The machinery of government secretariat in the Privy Council Office is a key but virtually unknown component of the federal public service. In fact, it is so little known that when I worked as its assistant secretary for a decade, I regularly got the question: “What is the machinery function?”

Here’s my best attempt at a succinct answer. 

In an era when government’s focus is often on a relentless 24/7 social media environment, machinery is concerned with unintended consequences, remains small-c conservative and is focused on systemic integrity. At a time of pressure for instant results, the machinery mindset remains focused on the longer-term viability of institutions.

If the machinery function were a meme, it would be a monk at Latin mass chanting the liturgy or stooped over a dusty, holy text.

So, it is not surprising that the machinery secretariat is often viewed by the broader public service as a “black box” with mysterious and sometimes inconvenient contents. For the public concerned with getting results, the machinery function can seem like one of the remoter regions of the deep state.

Machinery’s goal is the promotion of effective and efficient institutions in a democratic society. Its decisions are concerned with assigning pre-existing, merged or new organizations with appropriate capacities, responsibilities and purposes. In machinery-speak, this is normally described as PDFs (powers, duties and functions).

The three core tenets

There are three core tenets that are engaged in most machinery discussions.

The first is ensuring that lines of accountability are clear. While knowing which “throat to choke” can be discomforting, democratic accountability is a core feature of our system. In general, accountability lies with the executive branch through such principles as ministerial responsibility.

This can take different forms from direct ministerial accountability for traditional line departments to more arm’s length relationships, as is the case for administrative tribunals or other quasi-judicial bodies.

The second is that machinery has as its starting point the organizational status quo. This is sometimes called Mitchell’s law – first articulated by James Mitchell, former assistant secretary, machinery of government, from 1991–94.  

Bulking up the Privy Council Office isn’t the solution to what ails the public service

Trust should be a two-way street between governments and the public

Behind many organizations, there is an often incredible story of evolution over time. How else could the federal government have gone from 12 entities and 368 Ottawa-based staff in 1867 to more than 300 entities and 368,000 staff today?

Per Mitchell’s law, part of the art of machinery is taking the time to uncover the foundations of an organization and whether its raison-d’être is still compelling. No organization exists forever (at least in an unchanged form) but long-lived ones survive for a reason.

The third tenet is often the starting point when considering new organizational structures, namely that “form follows function.” Or put another way, machinery starts with an understanding of the intended purpose (or function) under consideration. Only after that function is well-understood can there be a thoughtful discussion of the potential design (or form) of the organization.

As with many crafts, there are some dos and don’ts:

What to do

Consult other countries (particularly Westminster countries): Machinery design benefits from the experiences of others that may have developed better organizational approaches to common problems. This can help guide Canadian decision-making. Being a “fast follower” in such situations can create a virtuous circle where countries learn from each other, and also from the private sector and other orders of government.

Bring practitioners into the discussion: Machinery is improved when it is informed by the lived experience of what works (and what doesn’t). While the sensitivity of any prospective organizational change means the circle of knowledge must be kept small, a consultancy model that brings together practitioners and those with machinery knowledge yields better results than either group can achieve alone.

Consider the mandate cycle: Since machinery is disruptive to impacted organizations and it can take time before new or reconstituted organizations are fully functional, it is generally thought that machinery change should be front-loaded in a government’s mandate. For this reason, the beginning of a mandate (i.e., as part of governmental transition) is often viewed as an opportunity for significant machinery reform.

Explore non-machinery alternatives first: Using existing mechanisms, the reprioritization of resources and addressing issues in policy or regulation often offer faster and potentially more effective alternatives to formal machinery changes.

Engage the centre: It surprises some, but machinery is the sole prerogative of the prime minister within the executive branch. This is an important way to avoid duplication and ensure the machinery universe is rational. An early check with the centre by departments can help define the realm of the possible.

Incubate new organizations where possible: A common shortcoming is the time it takes a new organization to become functional. To accelerate its maturation, it may be wise to incubate the new organization within an existing one so that it can rely on the established back-office capacities, such as IT, HR and other corporate functions, of its host organization. This allows the fledgling organization to focus on its core mission as it finds its feet. Once it is up and running, consideration could then be given to spinning it off into a wholly separate form.

What not to do

Use machinery as a tool for communications: The creation of a new organization can be part of a government’s response to an issues-management challenge, but the desire for a public announcement remains a poor basis for machinery creation.

For one, the announcement itself provides only the temporary appearance of doing something – which will be found wanting if the actual machinery solution is poorly constructed. If it is the sole basis for moving forward, the comms hit is almost never worth the downstream machinery cost.

Create “zombie” organizations: These exist long after the purpose for which they were built has ceased to exist. Lacking a mandate, they roam aimlessly, seemingly without discernible intent, let alone impact. They can be tough to wind down because stakeholders become dependent on them.

Sometimes machinery mistakes are made when there is confusion between a project that, however important, is temporary in nature and an organizational mandate that is ongoing. Projects should generally be assigned to pre-existing organizations that continue to have a purpose after the project is completed. In machinery-speak, the question to be asked is: “What does it feed on in winter?”

Promote clutter in the machinery universe: With more than 300 organizations at the federal level alone, modern governance is already too complicated. Machinery should not add unnecessarily to the muddle. Having multiple organizations with overlapping authorities is a recipe for inefficiency, confusion and poor performance. Proper machinery construction works diligently to “deconflict” areas of potential overlap so that everyone knows who does (and is responsible for) what.

Make machinery beholden to the cult of personality: Machinery should not be used to solve personnel issues or be designed with a particular leader in mind. The powers, duties and functions of the organization should flow from its intended function and not the characteristics of a particular leader. Since machinery change is infrequent, institutions should be built to outlast the current incumbent and to be resilient.

The long-term goal

Machinery experts respect institutions, but they must not allow themselves to wallow in nostalgia. What’s required is a facilitative, solutions-oriented mindset to evolve institutions so that Canada continues to be the home of “peace, order and good government,” with purpose-built organizations capable of serving Canadians in disruptive and challenging times.