2.1 Purpose [Top]
The key objectives for this performance management system are to ensure:
- PAs are being appropriately supported in assisting producers to complete EFPs and to select and apply for funding support for BMPs;
- PAs contribute to meeting BC targets set by AGRI for the number of producers completing EFPs and BMPs;
- PAs meet their targets for promotions activity;
- PAs meet the quality standards set by ARDCorp for the numbers of complete and accurate BMP applications, with a target of 90% accuracy per PA;
- PAs meet the standards set by AGRI on the quality of Planning BMPs prepared by Advisors;
- Effective communication from PAs to ARDCorp; and
- Effective communication from PAs to producers and other stakeholders.
Communication between ARDCorp and PAs is essential to successful program delivery. Both are mutually responsible for effective communication.
Regular contact through the performance management system ensures ARDCorp and PAs understand the needs, challenges and opportunities of AGRI, ARDCorp, producers, other stakeholders and Advisors. It also ensures Advisors understand their roles, responsibilities and performance expectations and are given the support and guidance to meet those requirements.
2.2 Training Expectations [Top]
2.2.1 Annual Advisor Training
ARDCorp provides annual program training that all PAs are expected to attend. PAs may be asked to complete a post-training assessment of their knowledge and ability to fulfill the technical portions of the training.
2.2.2 Training for New Advisors
A formal training program for prospective new PAs lasts a minimum of two weeks. A minimum of one week before the commencement of the training, students will receive the EFP Planning Workbook and the EFP Reference Guide. Approximately three weeks after the course, students will complete a three hour written exam. The training consists primarily of lectures and discussion. During the course students will use case studies, worksheets and will be assigned homework. Field trips are scheduled to give students experience evaluating a farm. Participation is expected from all students.
Course Goals
By the end of the course students will be able to:
- Evaluate a farm or ranch in order to correctly answer all the questions in the Environmental Farm Plan Program Planning Workbook.
- Evaluate proposed corrective actions to address issues identified through the Environmental Farm Plan Program Planning Workbook process. This will enable producers to select options that adequately reduce risk to the environment and, at the same time, achieve long term farm business plan goals. Where Advisors are at the limit of their expertise, they will know when to consult with the appropriate expert to obtain further information.
- Assess risk to the environment and consider regional scans or other information provide by the Program Managers in order to set priorities for the corrective items identified in the Environmental Farm Plan Program Planning Workbook.
- Explain the Beneficial Management Program and be able to assist producers with their application for funding.
Course Evaluation
Students must attend classes and complete assignments prior to writing the final exam. An overall grade of 75% or higher is required to be recognized as an Environmental Farm Plan Planning Advisor. Marks are distributed as follows:
- 20% class work (including in-class presentation);
- 15% homework (due the exam day); and,
- 65% exam (case studies, funding programs, and Environmental Farm Plan Program process).
2.3 Performance Management [Top]
2.3.1 Overview
ARDCorp monitors and evaluates the quantity and quality of PA performance in two key areas:
- Plans: Environmental Farm Plans and Beneficial Management Practices; and,
- Communications: The information exchanged between producers, Advisors and ARDCorp.
| Key Area | Quantity Measure | Quality Measure |
|---|---|---|
| Plans |
|
|
| Communications |
|
|
2.3.2 Targets
Performance targets are set at two levels and are designed first, to establish the minimum levels of performance required for ARDCorp to meet its’ contractual obligations to AGRI in delivering the EFP Program. The system is also designed to recognize the unique contributions, experience and abilities of each PA through optional, desirable targets. This system helps PAs track their performance, and it provides ARDCorp with a flexible system where PAs and ARDCorp set targets jointly. This allows PAs to focus their strengths and abilities, as well as, to accommodate differences between regions and producer groups.
There are two types of performance targets:
- Minimum performance targets are the number of EFPs that each PA must complete each program year and act as a baseline for the level of PA performance. Minimum performance targets are set by ARDCorp for two zones of the province. These zones reflect the distribution of farms in the province and the average distance between farm operations in different regions.
- Desirable performance targets are used as a guideline in the Performance Review process. These desirable targets are set jointly by the Advisor and ARDCorp. Desirable targets are an important part of the performance management system, but may vary for each Advisor, the region they serve and/or particular commodity or geographic groups. Some examples of desirable targets are:
- Number of EFPs completed in a year (over and above the required performance target)
- Number of rural and remote EFPs completed
- Group plans completed
- Promotional activities & results of those activities, and
- Work with a particular industry leader, influential producer or producer group to advance Program goals.
| Zone | Region | Regional Districts | No. of Farms (2011) | EFP Targets |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1. Vancouver Island/Coast | Capital, Cowichan Valley, Alberni-Clayquot, Strathcona, Comox Valley, Powell River, Central Coast | 3,000 | 15 New 6 Renewals |
| 2. Southwest | Fraser Valley, Metro Vancouver, Sunshine Coast, Squamish Lillooet | 5,793 | ||
| 3. Thompson-Okanagan | Okanagan-Similkameen, Thompson-Nicola, Central Okanagan, North Okanagan, Columbia Shuswap | 5,486 | ||
| Total | 14,279 | |||
| 2 | 4. Kootenay | East Kootenay, Kootenay Boundary, Central Kootenay | 1,273 | 6 New 3 Renewals |
| 5. Cariboo | Cariboo, Fraser Fort George | 1,681 | ||
| 6. North Coast | Kitimat-Stikine, Skeena-Queen Charlottes | 106 | ||
| 7. Nechako | Bulkley Nechako | 840 | ||
| 8. Peace | Peace River, Northern Rockies | 1,560 | ||
| Total | 5,460 | |||
2.3.3 Regional Performance Targets
ARDCorp and PAs may jointly set additional desired regional performance targets with incentives for their completion. Regional targets will allow PAs to use their knowledge of local situations to identify priorities unique to producers in those regions and to provide ARDCorp with a better perspective on the PA’s approach.
These targets may be based on a defined area such as an underserved Regional District or could be focused on a particular group of producers. Alternately, they could be specific, such as working with a producer who is influential in a given region or commodity group, in order to obtain referrals and recommendations to other producers.
2.3.4 Limited Service Areas
Certain areas of the province may be deemed to be Limited Service Areas because of geographic distance, travel time, and/or costs associated with conducting an on- farm visit. If ARDCorp receives a request for a top-up payment from a PA to visit a producer to assist with EFP completion in a Limited Service Area, the following factors will be considered in the approval process:
- Inaccessible regions have significant geographic (e.g. extremely poor or no road access) or seasonal climatic variables (travel restricted during some seasons) that make the region difficult for a PA to visit;
- Impractical regions have limited potential benefits, or the potential benefits are insufficient to offset the costs, because of physical distance, travel costs or other expenses.
If a producer directly requests a PA visit, and any of the above are significant factors for the farm location, PAs must consult with ARDCorp to determine whether the potential impact is sufficient to offset the costs or other barriers.
2.4 Performance Reviews [Top]
2.4.1 Review Process
The performance review process is designed to ensure brief but regular discussions about performance between Advisors and ARDCorp. Frequent updates are important, but the system should be fast, flexible and focused.
If neither ARDCorp nor the PA raises any issues for redress, the quarterly check up can be a quick 5 - 10 minute conversation. Regular contact is important to confirm that everything is on track and performance expectations are being met or exceded. More time will be required if, and when, problems arise. Regular communication, identifying and resolving problems quickly can be time-saving in the long term, because problems that go unaddressed may become significantly worse over time.
When PA performance meets or exceeds the expectations set jointly by ARDCorp and producers, only minimal time will be needed by either party on the performance review process.
2.4.2 Quarterly Check Up
The quarterly review is intended to be a brief check in with Advisors. Advisors and the reviewer (Program Manager or designate) will each answer three scale-rating questions, and one open-ended question, regarding the performance of the Advisor in that quarter.
Questions (rated from 1-10; or N/A):
- Overall success in the role
- Success meeting performance targets
- Success in promoting the program
- Space for comments
The reviewer and Advisor each prepare notational ratings individually, and during the discussion, use these ratings as a guide. The discussion will include agreeing on an overall rating for the Advisor, which will form part of their performance management file. Having both ratings prepared is useful for discussing any differences in perceived performance, and considering why those differences may exist. Some of the following points may be useful to consider when investigating any significant differences in ratings
:- Differences in historical expectations
- Different perspectives about performance results
- Insufficient communications between Advisors and ARDCorp
- Uncertainty regarding the scales, and what rating constitutes “Good”, Average” or “Poor” performance
- Variations in program priorities, and
- Individual circumstances or recent events that affect perceptions
Note: Different people may use rating scales slightly differently. Ratings that differ by 1 or 2 points should be considered to be consistent ratings, indicating both parties have the same overall sense of the performance.
The quarterly check-in questionnaire should only take a few minutes to complete. The questionnaire is then followed by a conversation which can take anywhere from 5 - 60 minutes, depending on the results and circumstances. A typical conversation would only last 5 - 10 minutes. Email may be an acceptable alternative to a phone discussion. If any problems or concerns are identified, these may be flagged for a follow up conversation, if required.
Each quarterly check up can focus on a different aspect of the work:
Q1 - Initial experiences with producers, setting goals to achieve the targets
Q2 - Promotions and communication activities
Q3 - Review of performance targets - what needs to happen to meet targets?
Q4 - Analysis of the year, what has changed over the quarters, what opportunities are upcoming for the next year, and what are next year's Desirable Targets?
These aspects are guidelines, but they should not be prioritized over more relevant of urgent performance issues.
2.4.3 Promotions Activity Snapshot
PAs are asked to report on their quarterly promotions activities using the template included below. The amount of paid promotional activity may be limited based on available funding. These results do not need to be considered during every quarterly check-up, but should be completed throughout the year by the Advisor.
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | ||||
| Target Audience | ||||
| Actions Taken | ||||
| Follow-up |
This system is designed to provide a very brief overview (no more than 100 - 150 words, in point form) of any promotions activities undertaken in a given fiscal quarter to serve as a reference point. As with EFP completion target reviews, this is not intended to be a time-consuming and comprehensive analysis, rather a platform for discussion about what does and does not work to encourage producers to participate in the EFP Program.
Emphasis is to be placed on the outcomes and actions section, noting which actions were successful and should guide future actions to be taken and highlighting any follow up activities that were successful.
2.4.4 Annual Performance Plan
The PA Quarterly Review ratings will be used to discuss performance for the previous fiscal year, and develop a plan for the following fiscal year. Discuss and agree on the following performance parameters:
- 90% of BMP applications signed off by the PA are complete and accurate.
- Quality review results of Planning BMP’s as completed by AGRI
- Plan to resolve any identified quality issues.
- Performance targets for the next fiscal year
- Minimum target for new and renewal EFPs
- Desirable target for new and renewal EFPs, and
- Numbers of group or commodity plans.
- Plan to promote the program (based on available funding and ARDCorp marketing priorities):
- Cold calls, emails and local events (with no additional reimbursement beyond the amount embedded in the existing EFP remuneration structure), and
- Regional/provincial events and trade shows (reimbursed based on costed and approved plan).
- Comments
Annual reviews should accompany every fourth quarterly checkup. At this point, the reviewer will have three measures of quarterly performance fin addition to the Promotions Activity Snapshot report. The annual review considers performance across the entire year, is an opportunity to discuss any issues that emerged along with if, and how, they were resolved. The annual review includes a look at Advisor performance targets (Required and Desirable), and may include revising performance targets for the upcoming year.
2.5 Detailed Reviews and Termination [Top]
2.5.1 Grounds for Termination
In relation to PA performance and actions, the following are grounds for termination of the service contract with ARDCorp:
- Any indication of fraud perpetrated by the PA, or knowledge of fraud related to the Program that goes unreported;
- Negative public communications regarding ARDCorp, the EFP or BMP programs;
- Not meeting the required performance targets for three consecutive periods, and
- Failing to submit the required documentation to ARDCorp, or participate in performance reviews, for three consecutive periods.
Additional information about termination is contained in PA service agreement ('contract').
2.5.2 Notification
Notification will be given 30-days prior to termination of a PA contract. The termination process can be triggered at any time, however, the performance management system aims to identify and remedy any performance issues to avoid the termination process.
When performance issues are first identified, Advisors will be given a chance to discuss their performance and the steps they intend to take to remedy any performance issues.
Firstly, the ARDCorp performance reviewer will notify the PA that there is a performance issue (such as consistently not meeting minimum targets). If the PA would like to improve their performance, or they intend to meet their targets by year-end, a review date for the performance issues will be set (typically the following quarterly check in). If the performance issues are significant, the reviewer will notify the PA that they are entering a Detailed Review Period.
2.5.3 Appeals and Dispute Resolution
After being provided with notification of intent to terminate a service agreement, a PA may appeal the decision through arbitration under the rules of the British Columbia Arbitration and Mediation Institute (BCAMI), and,
- The appointing authority will be the BCAMI
- The arbitration proceeding will be heard by a single arbitrator
- The place of the arbitration will be Abbotsford, British Columbia
- The case will be administered by the BCAMI in accordance with its "Rules for Domestic Arbitrations".
2.5.4 Detailed Review Period
Detailed review periods can be triggered for any of a number of reasons and are designed for PAs that need additional support, additional monitoring or when there are persistent performance issues. During the Detailed Review Period:
- ARDCorp and PAs jointly review targets, and ensure Desirable Targets are sufficient, realistic, achievable and appropriate
- ARDCorp will emphasize the importance of meeting targets and providing additional support and advice to producers
- PA will discuss any challenges in meeting targets and reasons for current performance, and
- Clear planning will be completed to decide whether the contract relationship will continue and what actions must occur.
The Detailed Review Period typically lasts two quarters, where performance is monitored, and the Advisor is required to submit an Action Plan. The Action Plan reviews the targets, along with the actions the Advisor will carry out to meet the objectives and any support required from ARDCorp. There are three possible outcomes when the Detailed Review Period is complete:
- Performance is acceptable, Detailed Review Period concludes, Advisor returns to regular quarterly check-ups;
- Performance is near desirable range, but still insufficient, reviewer may choose to extend Detailed Review Period or terminate the contract; or
- Performance has not improved; Action Plan targets not met; contract is terminated.
2.5.5 Review for New Advisors
For the first two quarters, new Advisors will participate in a Detailed Review Period. During this time, performance may be more closely monitored and there may be additional contact between the PA and ARDCorp if needed. New Advisors will be on a six-month probation period during which they will be required to meet performance expectations or the contract will be terminated.
2.5.6 Extenuating or Compassionate Circumstances
The Detailed Review Period can be triggered when an Advisor has extenuating personal challenges that make it difficult to complete the minimum work requirments, but the Advisor wants to remain in their role. In these circumstances the quarterly check-up can be used to discuss what performance targets are achievable, and planning timelines (if known) for returning to previous capacity.
If an Advisor has a history of strong performance, and wants to remain in the role over the long-term, ARDCorp can temporarily suspend Required Performance Targets in extenuating or compassionate circumstances.
2.5.7 Action Plan
Advisors subject to a Detailed Review Period will be required to submit an Action Plan. For new hires this can highlight areas for development after their first quarterly check up. Those who are completing an action plan because of performance issues are required to suggest what action they can take to address the performance issues.
Action plans are not intended to be time consuming, and can be completed in 10 - 20 minutes. The Action Plan is a commitment from Advisors to achieve performance targets and to carry out specific actions.
| Targets Achieved | Targets Not Met | |
|---|---|---|
| Target | ||
| Rationale Why was this possible or not? | ||
| Success Factors Why was this successful or what is required to make it successful? | ||
| Planned Actions What actions will be taken to meet targets? | ||
| Timeframe When will actions be complete? When will there be return to sufficient performance? |
2.6 Producer Feedback [Top]
An ongoing survey will be used solicit producers participating in the EFP program to rate their experience working with a PA. This feedback will form part of the information used to assess the quality of PA performance.
The survey questions will include:
- On a scale of one through ten, with one being “Poor” and ten being “Excellent”, please rate your experience with the EFP Program.
- What could have been improved?
- On a scale of one through ten, with one being “Poor” and ten being “Excellent”, please rate the helpfulness of your Planning Advisor in the EFP process.
- What could the Planning Advisor have done differently to improve your experience?
- On a scale of one through ten, with one being “Poor” and ten being “Excellent”, please rate the communications and feedback from your Planning Advisor.
- What could your Planning Advisor have done differently to improve communications?
Survey Postcards
ARDCorp may provide “postcards” to encourage producer participation. These will allow those with limited internet access or who prefer traditional communication methods with be able to participate, without using an intermediary. The postcards will be double-sided, with a web link and information about the survey on the front, along with ARDCorp’s mailing address. The reverse side will have the survey questions to fill in. Producers can follow the link to the online survey, or complete the postcard survey and mail it in to ARDCorp.