Chapter 9: Building APS capability

Learning and development

A key component of the performance management process is to identify the development needs of individual staff, and capability requirements of the agency as a whole. Responding to capability needs through effective strategies for managing learning and development is a key process for building organisational capability.¹⁸ The ANAO’s 2001–02 performance audit report on the management of learning and development across the Service found that agencies had made significant efforts to ensure that learning and development strategies were properly aligned with the business needs identified in their corporate plans.¹⁹ However, agencies were not able to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of their investment.

The 2003 MAC report Organisational Renewal also looked at issues of learning and development in the context of building organisational capability.²⁰ MAC found that structured learning and development is important to building capability and that strategies require adjustment to ensure changing capability needs are met. Among other things, it highlighted the need for:

• effective graduate development programs
• programs to support accelerated skills development
• activities to orient those coming in through lateral recruitment to key elements of the APS Values, ethos and processes
• innovative approaches attuned to the greater number of employees on part-time and other alternative arrangements and to the geographic spread of the APS workforce
• a focus on continuous learning and development for older workers
• strategic use of selected mature-aged workers in coaching and mentoring roles.

As a direct response to the findings of the ANAO report, the ANAO and the APS Commission collaborated to produce a better practice guide, Building capability—A framework for managing learning and development in the APS, which was launched in April 2003. The guide draws on the findings of the ANAO and MAC reports, as well as international and private sector trends. It encourages and supports agencies in developing a more strategic approach to planning, delivering and evaluating learning and development to meet organisational goals and deliver best value for money.

APS training has also been the focus of an inquiry by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, which tabled its report on 19 September 2003.²¹ The committee noted that there had been many positive developments in APS training, such as the considerable effort agencies have invested in linking training priorities to corporate and business objectives, the development of accredited and articulated training programs, and the way some agencies have capitalised on the flexibility available to them under devolution to tailor training activities to their particular business operational needs. The learning and development aspects of the committee’s report also reinforced many of the findings of the ANAO audit, including:

• the need to ensure learning and development planning and activities are aligned to the agency’s business directions
• the paucity of data on the level and cost of learning and development across many agencies
• the limited evaluation of whether learning and development investment is achieving its purpose.

The committee was critical of the fact that the limited data available on APS training hampered its ability to explore trends and assess value for money. The report made a number of recommendations directly related to APS learning and development. The Government has yet to respond to the Senate report.

Aligning learning and development to business goals

Aligning learning with business goals is the first principle of the framework for building capability identified in the APS Commission and ANAO’s better practice guide. The agency survey asked agencies about the measures they had used in 2002–03 to ensure learning and development undertaken was aligned with the business goals of the organisation.

Consistent with the ANAO’s 2002 findings, agency responses indicated a strong focus on this issue. The approach most frequently used by agencies was identifying learning and development priorities through a performance management system (used by 90% of agencies). Discussing priorities in the annual report (81%), including priorities in CAs and AWAs (75%), and identifying priorities in workgroup plans (62%) were all also common. The least common approach, including learning and development priorities as part of the corporate plan, was used by 54% of agencies, and another 19% were developing this measure.

There were considerable differences on the basis of size in how agencies chose to align learning and development with business goals. Large agencies were more likely to report ensuring learning and development undertaken was aligned with the business goals of the organisation by including learning and development priorities as part of their corporate plan than small and medium agencies (77% of large agencies, compared with 54% overall). Medium agencies were more likely to use a performance management system than other agencies (96%, compared with 90% overall). Small agencies were more likely than other agencies to include learning and development priorities as a provision in their CAs or AWAs (81%, compared with 75% overall).

More than half of the agencies (53%) reported that they had measures other than those specified in the survey to align learning and development with business goals. These included the development of specific learning and development plans by senior management and the inclusion of learning and development in HR strategic plans.

Identifying learning and development needs

The APS Commission and ANAO’s better practice guide includes identifying short and long-term capability requirements as a key element in aligning learning with the business. The State of the Service surveys asked both agencies and employees about how learning and development needs were identified in 2002–03.

The agency survey results suggest that learning and development needs were most commonly identified at the work unit level. Management identification of needs was the most common response (selected by 99% of agencies), followed by managers and individuals identifying needs together through the performance management system (98%) and individual self-identification of needs (92%). Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of agencies used more formal systems of analysis such as identifying aggregate needs through the performance management system (51%), analysing organisational capability (46%), and training needs analyses (37%).

Identifying learning and development needs through broader formal planning systems, such as workforce planning (28%), staff surveys (28%) and succession planning (27%), was not as widely used, although results discussed elsewhere suggest an increasing number of agencies are focusing on workforce planning issues. It appears that there are still a significant number of agencies that have yet to make the link between their approaches to learning and development and broader workforce planning issues, which is essential to longer-term capability building.

The employee survey results provide an indication of how individual employees perceive their own learning needs have been identified. Employees were most likely to say that they had identified their own learning and development needs in the last 12 months (67%). Only a minority of employees (20%) said that their learning and development needs were specifically identified by their manager, although almost half (47%) stated that they had identified needs together with their manager as part of the performance management process.

Agency results do not give an indication of how widely each identification method was used within the organisation. However, the disparity between the employee and agency results on this issue does suggest that there are very different perceptions about the role of management in identifying learning needs, and that management’s role may not be visible to employees, with the risk of misalignment between learning and the business.

Learning and development priorities

The APS Commission and ANAO’s better practice guide states that ‘agency business objectives and capability requirements should drive the subject matter and content of learning options’.²² The State of the Service surveys explored agency and employee learning and development priorities.

All but two agencies were able to identify their key agency-wide learning and development priorities, with the priorities identified differing considerably for different classification levels. For example, generic public sector capabilities, such as developing policy, customer service and writing skills, and technical training and information communication training, were more likely to be seen as a priority for lower classification levels. Management training, such as financial, risk, project and people management, was most commonly identified by agencies as a priority at the APS 5–6 and EL levels (72% and 82% respectively). Leadership training was most likely to be identified by agencies as a priority for EL employees (70%), followed by the SES (61%).

The employee survey also asked employees about their learning priorities.²³ Employees who responded to the question (around three-quarters of all respondents) put greatest emphasis on training that was specific to their position, including technical training (identified as a priority for 2002–03 by 63% of employees) and information/communication training (52%). Management and leadership training were more likely to be viewed as a priority for 2003–04 than for 2002–03 (management up from 41% to 45% and leadership up from 38% to 48%).

Figure 9.7 shows 2002–03 learning priorities for employees at different classification levels. In general, APS and EL classifications placed a greater priority on ICT and technical training for their job, while the SES placed a much greater priority on leadership development.

Resource allocation

The ANAO’s 2002 report found that across the Service, the collection of data on expenditure on learning and development and staff training days was patchy. The better practice guide published by the APS Commission and ANAO highlights the need for agencies to collect meaningful data on inputs, as well as outcomes, so as to have necessary information to assess value for money arising from learning and development investments. It recommends a minimum data set for agencies, including:

• the number of days of formal learning and development per person per year
• expenditure on formal learning and development as a percentage of running costs
• expenditure on outsourced providers
• expenditure on learning and development consultants
• qualitative views (by key stakeholders such as the executive, management and others) on changes inorganisational and individual capability and performance.²⁴

The agency survey found that the collection of data on learning and development expenditure in the APS continues to be problematic. Only 64% of agencies stated that they could estimate their investment in learning and development in 2002–03. Only 47% of agencies could provide information on the number of days of learning and development undertaken per person and only 60% of agencies provided figures on overall off-the- job expenditure. Only one agency had developed a process for measuring on-the-job learning and development, although 25% of agencies reported that they were currently developing such a process.

The agency survey found that, for agencies able to provide information, most (55%) provided two to five days of formal off-the-job training per employee in 2002–03. Reports of average total expenditure per employee varied by size of agency, with large agencies ($2590 per employee or 3.3% of operating expenses) spending more than small agencies ($1995 per employee or 2.0% of operating expenses).²⁵ Average expenditure for all agencies was $2513 per employee.

Survey results in relation to expenditure differ substantially from survey findings by the ANAO. From a survey conducted in 1999–2000, the ANAO estimated that average expenditure on learning and development across the APS was about $1000 per employee.²⁶ The ANAO recognised this as a conservative estimate. In particular, its figures excluded salary and wage costs, whereas agencies were asked to include salary costs in the State of the Service survey.

It is possible that the State of the Service results reflect in part an increased focus on capturing learning and development expenditure data among agencies since the release of the ANAO’s audit report. In any case, the discrepancy in the ANAO and agency survey data, along with the high proportion of agencies unable to provide any data, highlights the need for agencies to improve data collection on this issue.

Not surprisingly, small agencies spent more than large agencies on outsourced learning and development and learning and development consultants.

Delivery of programs

One of the key principles identified in the APS Commission and ANAO’s better practice guide is that agencies provide appropriate learning and development delivery options, including by systematically planning learning interventions appropriate to the characteristics of the organisation.²⁷ The agency survey asked agencies about the most commonly used learning and development delivery options adopted for different classification levels.

For all classification levels, programs delivered by external providers, and external conferences, courses or seminars were most common, with more than 70% of agencies nominating these as one of their five most commonly used activities at all levels. APS Commission courses were also commonly used at all levels (between 55% and 65% of agencies). However, there was considerable variation in the use of other activities, suggesting that agencies are taking into account the needs of different groups in determining appropriate learning options.

University courses were most commonly used for APS 5–6s (58%) and ELs (57%). Vocational education and training was most commonly used at the APS 1–4 and 5–6 levels (36% and 32%). The importance of programs delivered by own agency staff fell as classification level rose (from 66% of agencies for APS 1–4 to 38% for SES). In contrast, ELs and SES employees appeared to favour programs that give them a cross-agency perspective and opportunities to exchange ideas and learning, with 96% and 99% of agencies nominating external conferences, courses or seminars as a common learning activity for these groups respectively.

Coaching, mentoring and e-learning were all commonly used as learning and development activities in only a minority of agencies, although coaching was relatively widely used for APS 1–4s (37%).

Evaluation of learning and development strategies

The 2002 ANAO report found that, in general, agencies were not evaluating learning and development strategies, and were consequently not in a position to determine how successful learning and development outcomes had been in assisting agencies to achieve their business outcomes. Performance indicators used were generally measures of activity rather than effectiveness. Responding to this finding, the ANAO and APS Commission’s better practice guide places a strong emphasis on evaluating learning and development, recommending that agencies maintain a minimum data set covering outputs and outcomes of programs, as well as inputs.²⁸

The agency survey asked agencies which aspects of learning and development were evaluated in their agency. The results suggest a high degree of evaluation of the content of programs and the effectiveness of their delivery, but less of a focus on the benefits of the programs to individuals and the organisation. For example, agencies were most likely to say that they were evaluating the relevance and currency of program content (80%) and the effectiveness of presenters/facilitators (83%). A large majority (76%) of agencies evaluated the effectiveness of learning and development in meeting identified objectives, and just under half of agencies (44%) said they evaluated learning and development in terms of value for money. However, only 35% measured the degree of capability acquired by the individual, and 38% measured improvement in individual performance. Fifteen per cent of agencies had tackled the difficult issue of measuring improvement in agency performance.

Despite these results, agencies appear to be beginning to pay greater attention to evaluating the benefits of learning and development to individual and agency performance. Individual capability and performance, and agency performance were the evaluation areas most likely to be being developed by agencies (between 27% and 30%). Twenty-four per cent of agencies were developing methods of evaluating learning and development in terms of value for money.

Leadership

A key learning and development priority identified by agencies for their EL and SES employees was leadership development. The demographic shifts in the APS and the increasing focus on the need for organisational renewal has put increased pressure on agencies to address the issue of leadership development. MAC has identified the next five years as crucial to the APS in the development of a sufficient cohort of potential leaders to meet the environmental and demographic changes that are expected.²⁹ In particular, its 2003 report on organisational renewal found that agencies need to ensure that:

• a sufficient pool of people with the right capabilities, skills and experience is available to replace key people in middle and senior management and specialist positions
• employees recruited into the APS at middle and senior management levels receive orientation to key elements of APS Values, ethos and processes
• there is effective graduate management, providing development opportunities and experiences to form a strong pool of leaders
• programs to support accelerated skills development and a systematic exposure to different work experiences are provided
• strategies are developed to equip leaders to retain and make best use of older workers
• effective knowledge management processes are in place.

The agency and employee surveys explored several issues relating to leadership in the APS, including leadership performance, provision of development opportunities and employee attitudes to leadership development. Data from the survey are considered below in conjunction with APS Commission internal research and information from its leadership development activities and programs.

Leadership development

Research conducted by the APS Commission during 2002–03 noted a number of common themes in leadership development within agencies including:

• a shift away from broad classroom-based programs to more targeted development opportunities
• an increasing use of capability frameworks (both the SELC Framework and agency-specific frameworks) to provide a context for leadership development programs
• an increasing treatment of leadership development as part of an overall strategy placing greater emphasis on integration and alignment with business objectives.

The research found that most agencies had recently conducted, or were in the process of conducting, a leadership development program. The target groups of these programs varied from APS 5–6 to SES, depending in part on the size of the agency, and required only a short time (no more than two days) out of the workplace.

The agency survey confirmed that the majority of agencies place a high priority on leadership activities, particularly for ELs, the SES feeder group. The survey asked agencies to identify their four highest learning and development priorities for different classification levels. Of the 87 agencies that identified their learning and development priorities, the proportion indicating at least one priority in the broad category of leadership ranged from 23% at the APS 1–4 level to 70% at the EL levels (with 61% indicating leadership as a priority for the SES). Eighty-one per cent of agencies saw leadership development as a priority for their EL staff for 2003–04.

Leadership and management training was also a priority for many employees. Thirty-eight per cent of employees who responded to the question on learning and development priorities nominated leadership as one of their top three important learning and development areas for 2002–03, with 48% nominating it as a top three priority for the learning and development they plan to undertake in 2003–04. Forty-one per cent of employees nominated management training as a top three priority for 2002–03, with 45% anticipating it as a priority for 2003–04.

Despite the priority placed on leadership development, employee satisfaction with leadership development opportunities was mixed. Employees were more likely to indicate dissatisfaction with leadership development opportunities (35%) than satisfaction (27%), although they were most likely to indicate that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (38%).³⁰

Satisfaction levels were significantly related to age and length of service. Employees 45 years and older were more likely to be satisfied and less likely to be dissatisfied with their leadership development opportunities. Employees with between one to five years of service in their current agency reported the lowest levels of satisfaction and highest levels of dissatisfaction. SES employees were much more likely to report satisfaction (67%) than APS or EL employees (25% and 33% respectively). These results suggest that, to some extent, dissatisfaction may be a function of the stage at which employees are in their career, with younger, relatively recently recruited employees, and employees at lower classification levels yet to be given significant leadership development opportunities.

When employees were asked to provide general comments on leadership, many spoke about their dissatisfaction with leadership development opportunities. Reasons for dissatisfaction with opportunities included time and budget constraints, and access to Canberra-based programs for regional employees. Nevertheless, when survey results were analysed there were no significant differences in satisfaction with opportunities for employees based both in and out of the ACT, including at the EL and SES levels.

Due to budgetary constraints [leadership development] is very limited. I only got training last year because it was mandatory (Code of Conduct) or it was paid for by another section who booked out the entire course and had spare places.

Difficult to get time out to do management/leadership training I badly need.

There are no training opportunities for people at my level in WA—all the management type training or anything appropriate is all given in Canberra.

Employee comments also highlight the crucial role that management support plays in employees’ satisfaction with leadership development opportunities. Management is key in the development of employees’ leadership capability, both in giving access to learning and development opportunities, and in facilitating the implementation of development strategies in the workplace.

There is insufficient follow-up by managers to ensure identified learning needs are addressed.

Over the years I have had so many applications for training rejected, that I have given up applying for any training.

My immediate team leader has no idea on how to help staff develop their skills in the area of leadership.

My supervisor is very supportive of training opportunities.

Leadership capability development opportunities

There is a broad range of activities that can be used by agencies to develop leadership capability, ranging from on-the-job approaches such as coaching and mentoring to more formal structured opportunities such as future leaders’ programs. Agencies were asked to identify the leadership development activities they offer at different classification levels. Agency responses are shown at Figure 9.8.

For all classifications, more informal approaches such as internal placements, coaching and mentoring were common. The use of more formal opportunities was concentrated at the EL and SES levels, where external specialised leaders’ programs were the most commonly offered opportunity. Assessment centres and outside APS placements were only commonly used at the EL levels.

Large agencies were more likely to offer most opportunities, including internal future leaders’ programs, across-APS placements, coaching and mentoring. Assessment centres were primarily offered by large agencies at the EL levels (50% of large agencies). Leadership development programs external to the agency were most likely to be used by small agencies at the EL levels (80%) and medium agencies at the APS 5–6 level (38%). Placement/mobility options inside the agency were important for all agency sizes, particularly for non-SES levels, but were most important for medium agencies at the EL levels (81%).

Among agencies identifying the general category of leadership as a learning and development priority, the agency survey also showed a considerable variation in the content of leadership training offered at different classification levels. For APS 5–6, leadership programs had a strong operational focus. For ELs, there was a focus on more generic leadership skills, and the transition from management to leadership, and for the SES, there was a common theme of development of strategic skills. Development programs focused on communication skills and relationship management were consistently reported across all levels.

Senior Executive Leadership Capability Framework

The Senior Executive Leadership Capability (SELC) Framework is an articulation of the crucial success factors for senior APS leaders—in particular, the behaviours that support high performance. Since September 1999, the SELC Framework capabilities have been the core criteria for selection to the SES.

The State of the Service Report 2001–02 reported the results of a review of the SELC Framework, which found that most portfolio secretaries preferred no change to the framework while its use and understanding was still being consolidated across the APS. There was some interest in the APS Commission undertaking further work to improve the practical application of the framework. The APS Commission has subsequently undertaken an extensive process to identify descriptions and behaviours for the components of the SELC Framework from EL1 to SES Band 3. This work, while not changing the SELC Framework as the selection criteria for the SES, will be used to articulate a development pathway for ELs and SES employees, identifying the key management skills and leadership capabilities required on transition from each level to the next. The APS Commission will use this to review with agencies appropriate development strategies, and the role of APS Commission programs to complement agency-based development activities.

The number of agency requests to the APS Commission for selection criteria for particular SES vacancies additional to those specified in the SELC Framework provides a useful barometer of the continued relevance of the framework. There have been comparatively few such requests. The Public Service Commissioner agreed to 24 requests in 1999–2000 (representing 13% of SES vacancies advertised), rising to 34 in 2000–01 (19% of vacancies), dropping again to 21 (10% of vacancies) in 2001–02. In 2002–03 there were 24 requests received from 12 agencies (17% of vacancies), with the ATO most frequently seeking additional criteria (nine requests). In the main, requests continue to relate to the need for specific corporate/financial skills, specific taxation expertise, or legal skills.

The employee survey asked employees to rate their immediate supervisor (not necessarily a member of the SES) against capabilities similar to those in the SELC Framework. The majority of employees rated their supervisors highly. Table 9.4 shows ratings against each capability from strongest to weakest.

Table 9.4: Performance of employees’ immediate supervisor

Capability	Employee response %
	High	Medium	Low
Demonstrates personal drive and integrity	61	24	14
Achieves results	58	29	10
Communicates effectively	52	30	17
Cultivates productive working relationships	50	29	19
Influences strategic thinking	50	27	19

Source: Employee survey

The relatively higher rating of the first two capabilities and relatively lower rating of the last two capabilities amongst immediate supervisors is consistent with trends identified in the feeder group to the SES who participate in the Career Development Assessment Centre (CDAC) program. There is a consistent pattern that CDAC participants are commonly strong in the areas of personal drive and achieving results, but weaker in the areas of productive working relations and shaping strategic thinking.

SES leadership training

The Public Service Commissioner has a specific responsibility under the PS Act to ‘contribute to, and foster, leadership in the APS’. In practice, the APS Commission exercises this responsibility in close collaboration with agencies. In the area of leadership development, individual agencies are often best placed to undertake significant elements of leadership development in the context of their own organisational issues. The APS Commission, however, is in a unique position to promote interaction amongst the leadership cadre of the APS, and amongst the feeder group for the SES, which is an important ingredient to building the ‘constructive working relationships’ capability, and to building capacity in the APS to address whole of government priorities (discussed further below).

There is evidence that SES employees have a preference for development activities that provide them with opportunities for cross-agency interaction. For example, external conferences, seminars and short courses were the most commonly offered learning and development activity for SES employees across all agencies. This preference is further reflected through participation rates of SES employees at the APS Commission’s broad-based, short and topical leadership development events such as breakfast and lunch seminars.

Over the last three years 44% of new SES employees have attended the APS Commission’s ‘Orientation to the Senior Executive Service’ program. The annual average of new SES employees attending the program has, however, dropped from 51% in 2000 to 39% in 2002. Feedback from participants remains very positive, so that reduced participation may relate more to lack of strong and systematic encouragement by some agency heads. Attendance at events such as the SES orientation can play an important role in developing a cross-agency perspective, and promoting collaboration between SES employees in all APS agencies. These issues are discussed further in the context of whole of government issues below.

Other programs offered to the SES at Band 2 and 3 levels are the APS Commission’s ‘Leading Australia's Future in Asia’ fellowships and, from 2003–04, executive fellowships from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG).

The Australian Government became a member of the cross-jurisdictional ANZSOG in September 2002, and is represented on the foundation board by the Public Service Commissioner. ANZSOG is a first-tier, professional school established collaboratively by a consortium of Australian and New Zealand governments, universities and business schools to provide world-class education and training to emerging public sector leaders. The Public Service Commissioner also participates as a member of the ANZSOG research committee and the ANZSOG quality committee.

ANZSOG’s Executive Fellows Program (EFP) is tailored for senior executives to enhance core leadership and management skills needed to direct organisations within the public service. The first EFP commenced in Sydney on 1 September 2003 and concluded on 19 September. Of the first EFP’s 80 participants, 16 were Australian Government agency participants.

In 2002–03, a strong focus by agencies and the APS Commission on providing innovative leadership development activities remained. However, the Public Service Commissioner has emphasised the need to balance the capabilities set out in the SELC Framework with the technical and management skills needed in the emerging environment, including financial, contract, project and risk management skills, and communications expertise.³¹ The need for improvements in specific areas of management has been highlighted in a number of different forums.³² The Secretary of PM&C, Dr Peter Shergold, has reinforced the Commissioner’s message on this issue.³³

SES feeder group

Recent State of the Service reports have consistently noted increased attention to identifying the development needs of those EL staff who form the feeder group of the SES. This trend continued in 2002–03, with research conducted for the APS Commission indicating that some agencies widened that focus to include APS 5–6.

ANZSOG offers an Executive Masters of Public Administration (Executive MPA) to high-performing EL2s. The masters program includes core units developed around the areas of policy analysis and development, public sector management, ethics and personal effectiveness skills and electives. The first cohort of this program commenced study in May 2003, with more than 30 participants from 17 Australian Government departments and agencies.

The School has now run the first modules of the masters program. While it is too early to discern additional development requirements, these early deliveries have reinforced the accuracy of the development needs identified in the original ANZSOG business model, and provided additional information for further refinement of future components.

CDAC continues to enjoy strong support from the 27 participating agencies. Since the inception of CDAC, participation has included 417 high-performing EL2s identified by their agencies as having the capability to reach the SES within two years. CDAC participants’ performance is rated against the SELC Framework. Comparison of the progression from EL to SES between participants in CDAC and non-participants shows that 32% of 2000–01 CDAC participants are now in the SES, compared with 5% of non-participating EL2s.

CDAC participation rates overall remain well below the rate of appointment to the SES (though near that rate for a number of the participating agencies). Given the challenge of increasing the numbers with capacity to take on leadership positions in the next five years, agencies should consider increasing participation of suitable staff in the CDAC program, including younger people in the feeder group for whom CDAC might indicate more clearly their development requirements.

 

18 Learning and development as discussed in this section refers to learning activities on the job as well as more formal off-the-job activities. Seminars, conferences, classroom training courses, leadership programs, academic study, and in-house programs are counted along with mentoring, coaching, job rotation and work placements.

19 ANAO, Management of Learning and Development in the Australian Public Service, Report No. 64, 2001–02.

20 MAC, op. cit., 2003.

21 Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, op. cit.

22 APS Commission and ANAO, op. cit., p. 16.

23 These priorities are not directly comparable with agency results, as agency results are not weighted by employee size.

24 ibid., p. 22.

25 Agencies were asked to include the sum of all costs associated with learning and development activity including venue costs, catering, presenter fees, travel expenses, development and design costs, material, salary costs and on-costs of participants in this total expenditure figure.

26 ANAO, Report No. 64, 2001–02, op. cit., p. 3.

27 ANAO and APS Commission, op. cit., p. 16.

28 ibid., p. 24.

29 MAC, op. cit., 2003.

30 All employees were asked this question, but those answering ‘not applicable’ have been excluded.

31 See, for example ‘The Public Sector of the Future’, speech to the Forum of Commonwealth Agencies in NSW Incorporated, 27 February 2003.

32 For example, ANAO, Recordkeeping in large Commonwealth organisations, Report No. 7, September, 2003; MAC, Australian Government Use of Information and Communications Technology, Report No. 2, 2002.

33 Dr P Shergold, ‘A change in leadership; what does it mean?’, speech to IPAA, ACT, 11 June 2003.