streamlining project final version august 2005 cutblock integration team proposals creating a...

Streamlining Project

Final Version• August 2005

Cutblock Integration Team Proposals

Creating a streamlined forest information management model…

2Cutblock Integration Team

Presentation Overview

Why change is needed

The Streamlining Project

Mandate Process Vision and working principles

Business Proposals (4)

Streamlining benefits


The Challenge: Why Change?

Inconsistent cutting permit application process and information requirements between districts

Duplicate information requests and process misalignment between operational plan, cutting permit, and revenue processes

Different cutblock definition/ cutblock boundaries and mapping standards between business areas

With the move to electronic submission, clear standards for submission and distribution of information are urgently needed


The Streamlining ProjectMandate

Improve the forest information cycle, from up-front information access for operational plan and appraisal submissions through to free-growing declarations

Realize improvements through

Integrated business processes Improved access to information Consistent, streamlined information requirements that are

well understood


The Streamlining ProjectThree Phases

Phase I: Issues identified, resulting in high level recommendations FRPA notification and reporting streamlined

Phase II: Cross-corporate teams developed proposals to improve

business Proposals were reviewed by government and industry, and

revised as needed based on feedback. Phase III:

Communicate business proposals to responsibility centres Responsibility centres develop training, policies, guidelines,

and systems to support changes Cross-corporate Business Integration Group co-ordinates

and supports implementation efforts


Phase II Team Process

A Cutblock Integration Team was formed with representation from Operations (district and regional staff), Tenures, Revenue, Forest Practices, IMG

A series of meetings and reviews were held to address the Phase I recommendations

The Cutblock Integration Team proposals are outlined in the slides that follow

These proposals are backed by a more detailed report

The proposals were subject to a province-wide review by government and licensee operational staff

Proposals have been communicated to responsibility centres, and implementation is now underway


Vision

Provincially-consistent cutblock business processes that are integrated across business areas, with streamlined information requirements


Working Principles

Information will be shared within government where possible

The focus is on the business - not the systems

Solutions will meet operational needs of districts and all licensees (large and small)

Clarity and integration of the business will enable future systems improvements (transitions to full e-business)

Major business processes will be provincially consistent

The comparison of planned, permitted, and actual activity will be possible (C&E, Revenue, Monitoring)


Streamlining Project ScopeIntegrated Forest Information Cycle

Harvest completionreporting

FSP

Operational planning

Harvest authority process

Cruise, Appraisal, CP application

Harvest completion

Plan ReportNotify

Silviculture reporting

Harvest notification

Silviculture activity

Regen/ FG Milestone

Notification of commencement

Inventory update


Cutblock Integration Proposal #1 Electronic FSP Submission

Submit FSPs in an electronic format to:

Expedite approval Enable tracking Improve amendment efficiency

Provide C&E with operational access to the electronic FSP results and strategies as required to conduct inspections

Provide Stewardship staff with access to FSP information to enable more effective monitoring/evaluation

This proposal is being addressed by the FSP Tracking Project (www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/FSP/)


Cutblock Integration Proposal #1 Electronic FSP Submission Cont’d

FDU 1

FDU 2

Map of proposed FDU outer boundaries

Information re spatially-enabled results and strategies


Cutblock Integration Proposal #2 Permit Bundle Submission

Bundle the appraisal and cutting permit application in an electronic submission

Layer the map submission to:

Reduce the number of transactions (from 2 to 1) Improve consistency between the processes (addresses

systemic problem)

Automatically split out layered map submission for processing by each MoF business area

No added complexity for MoF Reduces the need for licensees to remove detail and

duplicate submissions


Cutblock Integration Proposal #2 Permit Bundle Submission Cont’d

Key attributes:

Map outer boundary is common to both business processes (multiple submissions not required)

Permit bundle map layers are overlaid on the existing FSP map to ensure that they fall within the FSP boundary

C&E receives the permit bundle once a cutting permit is issued, for risk assessment and inspection planning

Planned WTPs are included in bundled submission

Planned internal WTPs are needed in Appraisal Optional submission of planned external WTPs– updated in

LRDW (to enable CP/RP statusing)



Appraisal layer for appraisal

Automatic map splitting

Check against

FSP map

Permit bundle submission (not a working map on its own)




CP application layer for Ex. A map


Check against

FSP map

Permit bundle submission




CP application layer for Ex. A map

Planned WTPs to LRDW


Check against

FSP map

Permit bundle submission


Cutblock Integration Proposal #2 Permit Bundle Submission: Appraisal

Appraisal map layer to include:

Timber types In-block reserves Harvest method and partial cut % Roads

Automatically extract the appraisal map layer from the permit bundle and send it to Revenue as a part of the appraisal


Cutblock Integration Proposal #2 Permit Bundle Submission: CP Application

Send the map outer boundary (Exhibit A boundary) to Tenures to obtain legal clearance of the area for which harvest authority is sought


Cutblock Integration Proposal #2 Permit Bundle Submission: External WTPs

Allow optional submission of planned external WTPs

Update in LRDW as a planned WTP layer

Planned WTPs would indicate a conflict during subsequent CP/RP statusing

Planned WTPs do not have legal status


Cutblock Integration Proposal #3 Bundled RESULTS Reporting

Bundle RESULTS reporting for more efficient electronic submission:

Harvest activity Standards Units Vegetation update (forest cover) Internal and external reserve timber

Layer map information to reduce the number of transactions (from 3 to 1)

Legislation-enabled Requires minor changes to systems and procedures

Improves consistency between the processes (addresses systemic problem)


Cutblock Integration Proposal #3 Bundled RESULTS Reporting Cont’d

Automatically split out layered information on the submission for processing by MoF and MSRM

No added complexity for MoF or MSRM Reduces the need for licensees to duplicate submissions

Directly overlay the RESULTS Reporting map on the planning maps (FSP and Permit Bundle) to compare what was harvested with what was planned and issued in a CP

Use forest cover information from the bundled RESULTS report to update the Vegetation Resource Inventory


Cutblock Integration Proposal #3 Bundled RESULTS Reporting Cont’d

Harvest Completion Report (actual) map

FSP map

System automatically detects differences between the planned and actual harvests and notifies the appropriate business area (e.g. C&E, Revenue, Tenures)

Permit bundle (plan) submission


Cutblock Integration Proposal #4Integrated Mapping Standards

Provincially consistent mapping standards are being developed where they currently do not exist

Mapping standards will be integrated across operational business processes to improve information exchange

Appraisal, CP, harvest and silviculture reporting

Standardization and integration will enable comparison of actual results to planned activity

Feedback for Revenue, C&E, and Stewardship


Cutblock Integration Proposal #4Integrated Mapping Standards Cont’d

Mapping standards address, across business areas:

Submission format Submission information requirements Digital mapping standards (resolution, precision,

administrative identifiers)


Benefits to licensees

Clear business rules and goalposts

Rationalized information requirements - no duplication One map submission for harvest authority, not three One harvest completion submission, not three

Less confusion about map versions

Feedback on plan/permit/appraisal status

Faster approvals


Benefits to district staff

Electronic submissions will populate several applications simultaneously with appropriate data

Reduced confusion across business areas – e.g. terminology, information requirements, mapping standards

Integration of business processes e.g. plan to actual map comparison

Information provided to C&E for risk assessment and inspection, and to Stewardship for monitoring/evaluation

streamlining project final version august 2005 cutblock integration team proposals creating a...

Documents

cutblock integration

distribution of information

business areaswith

upfront information

principlesbusiness proposals

followthese proposals

streamlining benefits

forest practices