains. This resulting measure, known as the coefficient of variation (CV) of an estimate, is obtained by dividing the standard error of the estimate by the estimate itself and is expressed as a percentage of the estimate.

For example, suppose that, based on the survey results, 45.1% of Canadians visited a health care professional in the past twelve months for their hypertension or arthritis and this estimate is found to have a standard error of 0.009. Then the coefficient of variation of the estimate is calculated as:

There is more information on the calculation of coefficients of variation in Chapter 10.

10.0 Guidelines for tabulation, analysis and release

This section of the documentation outlines the guidelines to be adhered to by users tabulating, analyzing, publishing or otherwise releasing any data derived from the survey data files. With the aid of these guidelines, users of microdata should be able to produce figures that are in close agreement with those produced by Statistics Canada and, at the same time, will be able to develop currently unpublished figures in a manner consistent with these established guidelines.

10.1 Rounding guidelines

In order that estimates for publication or other release derived from these data files correspond to those produced by Statistics Canada, users are urged to adhere to the following guidelines regarding the rounding of such estimates:

10.2 Sample weighting guidelines for tabulation

The sample design used for this survey was not self-weighting. That is to say, the sampling weights are not identical for all individuals in the sample. When producing simple estimates including the production of ordinary statistical tables, users must apply the proper sampling weight. If proper weights are not used, the estimates derived from the data files cannot be considered to be representative of the survey population, and will not correspond to those produced by Statistics Canada.

Users should also note that some software packages might not allow the generation of estimates that exactly match those available from Statistics Canada because of their treatment of the weight field.

10.2.1 Definitions: categorical estimates, quantitative estimates

Before discussing how the survey data can be tabulated and analyzed, it is useful to describe the two main types of point estimates of population characteristics that can be generated from the data files.

Categorical estimates:

Categorical estimates are estimates of the number or percentage of the surveyed population possessing certain characteristics or falling into some defined category. How often individuals experience joint pain is an example of such an estimate. An estimate of the number of persons possessing a certain characteristic or exhibiting certain behaviours may also be referred to as an estimate of an aggregate.

Example of categorical question:

In the past month, how often have you experienced joint pain? (SSAX_01)
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never

Quantitative estimates:

Quantitative estimates are estimates of totals or of means, medians and other measures of central tendency of quantities based upon some or all of the members of the surveyed population.

An example of a quantitative estimate is the average age at which individuals are first diagnosed with high blood pressure. The numerator is an estimate of the age at which individuals with hypertension were first diagnosed with high blood pressure, and its denominator is an estimate of the number of individuals who have high blood pressure.

Example of quantitative question:

How old were you when you were first diagnosed with high blood pressure?
(CNHX_05)
Age of diagnosis

10.2.2 Tabulation of categorical estimates

Estimates of the number of people with a certain characteristic can be obtained from the data files by summing the final weights of all records possessing the characteristic of interest.

Proportions and ratios of the form are obtained by:

a) summing the final weights of records having the characteristic of interest for the numerator ( );
b) summing the final weights of records having the characteristic of interest for the denominator ( ); then
c) dividing the numerator estimate by the denominator estimate.

10.2.3 Tabulation of quantitative estimates

Estimates of sums or averages for quantitative variables can be obtained using the following three steps (only step a is necessary to obtain the estimate of a sum):

a) multiplying the value of the variable of interest by the final weight and summing this quantity over all records of interest to obtain the numerator ();
b) summing the final weights of records having the characteristic of interest for the denominator (); then
c) dividing the numerator estimate by the denominator estimate.

For example, to obtain the estimate of the average age at which individuals are diagnosed with hypertension, first compute the numerator () by summing the product between the value of variable CNHX_05 and the weight WTSX_S. The denominator () is obtained by summing the final weight of those records with a value of "2" to the variable CONFLAG. Divide () by () to obtain the average age at which individuals are diagnosed with hypertension.

10.3 Guidelines for statistical analysis

The SLCDC is based upon a complex design, with stratification, multiple stages of selection and unequal probabilities of selection of respondents. Using data from such complex surveys presents problems to analysts because the survey design and the selection probabilities affect the estimation and variance calculation procedures that should be used.

While many analysis procedures found in statistical packages allow weights to be used, the meaning or definition of the weight in these procedures can differ from what is appropriate in a sample survey framework, with the result that while in many cases the estimates produced by the packages are correct, the variances that are calculated are almost meaningless.

For many analysis techniques (for example linear regression, logistic regression, analysis of variance), a method exists that can make the application of standard packages more meaningful. If the weights on the records are rescaled so that the average weight is one (1), then the results produced by the standard packages will be more reasonable; they still will not take into account the stratification and clustering of the sample´s design, but they will take into account the unequal probabilities of selection. The rescaling can be accomplished by using in the analysis a weight equal to the original weight divided by the average of the original weights for the sampled units (people) contributing to the estimator in question.

10.4 Release guidelines

Before releasing and/or publishing any estimate from the data file, users must first determine the number of sampled respondents having the characteristic of interest (for example, the number of respondents with arthritis who experience joint pain). If this number is less than 30, the un-weighted estimate should not be released regardless of the value of the coefficient of variation for this estimate. For weighted estimates based on sample sizes of 30 or more, users should determine the coefficient of variation of the rounded estimate and follow the guidelines below.

10.5 Variances and coefficients of variation

The computation of exact coefficients of variation is not a straightforward task since there is no simple mathematical formula that would account for all SLCDC sampling frame and weighting aspects. Therefore, other methods such as re-sampling methods must be used in order to estimate measures of precision. Among these methods, the bootstrap method is the one recommended for analysis of SLCDC data.

The computation of coefficients of variation (or any other measure of precision) with the use of the bootstrap method requires access to information that is considered confidential.

For the computation of coefficients of variation, the bootstrap method is advised. A macro program, called "Bootvar", was developed in order to give users easy access to the bootstrap method. The Bootvar program is available in SAS and SPSS formats, and is made up of macros that calculate the variances of totals, ratios, differences between ratios, and linear and logistic regressions.

Although some standard statistical packages allow sampling weights to be incorporated in the analyses, the variances that are produced often do not take into account the stratified and clustered nature of the design properly, whereas the exact variance program would do so.

11.0 File usage

This section begins by describing the data files and how the data files can be accessed, the weight variable of the data files and an explanation of how it should be used when doing tabulations. This is followed by an explanation of the variable naming convention that is employed by the SLCDC.

11.1 Data file

The SLCDC consists of two different data files: one for arthritis and one for hypertension. Both of these data files have been linked to the 2008 CCHS.

Since the variables from the two surveys are on the same data file, it is important that users are aware of the variables which they are using in their analysis. For example, some demographic variables (age, sex and province of residence) were collected on the CCHS and the SLCDC. Users should therefore be aware which variables they are using in order to ensure consistency in their estimates. More information on how to differentiate the variables from the SLCDC and CCHS are provided in Sections 11.3 and 11.4.

Unlike other CCHS data files, the SLCDC does not have a Master file separate from a Share file. Rather, the SLCDC data file contains only the respondents who agreed to link their SLCDC data to their 2008 CCHS data. Furthermore, only respondents who agreed to share the linked data with the share partners are included on the data file.

The data can be accessed in a number of ways and are described in the next sections.

11.1.1 Share partners

Share partners have access to the data under the terms of the data sharing agreements. These data files only contain information on respondents who agreed to share their data with Statistics Canada´s partners. The share partners for the SLCDC are the Public Health Agency of Canada (the survey sponsor), Health Canada and the provincial health departments. Statistics Canada also asks respondents living in Quebec for their permission to share their data with the Institut de la Statistique du Québec. The share file is released only to these organizations. Personal identifiers are removed from the share files to respect respondent confidentiality. Users of these files must first certify that they will not disclose, at any time, any information that might identify a survey respondent.

11.1.2 Research Data Centres

The Research Data Centre (RDC) Program allows researchers to use the survey data in a secure environment in several universities across Canada. Researchers must submit research proposals that, once approved, give them access to the RDC. For more information, please consult the following web page: RDC.

11.1.3 Custom tabulations

One way to provide access to the data files is to offer users the option of having staff in Client Services of the Health Statistics Division prepare custom tabulations. This service is offered on a cost recovery basis. It allows users who do not possess knowledge of tabulation software products to obtain custom results. The results are screened for confidentiality and reliability concerns before release. For more information, please contact Client Services at 613-951-1746 or by e–mail at fe-hd-ds@statcan.gc.ca.

11.2 Use of weight variable

The weight variable WTSX_S represents the SLCDC sampling weight. For a given respondent, the sampling weight can be interpreted as the number of people the respondent represents in the population. This weight must always be used when computing statistical estimates in order to make inferences at the population level possible. The production of un-weighted estimates is not recommended. The sample allocation, as well as the survey design, can cause such results to not correctly represent the population. Refer to Chapter 8 on weighting for a more detailed explanation on the creation of this weight.

11.3 Variable naming convention

The SLCDC adopted a variable naming convention that allows data users to easily use and identify the data based on module and condition. The variable naming convention follows the mandatory requirement of restricting variable names to a maximum of eight characters for ease of use by analytical software products.

11.3.1 Variable name component structure in SLCDC

Each of the eight characters in a variable name contains information about the type of data contained in the variable.
Positions 1-2: Module reference (e.g. SS – Symptoms and severity, ME – Medication use, AD – Use of assistive devices and HU – Health care utilization)
Position 3: Questionnaire-specific reference (A = Arthritis, H = Hypertension)
Position 4: Reference to the Survey on Living with Chronic Diseases in Canada (X)
Position 5: Variable type (_ – question, D – derived variable)
Positions 6-8: Question number

For example: The variable corresponding to Question 1, Health care utilization module, Hypertension questionnaire, SLCDC (HUHX_01):

Position 1-2: HU Comes from the Health care utilization module
Position 3: H Hypertension questionnaire component
Position 4: X SLCDC
Position 5: _ underscore (_ = collected data)
Position 6-8: 01 question number (& answer option where applicable)

The following values are used for the section name component of the variable name:

The third position of the variable name consists of either an A if the module is on the arthritis questionnaire or an H if the module is on the hypertension questionnaire. A number of modules are on both questionnaires but with different questions for arthritis and hypertension.

11.3.3 Position 4: Cycle and survey name

The X in position four of the variable name indicates that the variable is part of the SLCDC.

11.3.5 Positions 6-8: variable name

In general, the last three positions follow the variable numbering used on the questionnaire. The letter "Q" used to represent the word "question" is removed, and all question numbers are presented in a two-digit format. For example, question Q01A in a questionnaire becomes simply 01A, and question Q15 becomes simply 15.

For questions which allow for more than one response option (also referred to as a "mark-all" question), the final position in the variable naming sequence is represented by a letter. For this type of question, new variables were created to differentiate between a "yes" and "no" answer for each response option. For example, if Q2 had 4 response options, the new questions would be named Q2A for option 1, Q2B for option 2, Q2C for option 3, etc. If only options 2 and 3 were selected, then Q2A = No, Q2B = Yes, Q2C = Yes and Q2D = No.

11.4 Variable name component structure in CCHS

Since the SLCDC data files have been linked to the CCHS, it is important to be able to distinguish between the surveys from which the variables originate. The variable naming convention for the CCHS and SLCDC is very similar. The only exception is that the SLCDC uses an X in the fourth position to indicate that the variable comes from the SLCDC.

The example below shows the age variable from the SLCDC and CCHS:
SLCDC: DHHX_AGE
CCHS: DHH_AGE

Users should therefore be aware which variables they are using in order to ensure consistency in their estimates.

Survey of Innovation and Business Strategy, 2009

CONFIDENTIAL once completed

Si vous préférez ce questionnaire en français veuillez nous appeler au
1-800-461-1662.

Correct as required

Company Name
Establishment Name
First Name
Last Name
Address
City
Province/Territory
Postal Code

Information for respondents

Survey Purpose

Statistics Canada is undertaking this survey to provide useful statistical information on strategic decisions, innovation activities and operational tactics used by Canadian enterprises. The survey also collectsinformation on enterprise involvement in global value chains.

The information compiled by this survey will be used by the Canadian government to better understand the impact of strategy and innovation decisions and the operational adaptations on the Canadian economy, including productivity and competitiveness. This enables the government to develop policies to support industry in their efforts to improve productivity and competitiveness.

Your response is required by law

The Statistics Act, requires businesses and other organizations that receive this questionnaire to answer the questions and return the report to Statistics Canada.

Appreciation

Canada owes the success of its statistical system to a long-standing co-operation involving Statistics Canada, the citizens of Canada, its businesses, governments and other institutions. Accurate and timely statistical information could not be produced without their continued co-operation and goodwill.

Planned record linkage

To increase the analytical potential of this survey, Statistics Canada plans to combine the data obtained from this survey with data from other Statistics Canada surveys or from administrative sources. Statistics Canada may combine the information collected through this survey with information collected from publicly available sources, including websites.

Confidentiality

Statistics Canada is prohibited by law from publishing any statistics which would divulge information obtained from this survey that relates to any identifiable organisation without the previous consent of that organization or as permitted by the Statistics Act. The data provided by this questionnaire will be treated in strict confidence. The confidentiality provisions of the Statistics Act are not affected by either the Access to Information Act or any other legislation.

Who should complete this questionnaire?

The entrepreneur, CEO or a senior manager with thorough knowledge of the enterprise and its strategic vision.

Reporting

Please report amounts in Canadian currency for reference year 2009.

Assistance

If you have any questions or require assistance, please contact us:

Telephone: 1-800-461-1662
Fax: 1-800-787-3161
E-mail: LBTSSturgeon@statcan.gc.ca
Contact Person
Telephone number
First name
Last name
Extension
Position title
Fax number
Web site address
E-mail address

5-5300-542.1: 2009-10-07 STC/SAT-465-75452

Business strategies and monitoring

1. Indicate which of the following long term strategies is the MOST IMPORTANT to your enterprise.

Check only one

1. Main focus on good or service positioning (e.g. product leadership, market segmentation, product diversification, improving quality)
2. Main focus on low-price and cost leadership (e.g. mass market)

2. When was your current long term strategy implemented? Year

3. When do you plan to make major changes to your current long term strategy?

Check only one

1. Never
2. Within one month
3. Within six months
4. Within one year
5. After more than one year

4. In 2009, which performance indicators did your enterprise use to monitor the performance of its LONG TERM strategic objectives?

Check all that apply

1. Gross margin/operating margin growth
2. Sales/income growth
3. Shareholder dividends growth
4. Market/customer share growth
5. Increased customer satisfaction
6. Increased sale of new products
7. Improved delivery time
8. Other, please specify:

5. Which of the following statements best describes the strategic focus of your enterprise with respect to its goods or services?

Check only one

1. My enterprise focuses on maintaining or expanding the sales of existing goods or services
2. My enterprise focuses on introducing new or significantly improved goods or services regularly
3. Do not know

6. Which of the following statements best describes the strategic focus of your enterprise with respect to its marketing practices or methods?

Check only one

1. My enterprise's long term focus mainly seeks to maintain or intensify existing marketing practices or methods
2. My enterprise's long term focus mainly seeks to introduce new orsignificantly improved marketing practices or methods
3. Do not know

7. Which of the following statements best describes the strategic focus of your enterprise with respect to its operations and business activities?

Check only one

1. My enterprise's long term focus mainly seeks to maintain or optimize its current operations and business activities
2. My enterprise's long term focus mainly seeks to introduce new or significantly improved business activities or processes to its operations
3. Do not know

8. Which of the following statements best describes the strategic focus of your enterprise with respect to its organizational and management practices?

Check only one

1. My enterprise's long term focus mainly seeks to maintain or optimize its current organizational and management practices
2. My enterprise's long term focus mainly seeks to introduce new or significantly improved management practices or change its organizational structure
3. Do not know

Enterprise structure

9. Is your enterprise a subsidiary of another enterprise? (Yes, No)

10. Where is your enterprise's head office located?

Check only one

1. Canada
2. United States
3. Europe
4. Asia Pacific
5. All other countries

11. Does your enterprise have a subsidiary in the following locations?

1. Canada (Yes, No)
2. United States (Yes, No)
3. Europe (Yes, No)
4. Asia Pacific (Yes, No)
5. All other countries (Yes, No)

12. Does your enterprise have more than one profit centre? (Yes, No) If yes, how many?

13. Please indicate where the following types of decisions are made in your enterprise.

Please check only one option for each type of decision

14. In 2009, indicate which of the following business activities were undertaken by your enterprise in each of the following locations?

Check all that apply for each business

15. Please indicate which of the following changes occurred to your enterprise's business activities in Canada in the last three years, 2007 to 2009.

Check all that apply for each

16. Did your enterprise have any business activities outside of Canada in the last three years, 2007 to 2009? (Yes, No)

If no, please go to question 27

17. Did your enterprise carry out business activities in support of its operations outside of Canada in the last three years, 2007 to 2009? (include business activities for enterprises that are part of your larger company) (Yes, No)

If no, Please go to question 19

18. Please indicate which of the following business activities were carried out by your enterprise in support of its operations outside of Canada in 2007 and in 2009. (Yes, No, Does not apply)

Business activities

1. Production of goods
2. Provision of services
3. Distribution and logistics
4. Call centers and help centers
5. Marketing, sales and after sales services
6. Software development
7. Data processing
8. Information and communication technology (ICT) services
9. Legal services
10. Accounting and book-keeping
11. Human resource management
12. Financial management
13. Engineering and related technical services
14. Research and development (R&D)
15. Other types of business activities, please specify:

19. Please indicate which of the following changes occurred to your enterprise's business activities outside of Canada in the last three years, 2007 to 2009

Check all that apply for each

20. Please write the names of the three most important countries in which your enterprise made changes to its operational activities.

Relocation of business activities from Canada to another country

21. Did your enterprise relocate any business activities from Canada to another country in the last three years, 2007 to 2009? (Yes, No)

If no Please go to question 23

22. Indicate which of the following business activities your enterprise relocated from Canada to another country in the last three years, 2007 to 2009. (Yes, No, Does not apply)

Check only one option for each business activity

Business activities

1. Production of goods
2. Provision of services
3. Distribution and logistics
4. Call centers and help centers
5. Marketing, sales and after sales services
6. Software development
7. Data processing
8. Information and communication technology (ICT) services
9. Legal services
10. Accounting and book-keeping
11. Human resource management
12. Financial management
13. Engineering and related technical services
14. Research and development (R&D)
15. Other types of business activities, please specify:

23. Did your enterprise outsource (contract out) any business activities from Canada to another country in the last three years, 2007 to 2009? (Yes, No)

If no, please go to question 26

24. Indicate which of the following business activities your enterprise outsourced (contracted out) from Canada to another country in the last three years, 2007 to 2009. (Yes, No, Does not apply)

Check only one option for each business activity

Business activities

1. Production of goods
2. Provision of services
3. Distribution and logistics
4. Call centers and help centers
5. Marketing, sales and after sales services
6. Software development
7. Data processing
8. Information and communication technology (ICT) services
9. Legal services
10. Accounting and book-keeping
11. Human resource management
12. Financial management
13. Engineering and related technical services
14. Research and development (R&D)
15. Other types of business activities, please specify:

25. Please write the names of the three most important foreign countries where business activities of your enterprise were most recently relocated or outsourced (contracted out).

26. If you answered "yes" to relocation in question 21 or to outsourcing in question 23, indicate the importance of the reasons why your enterprise decided to relocate or outsource (contract out) business activities from Canada to another country in the last three years, 2007 to 2009. Otherwise, go to question 29 Check only one option for each reason (Low, medium, high and does not apply)

Reasons

1. Reduction of labour costs
2. Reduction of costs other than labour costs
3. Access to new markets
4. Following the behaviour or example of competitors or clients
5. Improved quality or introduction of new goods or services
6. Focus on core business
7. Access to specialized knowledge or technologies
8. Tax or other financial incentives
9. Improved logistics (including concerns with respect to US border)
10. Lack of available labour
11. Improved delivery time
12. Other reasons, please specify:

27. Did your enterprise face any significant obstacles that slowed down or caused problems when relocating or outsourcing business activities from Canada to another country in the last three years, 2007 to 2009? (Yes, No)

If no, please go to question 29

28. Please rate the importance of the following obstacles when relocating or outsourcing business activities from Canada to another country in the last three years, 2007 to 2009. (Low, medium, high and does not apply)

Check only one for each obstacle

Obstacles

1. Canadian legal or administrative obstacles
2. Foreign legal or administrative obstacles
3. Taxation obstacles
4. Trade tariffs
5. Uncertainty of international standards
6. Concerns of employees (including trade unions)
7. Concern of violation of patents and/or intellectual property rights
8. Conflict with social values of your business (e.g. corporate social responsibility issues)
9. Distance to producers
10. Distance to customers
11. Linguistic or cultural obstacles
12. Difficulties in identifying potential or suitable providers
13. Lack of management expertise
14. Lack of financing
15. Other obstacle, please specify:

Relocation of business activities into Canada

29. Did your enterprise relocate any business activities from another country into Canada in the last three years, 2007 to 2009? (Yes, No)

If no, please go to question 32

30. Indicate whether your enterprise relocated the following business activities from another country into Canada in the last three years, 2007 to 2009. (Yes, No and Does not apply)

Check only one option for each business activity

Business activities

1. Production of goods
2. Provision of services
3. Distribution and logistics
4. Call centers and help centers
5. Marketing, sales and after sales services
6. Software development
7. Data processing
8. Information and communication technology (ICT) services
9. Legal services
10. Accounting and book-keeping
11. Human resource management
12. Financial management
13. Engineering and related technical services
14. Research and development (R&D)
15. Other types of business activities, please specify:

31. Please write the names of the three most important countries from where your enterprise most recently relocated business activities into Canada.

Sales activities

32. In 2009, did your enterprise manufacture any goods? (Yes, No)

If no please go to question 35

33. In 2009, did your enterprise sell any of its manufactured goods to another enterprise operating in Canada that in turn exported them "as is"? (Yes, No, Do not know)

34. In 2009, did your enterprise sell any of its manufactured goods to another enterprise operating in Canada that used them as an intermediate input in final goods that were then exported? (Yes, No, Do not know)

35. In 2009, did your enterprise buy and subsequently sell any goods outside of Canada without them entering Canada? (Yes or No)

If yes, what percentage of your enterprise's total sales revenues did this represent?

36. Did your enterprise export or attempt to export goods or provide services to an enterprise outside of Canada during the three years 2007 to 2009? (exclude enterprises that are part of your larger company) (Yes or No)

If no Please go to question 38

37. Please rate the importance of the following obstacles to your enterprise exporting or attempting to export goods or providing services to an enterprise outside of Canada during the three years 2007 to 2009. (exclude enterprises that are part of your larger company) Check only one for each obstacle (Low, Medium and High, and not an obstacle)

Obstacles

1. Canadian legal or administrative obstacles
2. Canadian export taxes or trade obstacles
3. Uncertainty of international standards
4. Access to financing
5. Concern of violation of patents and/or intellectual property rights
6. Foreign tariffs or trade barriers
7. Border security issues
8. Distance to customers
9. Linguistic or cultural obstacles
10. Customer requirements to use specific technologies/systems
11. Meeting cost requirements of customers
12. Meeting quality requirements of customers
13. Other obstacles, please specify:

Changes to business practices

38. In 2009, please indicate whether your enterprise carried out substantial or significant changes to respond to specific customer requirements.

Types of changes

1. Implemented specific cost reductions
2. Improved good or service quality
3. Decreased lead-times
4. Increased after-sales functions
5. Accepted greater risk sharing (i.e. accepted consignment-based payments)
6. Incurred greater up-front or non-recurring costs (e.g. investments in new technology, design
7. Entered into a new geographic region or expanded existing operations
8. Undertook a new business activity or expand existing business activities
9. Extended business hours to accommodate employees, customers or suppliers in other
10. Other changes, please specify

Relationship with main suppliers

39. For 2009, indicate the best description of your enterprise's relationship with its main suppliers in Canada. (exclude suppliers that are part of your larger company)

Relationship with main suppliers in Canada

Check only one

1. We have no suppliers in Canada
2. It is easy to switch suppliers because purchase is based primarily on price
3. Suppliers provide goods and services according to our specifications but it is relatively easy to switch suppliers
4. We know our suppliers and they know us. There are challenges in changing suppliers due to the learning curve required to provide goods or services
5. We have few or one main supplier who makes our requirements a priority in many aspects of their businesses. It is difficult to switch suppliers

40. For 2009, indicate the best description of your enterprise's relationship with its main suppliers in the United States. (exclude suppliers that are part of your larger company)

 Relationship with main suppliers in the United States

Check only one

1. We have no suppliers in the United States
2. It is easy to switch suppliers because purchase is based primarily on price
3. Suppliers provide goods and services according to our specifications but it is relatively easy to switch suppliers
4. We know our suppliers and they know us. There are challenges in changing suppliers due to the learning curve required to provide goods or services
5. We have few or one main supplier who makes our requirements a priority in many aspects of their businesses. It is difficult to switch suppliers

41. For 2009, indicate the best description of your enterprise's relationship with its main suppliers in Europe. (exclude suppliers that are part of your larger company)

Relationship with main suppliers in Europe

Check only one

a. We have no suppliers in Europe
b. It is easy to switch suppliers because purchase is based primarily on price
c. Suppliers provide goods and services according to our specifications but it is relatively easy to switch suppliers
d. We know our suppliers and they know us. There are challenges in changing suppliers due to the learning curve required to provide goods or services
e. We have few or one main supplier who makes our requirements a priority in many aspects of their businesses. It is difficult to switch suppliers

42. For 2009, indicate the best description of your enterprise's relationship with its main suppliers in Asia Pacific countries. (exclude suppliers that are part of your larger company)

 Relationship with main suppliers in Asia Pacific countries

Check only one

1. We have no suppliers in Asia Pacific countries
2. It is easy to switch suppliers because purchase is based primarily on price
3. Suppliers provide goods and services according to our specifications but it is relatively easy to switch suppliers
4. We know our suppliers and they know us. There are challenges in changing suppliers due to the learning curve required to provide goods or services
5. We have few or one main supplier who makes our requirements a priority in many aspects of their businesses. It is difficult to switch suppliers

43. For 2009, indicate the best description of your relationship with its main suppliers in countries other than Canada, United States, Europe, and Asia Pacific countries. (exclude suppliers that are part of your larger company)

Check only one

1. We have no suppliers in all other countries
2. It is easy to switch suppliers because purchase is based primarily on price
3. Suppliers provide goods and services according to our specifications but it is relatively easy to switch suppliers
4. We know our suppliers and they know us. There are challenges in changing suppliers due to the learning curve required to provide goods or services
5. We have few or one main supplier who makes our requirements a priority in many aspects of their businesses. It is difficult to switch suppliers

Advanced technology use

Technology is broadly defined to include the technical means and know-how required for the production of goods or services. It takes the form of equipment, materials, processes, blue prints and knowledge.

Advanced technologies are new technologies (equipment or software) that perform a new function or improve some function significantly better than commonly used technologies in the industry or by your competitors.

44. In 2009, did your enterprise use any of the following types of advanced technologies (equipment or software)? (Yes or No)

1. Advanced computerized design and engineering (Yes or No)
2. Advanced computerized processing, fabrication, and assembly technologies (Yes or No)
3. Advanced computerized inspection technologies (Yes or No)
4. Advanced communication technologies (Yes or No)
5. Advanced automated material handling technologies (Yes or No)
6. Advanced information integration and control technologies (Yes or No)
7. Advanced biotechnologies/bioproducts (Yes or No)
8. Advanced nanotechnologies (Yes or No)
9. Advanced green technologies (Yes or No)
10. Other types of advanced technologies, (Yes or No) please specify:

45. How did your enterprise acquire or integrate the advanced technologies (equipment or software) listed in previous question?

Check all that apply

1. By purchasing off-the-shelf advanced technology (equipment or software)
2. By leasing off-the-shelf advanced technology (equipment or software)
3. By licensing advanced technology
4. By customizing or significantly modifying existing advanced technology
5. By developing new advanced technologies either alone or in conjunction with others
6. Through merger or acquisition of another enterprise with advanced technologies

Process innovation

A process innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved production process, distribution method, or support activity for your goods or services.

• Process innovations must be new to your enterprise, but they do not need to be new to your market.
• The innovation could have been originally developed by your enterprise or by other enterprises.
• Exclude purely organizational innovations.

46. During the three years 2007 to 2009, did your enterprise introduce:

1. New or significantly improved methods of manufacturing or producing goods or services? (Yes, No)
2. New or significantly improved logistics, delivery or distribution methods for your inputs, goods or services? (Yes, No)
3. New or significantly improved supporting activities for your processes, such as maintenance systems or operations for purchasing, accounting, or computing? (Yes, No)

If "no" to all options please go to question 52

Otherwise Continue with question 47

47. Who developed these process innovations?

Check only one

1. Mainly your enterprise
2. Mainly your enterprise together with other enterprises or institutions
3. Mainly other enterprises or institutions

48. In 2009, approximately how many new or significantly improved processes were introduced? Number of process innovations

49. In 2009, what was your enterprise's total expenditure on your process innovations? ($)

50. Did your enterprise's process innovations, introduced in 2007 to 2009, reduce the average cost (per unit or per operation) of existing goods or services? (Yes, No)

If yes, please estimate the percentage of cost savings (as a percentage of average cost) from process innovations introduced in 2009. (%)

51. Did the introduction of your enterprise's process innovations during the three years 2007 to 2009 require:

1. Changes to marketing activities? (Yes or No)
2. Changes to operational activities? (Yes or No)
3. Changes to organizational activities? (Yes or No)

Production performance management practices

52. Does your enterprise have a systematic process or procedure to resolve problems associated with production of goods or delivery of services? (Yes or No)

53. How many key production performance indicators are monitored in your enterprise? Number of key production performance indicators

If none, go to question 60

Otherwise, continue with question 54

54. How frequently are these key production performance indicators shown to managers of operations in your enterprise?

Check all that apply

1. Quarterly
2. Monthly
3. Weekly
4. Daily
5. Hourly or more frequently
6. Never
7. Other frequency, please specify
8. Do not know

55. How frequently are these key production performance indicators shown to workers in your enterprise?

Check all that apply

1. Quarterly
2. Monthly
3. Weekly
4. Daily
5. Hourly or more frequently
6. Never
7. Other frequency, please specify
8. Do not know

56. How often are these key production performance indicators reviewed by top or middle managers in your enterprise?

Check only one

1. They are continually reviewed
2. They are periodically reviewed
3. They are rarely reviewed
4. Do not know

57. In your enterprise, who decides the pace of work to achieve production performance targets?

Check only one

1. Only managers
2. Mostly managers but some employee participation
3. Mostly employees and some managers
4. Only employees

58. What is the time frame of your enterprise's production performance targets for its highest selling good or service?

Check only one

1. Short-term only (less than one year)
2. Long-term only
3. A mix of short and longer term
4. No performance targets

59. How does your enterprise reward production performance target achievement?

Check only one

1. There are no rewards
2. Only management is rewarded
3. All staff are rewarded

Human resource management practices

60. Which of the following best describes the main way employees are promoted in your enterprise?

How employees are promoted

Check only one

1. Promotions are based solely on effort and ability
2. Promotions are based partly on effort and ability and partly on other factors such as tenure (how long they have worked at the firm)
3. Promotions are based mainly on factors other than on effort and ability, such as tenure
4. Other ways, please specify:

61. Which of the following best describes your enterprise's main policy when dealing with employees who do not meet expectations?

Check only one

1. They are rarely or never moved from their positions
2. They are given a certain number of warnings before further action is taken
3. They are warned, and re-trained, but are rarely removed from their position
4. They are immediately removed from their position

62. In your enterprise, are employees involved in the decision-making process on task allocation? (Yes or No)

63. Please estimate the percentage of employees in your enterprise that have a university degree.

64. In 2009, which of the following human resource practices were used in your enterprise?

Human resource practices

Check all that apply

1. At least one of the following selection methods to select candidates: personality/attitude tests, intelligence or aptitude tests, work samples
2. Formal training programs to teach new hires the skills they need to perform their job
3. The enterprise provides formal training or development programs to employees in order to increase their promotability
4. Formal performance agreements based on objective, quantifiable results are prepared for managerial, supervisory and executive employees at least annually
5. Formal appraisals are conducted of the majority of non-managerial staff at least annually
6. Formal appraisals are conducted of the majority of managerial staff at least annually
7. At least one of the following incentive programs is available to non-managerial and non-supervisory employees: employee stock ownership, profit-sharing, gain-sharing, merit bonus
8. At least one of the following incentive programs is available to managerial, supervisory, or executive employees: employee stock ownership, profit-sharing, gain-sharing, merit bonus
9. At least one of the following incentive programs is available to all employees: employee stock ownership, profit-sharing, gain-sharing, merit bonus

Organizational innovation

An organizational innovation is a new organizational method in your enterprise's business practices (including knowledge management), workplace organization or external relations that has not been previously used by your enterprise.

• It must be the result of strategic decisions taken by management.
• Exclude mergers or acquisitions, even if for the first time.

65. During the three years 2007 to 2009, did your enterprise introduce:

1. New business practices for organizing procedures (i.e. supply chain management, business reengineering, knowledge management, lean production, quality management, etc.)? (Yes or No)
2. New methods of organizing work responsibilities and decision making (i.e. first use of a new system of employee responsibilities, team work, decentralisation, integration or de-integration of departments, education/training systems, etc.)? (Yes or No)
3. New methods of organizing external relations with other firms or public institutions (i.e. first use of alliances, partnerships, outsourcing or sub-contracting, etc.)? (Yes or No)

If "no" to all options, please go to question 69

Otherwise, continue with question 66

66. In 2009, approximately how many of the above-mentioned organizational innovations were introduced? Number of organizational innovations

67. Please estimate the percentage of workers affected by your enterprise's organizational innovations introduced in 2009.

68. In 2009, did the introduction of your organizational innovations require:

1. Changes to marketing activities? (Yes, No)
2. Changes to operational activities? (Yes, No)

Highest selling good or service and main market

69. In 2009, how many distinct product lines were offered by your enterprise? Number of distinct product lines

70. In 2009, how many distinct goods or services were offered by your enterprise? Number of distinct goods or services

71. Please describe your enterprise's highest selling (in terms of total sales revenues) good or service (name and use).

72. Is your highest selling good or service described in the previous question a product line? (Yes or No)

73. In 2009, estimate how much your enterprise's highest selling good or service represented as a proportion of your total sales revenues.

74. In 2009, estimate the percentage of the total sales from your enterprise's highest selling good or service that came from the following geographic market regions.

1. Local market (same municipality or region) (%)
2. Rest of province or territory (%)
3. Rest of Canada (%)
4. United States (%)
5. Europe (%)
6. Asia Pacific (%)
7. Rest of the world (%)

Total sales of highest selling good or service (%)

Your enterprise's main market for its highest selling good or service is the geographical region from which your enterprise derived the highest percentage of total sales revenue (the line in the table in question 74 with the highest percentage).

75. In 2009, estimate your enterprise's market share for its highest selling good or service in its main market. (%)

76. In 2009, estimate the number of goods or services that directly competed with your enterprise's highest selling good or service in its main market. Number of competing goods or services

77. In 2009, how many competitors did your enterprise face in its main market for your highest selling good or service?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4-5
• 6–10
• 11–20
• More than 20

78. In 2009, were there any multinational enterprises among your competitors for your highest selling good or service in its main market? (Yes or No)

79. In 2009, which of the following statements best describes the performance of your enterprise's highest selling good or service in its main market?

Check only one

1. Gained market share over rival products
2. Lost market share over rival products
3. Unchanged market share
4. Do not know

80. In 2009, did any new competitors enter your enterprise's main market for its highest selling good or service? (Yes, No) If no, please go to question 82

81. In response to this increase in the number of competitors who entered the main market of your highest selling good or service, did your enterprise:

1. Change the quality of your good or service? (Yes, No)
2. Adopt a new technology or process? (Yes, No)
3. Change marketing expenditures? (Yes, No)
4. Introduce a new good or service? (Yes, No)
5. Speed up the introduction of a new good or service? (Yes, No)
6. Change the price of your good or service? (Yes, No)
7. Take other action? (Yes, No) Please specify:
8. Take no action? (Yes, No)

Good or service innovations

A product innovation is the market introduction of a new or significantly improved good or service with respect to its capabilities, user friendliness, components or sub-systems.

• Product innovations (new or improved) must be new to your enterprise, but they do not need to be new to your market.
• Product innovations could have been originally developed by your enterprise or by other enterprises.

82. During the three years 2007 to 2009, did your enterprise introduce:

1. New or significantly improved goods? (exclude the simple resale of new goods purchased from other enterprises and changes of a solely aesthetic nature) (Yes No)
2. New or significantly improved services? (Yes No)

If "No" to both options Please go to question 94 Otherwise Continue with question 83

83. Who developed these good or service innovations?

Check the most appropriate response

1. Mainly your enterprise
2. Mainly your enterprise together with other enterprises or institutions
3. Mainly other enterprises or institutions

84. During the three years 2007 to 2009, were any of your enterprise's good or service innovations:

1. New to a market? Your enterprise introduced a new or significantly improved good or service onto one of your markets before your competitors (it may have already been available in other markets) (Yes, No)
2. Only new to your enterprise? Your enterprise introduced a new or significantly improved good or service that was already available from your competitors in your market. (Yes, No)

85. Using the definitions above, please give the percentage of your enterprise's total revenue in 2009 from:

1. New or significantly improved goods and services introduced during 2007 to 2009 that were new to your market (%)
2. New or significantly improved goods and services introduced during 2007 to 2009 that were only new to your enterprise (%)
3. Goods and services that were unchanged or only marginally modified during 2007 to 2009 (include the resale of new goods and services purchased from other enterprises) (%)

Total revenue in 2009 (%)

86. Did the introduction of your enterprise's good or service innovations require:

1. Changes to marketing activities? (Yes or No)
2. Changes to operational activities? (Yes or No)
3. Changes to organizational activities? (Yes or No)
4. The introduction of new production processes? (Yes or No)

87. In 2009, how many new or significantly improved goods or services did your enterprise introduce onto the market?

1. Number of new or significantly improved goods
2. Number of new or significantly improved services

88. In 2009, what was your enterprise's total expenditure on your good or service innovations? ($)

89. Please describe your enterprise's most innovative good or service introduced during the three years 2007 to 2009.

90. When did your enterprise introduce its most innovative good or service during the three years 2007 to 2009?

Check only one

• 2007
• 2008
• 2009

91. Is your enterprise's most innovative good or service the same as its highest selling good or service? (Yes or No)

92. Is your enterprise's most innovative good or service in the same product line as its highest selling good or service? (Yes or No)

93. How unique is your enterprise's most innovative good or service?

Check only one

1. It has unique innovative features and there are no or few substitutes for this innovative good or service and/or its innovative features
2. It has some unique innovative features but there are substitutes for this innovative good or service and/or its innovative features
3. Similar innovative features and/or innovative goods or services are widely available on the market

Marketing innovation

A marketing innovation is the implementation of a new marketing concept or strategy that differs significantly from your enterprise's existing marketing methods and which has not been used before.

• It requires significant changes in product design or packaging, product placement, product promotion or pricing.
• Exclude seasonal, regular and other routine changes in marketing methods.

94. During the three years 2007 to 2009, did your enterprise introduce:

1. Significant changes to the aesthetic design or packaging of a good or service (exclude changes that alter the product's functional or user characteristics – these are product innovations)? (Yes or No)
2. New media or techniques for good or service promotion (i.e. the first time use of a new advertising media, a new brand image, introduction of loyalty cards, etc.)? (Yes or No)
3. New methods for good or service placement or sales channels (i.e. first time use of franchising or distribution licenses, direct selling, exclusive retailing, new concepts for good or service presentation, etc.)? (Yes or No)
4. New methods of pricing goods or services (i.e. first time use of variable pricing by demand, discount systems, etc.)? (Yes or No)

If "no" to all four options, please go to question 97

Otherwise continue with question 95

95. Did the introduction of your enterprise's marketing innovations in 2009 involve:

1. Existing goods or services? (Yes or No)
2. New or significantly improved goods or services introduced during the years 2007 to 2009? (Yes or No)

96. For 2009, please estimate the percentage of marketing expenditures that were assigned to marketing innovations. (%)

97. For 2009, please estimate your enterprise's total marketing expenditures. ($)

98. Did your enterprise use any of the following types of government programs during the three years, 2007 to 2009?

Check all that apply for each business activity

99. Which type of government program did your enterprise find most critical for your innovative activities? (Provide the corresponding letter from question 98 above)

Measures/activities implemented to mitigate obstacles to innovation

This question explores the problems and obstacles to innovation that your enterprise has confronted, the extent to which your enterprise has implemented specific measures or specific activities to mitigate these problems and obstacles, and whether government support programs were used to support the measures and activities undertaken by your enterprise.

100.

1. In 2009, did your enterprise face any market size obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were measures taken to overcome the obstacles? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were the measures successful in mitigating all market size obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
   • Were any government support programs used to overcome market size obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
2. In 2009, did your enterprise face any internal financing obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were measures taken to overcome the obstacles? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were the measures successful in mitigating all internal financing obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
   • Were any government support programs used to overcome internal financing obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
3. In 2009, did your enterprise face any external financing obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were measures taken to overcome the obstacles? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were the measures successful in mitigating all external financing obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
   • Were government support programs used to overcome external financing obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
4. In 2009, did your enterprise face any obstacles to innovation due to a lack of skills within your enterprise? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were measures taken to overcome the obstacles? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were the measures successful in mitigating all obstacles due to a lack of skills within your enterprise? (Yes or No)
   • Were any government support programs used to overcome obstacles due to a lack of skills within your enterprise? (Yes or No)
5. In 2009 did your enterprise face any obstacles to innovation related to finding and reaching agreements with external collaborators?
   • If yes, were measures taken to overcome the obstacles? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were the measures successful in mitigating all obstacles to innovation related to finding and reaching agreements with external collaborators? (Yes or No)
   • Were any government support programs used to overcome obstacles to innovation related to finding and reaching agreements with external collaborators? (Yes or No)
6. In 2009, was uncertainty and risk an obstacle to innovation in your enterprise?
   • If yes, were measures taken to overcome the obstacles? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were the measures successful in mitigating all uncertainty and risk obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
   • Were any government support programs used to overcome uncertainty and risk obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
7. In 2009, were regulatory issues an obstacle to innovation in your enterprise?
   • If yes, were measures taken to overcome the obstacles? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were the measures successful in mitigating all regulatory issue obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
   • Were any government support programs used to overcome regulatory issue obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
8. In 2009, was intellectual property protection an obstacle to innovation in your enterprise? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were measures taken to overcome the obstacles? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were the measures successful in mitigating all intellectual property protection obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
   • Were any government support programs used to overcome intellectual property protection obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
9. In 2009, was government competition policy an obstacle to innovation in your enterprise? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were measures taken to overcome the obstacles? (Yes or No)
   • If yes, were the measures successful in mitigating all government competition policy obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)
   • Were any government support programs used to overcome government competition policy obstacles to innovation? (Yes or No)

General questions

101. How long did you spend collecting the data and completing the questionnaire? hour(s) minutes

102. How many people were consulted for the completion of the questionnaire?

Comments

We invite your comments below. Please be assured that we review all comments with the intent of improving the survey.

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please retain a copy for your records.

Visit our website at www.statcan.gc.ca

Final audit report
Audit of Asset Protection and Life Cycle Management

Internal Audit Services
Statistics Canada
September 30, 2009

• Executive summary
  • Audit opinion
  • Key audit findings
• Introduction
  1. Background
  2. Audit objectives
  3. Audit scope
  4. Criteria and related controls
  5. Audit approach and methodology
  6. Acknowledgement
  7. Statement of assurance
• Audit observations, recommendations and management responses
  1. Completeness of inventory
  2. Security in place to protect assets
  3. Proper authorization in place
  4. Proper handling of transactions from an accounting perspective
  5. Compliance with Treasury Board Accounting Standard (TBAS)
• Appendix A–Criteria and related controls

Executive summary

This audit was a risk-based management request. Its Terms of Reference were approved at the Internal Audit Committee on October 7, 2007. The audit represents part of an overall plan toaddress tracking practices and security of capital assets at Statistics Canada.

As of March 31, 2007, computer hardware and vehicles at Statistics Canada contained nearly 22,000 items in its inventory and had an estimated book value of over $22 million. Capital assets such as computer hardware are critical to operations at Statistics Canada, enabling the Agency to properly carry out its daily activities.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of controls for monitoring and recording tangible assets. The audit focused on two tangible asset groups, computer hardware and vehicles, within the National Capital Headquarters. The audit testing covered acquisition of assets for the period of April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2007.

Statistics Canada’s Internal Audit Services engaged Audit Services Canada to conduct the audit of asset protection and life cycle management.

Audit Opinion

The audit found that Statistics Canada’s internal control system supporting the management of capital assets contained some weaknesses. Improvements are required in the areas of authorizing, purchasing, tracking and reconciling capital assets within the Corporate Support ServicesDivision (CSSD) and Financial Management Operations and Systems Division (FMOSD).

Key Audit Findings

The accounting reports at Statistics Canada confirmed that assets were acquired, amortized and disposed of in accordance to the guidance outlined in Treasury Board Accounting Standard 3.1 - Capital Assets with some exceptions in the areas of financial signing authority delegation, acquisition, tracking and overall reconciliation of assets. The audit confirmed that the documentation of inventory of capital assets was accurately presented and that securityprocedures are in place to monitor assets.

At the time of the audit, auditors noted that policies and procedures were being developed to ensure compliance with the Treasury Board Accounting Standard 3.1 - Capital Assets.

Management agrees with the recommendations, its response indicates its commitment to take action. In fact, management has already started to implement all of the proposed corrective actions that will address the findings; currently, many of the planned deliverables have become business practices, while the remaining management actions are scheduled to be implemented byMarch 2010 at the latest.

Introduction

1. Background

The purpose of the audit of asset protection and life cycle management is to provide management with an assessment of the effectiveness of controls for acquiring, recording, monitoring and reporting of tangible assets ¹. It is expected that proper controls are in place to safeguard and manage these assets. The audit will examine the processes related to capital assets to determine the extent to which the controls in place are meeting the requirements set forth by TreasuryBoard Secretariat (TBS) accounting standards.

The number of computer hardware had significantly increased in the past decade. It was considered that an audit was important to ensure that proper controls were in place to protect assets considered valuable. Additionally, vehicles were added to the scope of the audit due to recent acquisition which represented significant value to Statistics Canada.

The Office of the Comptroller General (OCG) had identified assets in their horizontal audit plan. The risk assessment for the government was identified as “high”. It was considered that an audit would bring value to the organization by bringing an assurance that procedures, guidelines andpolicies were properly implemented in the organization.

On April 1, 2001, the government introduced changes to its accounting systems by implementing the Financial Information Strategy which includes the adoption of accrual accounting. In order to implement this change, TBS has issued accounting standards for capital assets that are based on the Public Sector Accounting Board recommendations. The Treasury Board Accounting Standard (TBAS) 3.1 - Capital Assets, the standard relevant to this audit, defines capital assets as: tangible assets that are purchased, constructed, developed with the intention of being used on a continuous basis and are not intended for sale in the ordinary course of business. Under TBAS 3.1 - Capital Assets, capital asset values and amortizations are reported in the Government’s financial statements, as well as any gains or losses recognized when the organization disposes ofthese capital assets.

As of March 31, 2007, computer hardware and vehicles at Statistics Canada contained nearly 22,000 items in its inventory and had an estimated book value of over $22 million. Capital assets such as computer hardware represent a critical part of the operations of Statistics Canada enabling them to properly carry out their daily activities.

The Financial Management Operations and Systems Division (FMOSD) is responsible for assisting Statistics Canada in meeting government and central agency objectives through the conceptualization, design, implementation and development of the Agency’s financial management framework and infrastructure pertaining to policy development, expenditure andrevenue accounting, financial statements and reporting, and the delivery of programs and services. It is also responsible for providing functional leadership, guidance and direction on allfinancial reporting systems and processes.

Recently, FMOSD has developed a framework (informatics hardware) to oversee compliance with TBAS 3.1 - Capital Assets. This includes guidelines ² that outline criteria for tracking different asset classes and disposing of them at the end of their useful life. The guidelines also contain procedures that account for the treatment of pooled assets.

The Corporate Support Services Division (CSSD) is responsible for facilities management and materiel and contract services. CSSD uses the Automated Material Management Information System (AMMIS) for tracking the acquisition, location, operation and disposal of capital assets. Each asset is entered into this database and assigned an item number.

In consultation with CSSD, FMOSD performs a monthly reconciliation of AMMIS to the Common Department Financial System (CDFS) to ensure that inventory is in agreement with financial recordkeeping at Statistics Canada.

Transactions are authorized via the delegation of authorities at each phase of the lifecycle of the assets, according to sections 32, 33 and 34 of the Federal Administration Act (FAA). To exercise FAA delegated authority, the incumbent must hold a position with this authority, based on theDelegation of Financial Signing Authorities matrix, and have a valid specimen card.

2. Audit Objectives

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of controls for monitoring andrecording tangible assets.

The detailed sub-objectives of the audit were the following:

1. Ensure that the inventory of capital assets on hand is complete.
2. Ensure that controls are in place to safeguard assets from theft or unauthorized access.
3. Ensure that effective procedures are in place to determine the assets' value, including improvements, amortization and the estimated useful life of capital assets.
4. Ensure that the procedures in place within Statistics Canada for capital assets are in accordance with TBAS 3.1 - Capital Assets. Assets need to follow a life cycle. Asset reporting must follow an amortization schedule leading up to disposal of these assets.

3. Audit Scope

The audit focussed on inventory valuation and recording of tangible assets, (computer hardware and vehicles) in Statistics Canada within the National Capital Headquarters. The audit universe included pooled and individual capital assets that had a useful life greater than one year and a cost greater than or equal to $10,000. The audit reviewed compliance with applicable StatisticsCanada policies and procedures as well as TBAS 3.1 - Capital Assets standard.

The high level processes in terms of identified or perceived risks to the organization and the presence of a well defined control framework were reviewed during the scope phase for this audit.

The audit testing covered assets acquired from April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2007. The audit was conducted within CSSD and FMOSD divisions at Statistics Canada. On March 31, 2007 computer hardware had an estimated book value of over $21 million, and vehicles were valued at $1 million. The ten vehicles were comprised of eight cars and two highly specialized trailers used for the Canadian Health Measures Survey.

4. Criteria and Related Controls

The criteria used to assess the effectiveness of controls for monitoring and recording of tangibleassets included the following:

• proper reporting of inventory;
• correct coding and mathematical accuracy of reports;
• security in place to protect assets;
• proper authorization in place;
• documentation of a lifecycle;
• proper handling of transactions from an accounting point of view; and
• compliance with TBAS 3.1 - Capital Assets and with Statistics Canada’s framework (informatics hardware) developed by FMOSD (to oversee compliance with TBAS 3.1 - Capital Assets).

5. Audit Approach and Methodology

The following methodologies were used to conduct this audit:

• interviewed key individuals and examined pertinent documentation including departmental policies and procedures related to the two asset groups (computer hardware and vehicles);
• documented the control framework;
• reviewed a sample of the items in the two asset groups (computer hardware and vehicles) to establish whether controls are adequate;
• verified selected assets for proper recording; and,
• verified the physical existence of selected assets.

An original random sample of 149 records was selected for computer hardware (individual and pooled assets) in AMMIS from a population of 21,944 records with an estimated book value of over $21 million for computer hardware. Vehicles were assessed on the whole population as there were only ten vehicles which were valued at $1 million. For computer hardware, the audit program specified that each sampled item was to be traced to shipping documents, invoices, purchase orders, accounting reports and physical location to ensure adequacy and effectiveness of controls at all stages of the processes. 58 percent of the sample was allocated to individual computer hardware and 42 percent was allocated to pooled assets (a larger weight was given toindividual computer hardware because it had a higher overall value).

Upon initiating the examination phase, the sample was adjusted due to the fact that the supporting documentation had been lost as a result of a flood that occurred in January 2007 at Statistics Canada. This event resulted in a sample reduction from 149 to 100 records. The same allocation of 58 percent and 42 percent was maintained for computer hardware and pooled assets. The reduced sample did not affect the quality of the audit.

6. Acknowledgement

Internal Audit Services would like to thank the staff and management of Statistics Canada for their dedicated work and cooperation in the conduct and reporting phases of this auditengagement.

7. Statement of Assurance

Audit Services Canada provided Internal Audit Services with the following statement:

Audit Services Canada (ASC) has conducted this audit in accordance with the internal audit standards for the Government of Canada, as articulated in the Treasury Board Policy on Internal Audit. In compliance with this policy, and based on our professional judgment, ASC has examined sufficient, relevant evidence and obtained adequate information and explanation to support the accuracy of the conclusions contained in this report. The conclusions were based on acomparison of the situations as they existed at the time of the audit and the audit criteria.

Audit Observations, Recommendations and Management Responses

The audit found that Statistics Canada’s internal control system supporting the management of capital assets contained some weaknesses. The accounting reports at Statistics Canada confirmed that assets were acquired, amortized and disposed of in accordance to the guidance outlined in Treasury Board Accounting Standard 3.1 - Capital Assets with some exceptions in the areas offinancial signing authority delegation, acquisition, tracking and overall reconciliation of assets.

The audit confirmed that the documentation of inventory of capital assets was accurately presented and that security procedures are in place to monitor assets. Further, auditors noted that policies and procedures were being developed to ensure compliance with the Treasury Board Accounting Standard 3.1 - Capital Assets.

1. Completeness of Inventory

Departments must ensure that capital assets inventory is complete and properly reported. It alsorequires that reports are mathematically accurate and coded properly.

Based on a review of reports provided by FMOSD, the audit found that documentation was accurately presented. Accounting reports were also reviewed to verify for evidence of supervisory review and reconciliations to other reports. The auditors verified the existence of correcting journals entries which was evidenced by journal vouchers prepared by FMOSD.

The auditors found that the computer hardware inventory was missing some item numbers. The numerical sequence of the inventory was verified in the AMMIS database. It was determined that the system does not allow for automatic updates; for examples changes can be due to coding errors and archiving of disposed assets. These coding changes were found to create a resulting gap in the sequence of the inventory.

Gaps in sequence could be an indication that records are not properly kept and that records do not represent the actual physical inventory on hand.

Recommendation #1

Corporate Support Services Division should ensure that a process to review and authorize all changes made in coding is in place. The division should also ensure that an automated or written record is kept whenever a change in coding is made in the Automated Materiel Management Information System.

Management Response and Action Plan

Management accepted the recommendation

In order to ensure that proper sequence in identifying the records have no gaps, CSSD will:

• review current coding guidelines
• develop Standard Operating Procedures dealing with coding and coding changes.
• procedures will be developed in conjunction with FMOSD
• inform all Asset Management staff dealing with coding of the changes in the procedures
• monitor the application of the new procedures for a period of 6 months to ensure that all staff is applying the new procedures correctly

Note: Changes to coding is conducted by Asset Management personnel only (clients no longerhave access to this function).

• changes are made only as the result of a Heat Case Trouble Ticket (SRM), which allows clients to submit, track and manage changes to assets
• changes are initiated and actioned only when received from an authorized FRC.
• a cross reference to the SRM is noted in AMMIS to provide the appropriate audit trail.
• a cross reference to the author of the changes is noted in the Heat Case and AMMIS to allow for easier follow-up
• procedures will be posted to the CSSD website to provide guidance to clients
• a communiqué will be released advising clients that the website has been updated
• Standard Operating Procedures for AMMIS will be reviewed and updated as necessary

Asset Management conducts monthly reviews to ensure coding is active and sends reports to applicable clients for coding updates/changes. The authority for coding changes is theresponsibility of the FRC not CSSD.

Accountability and timeline

CSSD/Unit Head Asset Management: Directives July 2009

CSSD/Asset Management Supervisor/AMMIS HelpDesk - Monitoring report – February 2010:

• only proper changes made
• audit trails available
• documentation
• posted procedures reviewed and updated
• Monthly reviews
• Communiqué

2. Security in Place to Protect Assets

Departments must ensure that capital assets are secured and protected from theft or unauthorizedaccess.

The audit found that security procedures are in place to monitor assets. The audit confirmed that Quality Control/Asset Management affixes a tag number to the asset to identify it. The assetinformation and location are subsequently recorded in AMMIS.

Transfer of ownership was found to be well documented between Quality Control/Asset Management, Shipping/Receiving and the final client. Shipping/Receiving transfers ownershipof assets to Quality Control/Asset Management to ensure that the asset is tagged.

The audit also noted that Quality Control/Asset Management performs an annual inventory of capital assets. If a discrepancy is found, an attempt is made to resolve it. If the asset is not found, an update is made to accurately reflect the true inventory status in AMMIS. It was also noted thatmerchandise is properly locked up in cages prior to its delivering to client divisions.

In a test to establish physical existence of the sampled asset, the audit revealed that there were assets that could not be traced to their actual location. In 10 instances, the AMMIS location was incorrect, but through a more in depth search, the audit team was able to locate the assets. However, audit testing for physical evidence identified 15 assets out of 93 assets (16%) thatcould not be located according to AMMIS information. The reasons provided are that:

• asset had been disposed of;
• asset was out of scope, due to location outside of the National Capital Headquarters region or purchase date prior to April 1, 2001; and
• asset was currently in use and not on-site (one vehicle and two trailers).

The audit revealed that there were problems in reconciling these 15 identified assets to their original invoices. Without the ability to reconcile the physical existence of assets to the inventory management system, asset completeness and security cannot be assured. It is the client’s responsibility to notify the Quality Control/Asset Management Section if the location of an item requires updating in AMMIS.

Some employees at Statistics Canada order/purchase items for various employees/divisions. Although it is not currently a requirement, some of these employees keep detailed lists documenting the location where the ordered assets have been disbursed to, while other purchasers do not keep such records.

Divisions in charge of purchasing assets and disbursing them to multiple users may want to consider maintaining a tracking database to reconcile against AMMIS on a periodic basis.

Recommendation #2

The Quality Control/Asset Management Section should perform an annual inventory count to reconcile assets with the Automated Materiel Management Information System information. The location of the asset should be updated in the Automated Materiel Management InformationSystem accordingly.

Management Response and Action Plan

Management accepted the recommendation.

In the absence of formal procedures for Asset Management to perform an inventory count to reconcile assets with the AMMIS information, Asset Management, in conjunction with the client, perform inventory counts to reconcile all assets with the AMMIS information IAW TreasuryBoard Material Management Policy Art 9.1

In order to ensure that reconciliations are conducted, CSSD will further define the following:

• review TB and FAA policies for conducting stocktaking /reconciliation of inventory held
• types of checks to be conducted
• the Accountability for stocktaking
• the stocktaking/reconciliation processes
• define offsetting and write-offs
• Stocktaking and account verification documentation
• Stocktaking/reconciliation frequency and procedures.
• Stocktaking/reconciliation schedules for specialized commodities, i.e. capital assets
• Reports available from AMMIS

Accountability and timeline

CSSD: Reconciliation Completed 2008

CSSD/Unit Head Asset Management: Procedures for stock taking, offsetting and write off December 2009

Recommendation #3

Corporate Support Services Division should develop operating practices to ensure that divisions/clients notify Quality Control/Asset Management of all transactions requiring an update in the Automated Materiel Management Information System. This would include the movement of an asset to a different location.

Management Response and Action Plan

Management accepted the recommendation.

FMOSD’s response to recommendation #5 also addresses the invoice reconciliation issue.

Although clients have had the capability to update AMMIS locations or submit SRMs to Asset Management to effect the change, procedures have been developed requesting that the client advise Asset Management via SRM of changes to asset information, i.e. Locations, contactperson, description, etc.

A communiqué will be released advising clients that the website has been updated

Accountability and timeline

CSSD: Directive and Communiqué - July 2009

3. Proper Authorization in Place

Capital assets must be authorized, acquired and paid using an effective delegation of authorities.

Overall, sections 32, 33 and 34 of the FAA were properly segregated for all transactions reviewed. The testing of approvals for sections 32, 33 and 34 of the Delegation of Financial Signing Authorities (DFSA) found several instances where the specimen signature cards were not always valid. In a sample of 84 records, there were:

• thirty-one cases where the section 32 signor did not have a valid specimen card for either the date of the purchase or the Financial Responsibility Centre (FRC) of the purchase;
• four cases where the section 34 signor did not have a valid specimen card for either the date of purchase or the FRC of the purchase; and,
• two cases where the section 33 signor did not have a valid specimen card for either the date of purchase or the FRC of the purchase;

During the audit, it was observed that the specimen signature card did not correspond to the actual authority of the employee and with the information in the DFSA system. Without evidence of appropriate delegation of authority, there is a risk that funds could be spent inappropriately.

Statistics Canada does not currently have an Office Supplies Acquisition Procedure to define appropriate purchases for a signatory holding this authority.

Archived original invoices and supporting documentation were very difficult to locate. Initially, about 45% of the original invoices were not found. A more in-depth review of the archived invoices helped the auditors to locate some misplaced invoices. At the end of this exercise there were still 20 out of 55 (36%) invoices that were not found. Since the original invoices are kept with the originators throughout the department, FMOSD relies on the goodwill of these individuals to send them the originals after the fiscal year end. This system is not working well and should be modified. It would also be recommended for FMOSD to have the original receiptsin hand when authorizing section 33.

Recommendation # 4

Financial Management Operations and Systems Division should ensure that employees understand and apply the procedures for signature verification for sections 32, 33 and 34 properly;

Financial Management Operations and Systems Division should review the signature cards periodically to ensure they reflect the authority permitted under the Delegation of Financial Signing Authorities matrix for each position in Statistics Canada; and ensure that procedures are in place for signature verification for sections 32, 33, 34 are properly applied.

Management Response and Action Plan

Management accepted the recommendation.

FMOSD has provided recent training to all delegated employees to ensure a common understanding and application of the procedures for sections 32, 34 and 33 from October 2008 to March 2009. This training is available to all employees at any time.

FMOSD reviewed all signature cards. FMOSD will confirm signature cards on a yearly basis to ensure accuracy.

Accountability and timeline

FMOSD: Training – Completed April 2009

D. Bain: Review signature cards - Completed April 2009

Recommendation # 5

Financial Management Operations and Systems Division should establish a revised procedure to ensure that original invoices are on hand before authorizing section 33. The new procedure should also be monitored to ensure that it is properly applied.

Management Response and Action Plan

Management accepted the recommendation.

FMOSD implemented a new document management process in January of 2009. All documents (except regional travel), for headquarters and regional offices, will be held in a central location. FMOSD will ensure that the documentation is accurately stored for future consultation.

Accountability and timeline

FMOSD: Document management process - Completed January 2009

4. Proper Handling of Transactions from an Accounting Perspective

Departments must ensure accounting transactions are handled properly; this includes determiningasset value, cost of improvements, amortization and estimated useful life of capital assets.

In an effort to document the useful life of an asset, the audit tested TBAS 3.1 - Capital Assets for compliance. One of the guidelines in this standard specifies the estimated length of time (or useful life) by asset types. Testing identified that the application of estimated useful life provisions, as outlined in TBAS 3.1 - Capital Assets, is generally found (Also, see Section 2.5 of the report).

During the preliminary assessment of the FMOSD operations the auditors reviewed reports and confirmed that FMOSD has a documented system for tracking value, amortization, improvements, impairments and the estimated useful life of assets. The audit also confirmed that individual assets were properly amortized, in most cases, and that assets were properly disposed of.

Additionally, the TBAS 3.1 - Capital Assets policy includes a guideline which specifies the estimated length of time (or useful life) required for certain asset categories.

TBAS 3.1 - Capital Assets states that it is optional to pool assets for capitalization and amortization; however, Statistics Canada has decided to pool specific purchases less than $10,000, if the total asset pool is greater than $1 Million. The categories of assets that are capitalized to the pool are monitors, desktops, laptops, communication switches, external laser jet printers and external hard drives. If a purchase is less than $10,000 and not within one of the categories that are to be pooled, the purchase is expensed. The audit found that all assets were properly categorized as either pooled or individual assets.

Acquisitions and disposals are extracted from AMMIS monthly by FMOSD and adjustments are made to the pool. Pool amortization is calculated manually by FMOSD since AMMIS does not have this functionality. This calculation is reviewed by the Chief of Financial Statements (FMOSD) and subsequently the journal voucher is approved by the Chief of Accounting Operations (FMOSD) according to section 33 FAA.

The audit sample revealed that 22 out of 38 (57.8%) assets were expensed when they were eligible for capitalized pooling.

By only extracting acquisitions and disposals on a monthly basis, opportunities can be missed for capitalizing these assets in the pool because AMMIS data entry is backdated.

The reconciliation of pooled assets with AMMIS and CDFS could identify assets which should be capitalized rather than expensed.

Recommendations for sections 2.4 and 2.5 have been grouped together (See recommendationsbelow).

5. Compliance with Treasury Board Accounting Standard (TBAS)

TBAS 3.1 - Capital Assets requires that the estimated useful life of a capital asset is reviewed on a regular basis and revised when the appropriateness of a change can be clearly demonstrated. Measures such as life cycle management help to ensure that the procedures in place withinStatistics Canada for reporting of capital assets are in accordance with the TBS policy.

During the period under review, FMOSD did not conduct a review of the estimated useful life nor does it have any criteria for the disposal of capital assets. However, the auditors found evidence that FMOSD is in the process of developing procedures to review the estimated useful life of assets.

The Chief, Infrastructure/LAN Support indicated that it is the responsibility of the division to track assets, determine when these are ready for disposal and notify the LAN Administrator. Currently, there are no set criteria for asset disposal. Divisions may dispose of an item if it is broken and it is not repairable or if the age of the asset warrants replacement, which varies based on location and function.

Recommendation #6

Financial Management Operations and Systems Division should perform a periodic reconciliation of assets eligible for pooled capitalizing in the Automated Material Management Information System, with those capitalized in the pool and amortized in CDFS.

Financial Management Operations and Systems Division should perform a regular review of the estimated useful life for eligible assets.

Management Response and Action Plan

Management accepted the recommendation.

FMOSD will perform a validation of all assets to be included in the pool at the end of the fiscal year to ensure that all back-dated assets are accounted for properly. If necessary, a final adjustment will be accounted for in the pooled assets account. FMOSD will compare a report generated from AMMIS and the manual report to be provided from CSSD

FMOSD will verify at the end of the fiscal year if the ‘useful life’ is accurate.

Accountability and timeline

FMOSD: Back-dated assets are accounted for 'useful life' verified - Completed April 2009

Recommendation #7

Corporate Support Services Division should provide clear guidance to staff entering back-dated assets and provide the Financial Management Operations and Systems Division with a list ofthese assets on a monthly basis.

Corporate Support Services Division should provide clear guidance to staff regarding disposalof assets (including criteria which define the reason for disposal)

Management Response and Action Plan

Management accepted the recommendation.

• In order to ensure that proper sequence in identifying the records has no gap, CSSD will:
• review current back-dated assets practices
• develop Standard Operating Procedures dealing with back-dated assets and procedures to follow when dealing with back-dated assets
• liaise with AMMIS HelpDesk WRT reports
• develop instructions in conjunction with FMOSD
• inform all Asset Management staff dealing with coding of the changes in the guidelines
• monitor the application of the new guidelines for a period of 6 months to ensure that all staff is applying the new guidelines correctly
• A communiqué will be released advising clients that the website has been updated

CSSD has provided interim procedures to provide clear guidance to staff entering data andensure that back-dated assets are accounted for properly.

CSSD is currently reviewing internal procedures and will establish clear guidance for thedisposal of assets including the criteria which defines the reason for disposal.

In order to ensure the proper procedures for disposal of assets has no gap, CSSD will:

• review current disposal of assets practices
• liaise with AMMIS HelpDesk to ensure common use of disposal codes
• instructions will be developed in conjunction with stakeholders
• communicate in writing to all Asset Management staff dealing with disposal of assets

Specifically CSSD will:

• develop Standard Operating Procedures dealing with disposal of assets to include:
• definition of Surplus/excess materiel
• Disposition of surplus materiel – Crown Assets Distribution Group (CSDG) and Computers for Schools (CFS)
• Prepare Reports of surplus
• Disposal approving authorities
• Scrap material
• Custody of materiel reported as surplus
• Disposition of excess materiel as it relates to CTAT regulations
• Special disposal instructions
• monitor the application of the new guidelines for a period of 6 months to ensure that all staff is applying the new guidelines correctly
• A communiqué will be released advising clients that the website has been updated

Accountability and timeline

CSSD/Asset Management: Procedures for back-dated assets, Monitoring report and Communiqué - March 2010

CSSD: Interim procedures for back-dated assets – Completed May 2009

CSSD: Procedures - Completed July 2009

CSSD/Asset Management: Revised practices - December 2009

CSSD/Asset Management: Procedures for disposal of assets - March 2010

 Appendix A: Criteria and Related Controls

Note

1. Also called hard assets.
2. At the time of the audit the framework was still in draft form. It has since been approved on March 2, 2009.