Evaluation of the Clean Growth Hub Program

Audit and Evaluation Branch
Natural Resources Canada
May 5, 2021

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Evaluation Objectives and Methods
• Evaluation Limitations and Mitigation Strategies
• Findings: Relevance
• Findings: Effectiveness
• Findings: Efficiency
• GBA+: A Future Direction for the Hub
• Conclusions
• Appendix 1 Program logic model
• Appendix 2: Bibliography
• Appendix 3: Evaluation Team

List of Acronyms

AAFC	Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
ADM	Assistant Deputy Minister
AEB	Audit and Evaluation Branch
BDC	Business Development Canada
CCC	Canada Commercial Corporation
CIRNAC	Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
CR	Core Responsibility
CRM	Customer Relationship Management
CTDS	Clean Technology Data Strategy
DFO	Fisheries and Oceans Canada
DG	Director General
DM	Deputy Minister
DRF	Departmental Results Framework
ECCC	Environment and Climate Change Canada
EDC	Export Development Canada
EDI	Equity, diversity, and inclusion
FY	Fiscal year
FTE	Full-Time Employee
GAC	Global Affairs Canada
GBA+	Gender-Based Analysis Plus
GC	Government of Canada
Hub	Clean Growth Hub
IT	Information Technology
ISC	Indigenous Services Canada
ISED	Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
MOU	Memoranda of Understanding
NRC	National Research Council
NRCan	Natural Resources Canada
PCF	Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change
PRC	Project Review Committee
SCC	Standards Council of Canada
SDTC	Sustainable Development Technology Canada
TBS	Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (Centre for Greening Government)
TC	Transport Canada

Executive Summary

About the Evaluation

This report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations from the evaluation of the Clean Growth Hub (Hub) Program. The Hub was launched in January 2018, co-led by National Resources Canada (NRCan) and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED). The Hub serves as a whole-of-government service model and a focal point to help clean technology proponents navigate the Government of Canada (GC) clean technology innovation ecosystem. The evaluation period was from fiscal year (FY) 2017-18 to FY 2019-20. Total program allotted budgets were $4.5 million for each co-lead during the evaluation period.

The Audit and Evaluation Branch (AEB) of NRCan conducted the evaluation in consultation with the AEB of ISED and representatives from the Hub. The objective of this evaluation was to examine the Hub’s relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency with an emphasis on program design and delivery to help inform the Hub’s future directions. The lines of evidence included key informant interviews, a program document review, a secondary data analysis of a client survey, and a consultant report review.

What the Evaluation Found

Relevance: The Hub is responsive to the needs of stakeholders in the clean technology innovation ecosystem. The Hub helps clean technology proponents navigate the federal ecosystem by bringing multiple programs and services into the same space. It addresses gaps related to poorly connected programs and a lack of a focal point. The Hub breaks down inter-departmental silos among federal departments and agencies that have policies and programs that support clean technology. It functions as a federal focal point where one did not otherwise exist. There is a continued demand for the Hub from clean technology proponents. More than half of respondents to the client survey were satisfied with the Hub. They reported that the Hub provided a range of benefits. For those who were dissatisfied, the reasons were in part related to their misunderstanding about the Hub, particularly its scope of activities. The Hub also attracts clients who are not ready for clean technology programs. A more strategic and proactive focus on outreach and communications could enable the Hub to better attract “program-ready” clients that it is best positioned to serve. The Hub is well aligned with federal and departmental priorities, frameworks, and strategies to advance clean growth and climate action. It is also well aligned with NRCan and ISED’s legislated roles in areas related to clean technology and innovation. The keys to the Hub’s success are its horizontal structure and collaborative model. The Hub provides a consistent and targeted voice for the federal clean technology innovation ecosystem.

Effectiveness: The Hub has made progress towards the immediate outcomes. The Hub has met Immediate Outcome 1 (clean technology advisory services, opportunities and knowledge products are provided to help navigate government programming). The Hub has made considerable progress towards Immediate Outcome 2 (inter-departmental collaboration is strengthened with clean technology programs and stakeholders). The Hub has made some progress towards Immediate Outcome 3 (data collection guidance is provided to programs that fund clean technology projects). Progress towards the immediate outcomes may facilitate the achievement of the intermediate outcomes and ultimate outcome. Although the Hub is moving in the right direction, there are limitations in inter-departmental collaboration. Some programs and stakeholders are still working in silos to some extent. There are also variations in the level of commitment among the member organizations. The Hub is on track to be implemented as planned. The Hub’s delivery is effective because it is an agile organization. It successfully addressed early delivery challenges; therefore, the overall milestones were unaffected. The Hub has continually enhanced its design and delivery based on lessons learned, observations, and stakeholder feedback. The evaluation also found that the Hub has encountered issues with Information Technology (IT) integration, which is beyond the Hub’s control. The federal IT system is not designed for horizontal initiatives. There were positive unintended outcomes (i.e., support during the COVID-19 pandemic and project referrals) and negative unintended outcomes (i.e., unmet expectations) associated with the Hub. The Hub is responsive to internal factors (i.e., co-lead structure, program information gathering ability, as well as staff retention and recruitment) and external factors (i.e., high demand and the COVID-19 pandemic) affecting its ability to achieve the intended outcomes.

Efficiency: The Hub’s design is efficient and economical. It has demonstrated clear roles, responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms at the governance- and working- level. NRCan and ISED co-lead the Governance Committees and working-level teams. Interviewees stated that the co-leads have good rapport, leadership, commonalities, and information sharing. Each Hub representative is part of two matrix teams. The Hub has developed specific protocols, as well as clear membership roles and responsibilities to operate efficiently. During the evaluation period, NRCan spent $3.52 million and ISED $3.99 million relative to their planned budget due to factors beyond their control (e.g., delays and obstacles in IT-related expenditures, as well as staff turnover). The factors that contribute to enhancing the Hub’s efficiency and economy are inter-departmental collaboration, physical co-location, culture, and resources. The Hub could benefit in efficiency and economy by implementing a more systematic way to gather and share program and project information, including exploring if automation of inter-departmental processes would allow a real-time flow of information. The Hub could also strengthen the matrix teams’ coordination because it can be challenging for team co-leads to delegate tasks, set priorities, and be informed on progress. The Hub updated the program logic model and indicators to better reflect the Hub’s scope of activities and collect meaningful performance information. However, the Hub has not created or implemented a performance measurement strategy to reflect the updates and collect meaningful performance information. Current performance information is not the best to measure and indicate progress and accomplishments. The Hub experiences challenges with defining meaningful performance information because it is an enabler for other clean technology programs and services. Therefore, it is difficult to draw a direct attribution to the Hub. Feedback for the updated logic model was positive.

Conclusion

All lines of evidence demonstrated that the Hub is relevant to meet the needs of clean technology proponents and is effective to achieve its intended outcomes. The Hub has also achieved operational efficiency. As clean growth and climate action continue to be priorities for the federal government, the Hub plays a critical role in advancing clean technology in Canada and globally.

Recommendations and Management Response

Given that the Hub is co-led by NRCan and ISED, both departments were engaged in the development of the evaluation and the Management Response and Action Plan. The actions outlined in the Management Response and Action Plan will be delivered jointly by both departments.

Recommendation	Management Response
The Hub should develop and implement a plan that enhances its outreach and communications approach to ensure activities are more proactive, targeted and tailored based on an understanding of client needs and concerns, as well as opportunities to advance government priorities.	Management agrees. The Hub will develop and implement an outreach strategy with more proactive, targeted and tailored messaging, with a view to maximizing client satisfaction and advancing government priorities related to clean tech. Actions include: The Hub will examine existing data on the over 1,900 clients served to date, including the results of its 2021 client satisfaction survey, to identify client needs and concerns, and inform the outreach strategy and other actions identified below. The Hub will identify opportunities to prioritize its client service activities based on criteria such as client needs, technologies in which Canada has a competitive advantage, as well as Canada’s ambitious goals related to clean growth and climate change. This includes implementing procedures to be more proactive and strategic in its interactions with current and prospective clients. The Hub will implement improvements to its outreach and communications activities to be more proactive and tailored in reaching prospective clients, including through events, messaging, the website, newsletters, and marketing products. Position responsible: ADM, Strategic Policy and Innovation, NRCan Timing: April 1, 2022
Building on measures introduced to date, the Hub should work with its member organizations to focus its client service approach and strengthen inter-departmental collaboration, in order to maximize outcomes for clients and partners within existing resources. In doing so, the Hub should work to improve how it leverages the knowledge, expertise, and networks of federal organizations.	Management agrees. The Hub will develop an action plan, in close collaboration with member departments and agencies, to ensure a more systematic and collaborative approach to client service activities. Actions include: The Hub will undertake engagement with member departments and agencies through its existing governance committees to communicate service offerings and identify opportunities for interdepartmental collaboration. The Hub will develop inter-organizational data sharing agreements and information-exchange mechanisms as appropriate. The Hub will work with member departments and agencies to develop a framework to provide more coordinated federal support for Hub clients as they progress along the innovation continuum (i.e. clean technology pathways document). Position responsible: ADM, Strategic Policy and Innovation, NRCan Timing: April 1, 2022
The Hub should update its performance measurement strategy to collect the performance information that best informs progress and accomplishment of its expected results with clear definitions, targets, and data strategies.	Management agrees. The Hub will develop and implement a new performance measurement strategy that better reflects its role in creating an enabling environment for clean technology stakeholders. Actions include: The Hub will revise its logic model, including incorporating performance indicators that better reflect how the Hub benefits clean technology clients and federal partners. The Hub will also update its Performance Information Profile to align with the revised logic model. The Hub will develop data measurement strategies for all indicators, including new data related to client satisfaction and Hub performance against its service standards. The Hub will analyze data on an annual basis. The Hub will draft a performance narrative to respond to reporting requests. Position responsible: ADM, Strategic Policy and Innovation, NRCan Timing: April 1, 2022
To support the GC’s priorities on reconciliation, gender equality and fighting discrimination, the Hub should develop and implement an equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) strategy to better understand and meet the needs of diverse groups.	Management agrees. The Hub will develop and implement an EDI Plan to better meet the needs of diverse groups and support government priorities in this area. Actions include: The Hub will continue to work with Crown-Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, and leverage other federal departments, agencies and programs with experience in working with diverse groups to identify avenues to better serve diverse Hub clients. The Hub will begin collecting additional diversity data from Hub clients on a voluntary basis by April 1, 2021, and conduct an analysis of this additional data to identify the needs, challenges, barriers faced by clients from diverse groups. The Hub will explore opportunities to better reach and engage with diverse groups in order to provide them with relevant information on federal programs and services. The Hub will offer diversity and sensitivity training to Hub employees to increase awareness of factors that influence the experience of diverse groups. Position responsible: ADM, Strategic Policy and Innovation, NRCan Timing: April 1, 2022

Introduction

The objective of the evaluation was to examine the Hub’s relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency with an emphasis on program design and delivery. The evaluation covered the period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2019-20. NRCan’s AEB conducted the evaluation in consultation with ISED’s AEB. NRCan’s AEB undertook the evaluation between September 2019 and August 2020. The evaluation was identified in the NRCan 2019-24 Integrated Audit and Evaluation Plan. It was driven by a Treasury Board commitment. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016) and the associated Directive on Results (2016).

Program Information

The Hub was launched in January 2018 as a novel horizontal initiative. It serves as a whole-of-government service model and a focal point to help clean technology proponents (i.e., innovators and adopters) navigate the federal clean technology innovation ecosystem. Clean technology proponents would have access to 16 federal departments and agencies responsible for programs and opportunities supporting clean technology innovation at all stages. The Hub adopted a “no wrong door” approach in which clean technology proponents receive the Hub’s services regardless of their first points of contact. Clean technology proponents can access the Hub through direct contact or referrals.

The Hub is within the responsibility of the Innovation Branch of the Strategic Policy and Innovation Sector at NRCan. It is within the responsibility of the Clean Technology and Clean Growth Branch at ISED. It is considered an advisory service provider within Innovation Canada at ISED.

The Hub advances the “Clean Technology, Innovation, and Jobs” pillar of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (PCF). It is part of the Innovation and Skills Plan. The Hub reports to NRCan and ISED.

The Hub has three core functions:

1. Provide advisory services to clean technology proponents.
   The Hub triages inquiries from clean technology proponents to determine their needs and suitability for federal clean technology programs and services. It leverages federal knowledge, expertise, and networks to tailor advice on federal clean technology programs and services across the innovation spectrum. The Hub also produces information and knowledge products to help clean technology proponents navigate federal clean technology programs and services.
2. Enhance the coordination of GC supports and programming for clean technology.
   The Hub enables the sharing of information on programs and policies between federal organizations. It also enables connections and behind-the-scenes coordination to help advance strategic discussions on clean technology and high-impact projects.
3. Strengthen federal capacity to track and report on results related to clean technology investment.
   The Hub advances the Administrative Data component, which is part of a larger strategy called the Clean Technology Data Strategy (CTDS). Through the CTDS, the Hub collaborates with ISED and NRCan to complement the work done by Statistics Canada to improve the consistency, comparability, and complementarity of data collected in the clean technology innovation ecosystem for better analysis, reporting, and decision-making. For the Administrative Data component, the Hub produces data collection guidance and protocols, data-sharing frameworks, and dissemination products.

Program Governance

Directors from NRCan and ISED co-manage the Hub. The Hub employees are co-located at the Hub office (Ottawa, ON). Co-location facilitates knowledge exchange, enables information sharing, and fosters collaboration. Co-location also allows expertise across federal member organizations to be leveraged effectively. The Hub employees are from ISED, NRCan, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), and Global Affairs Canada (GAC). Two of the NRCan employees are seconded from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to represent their respective departments at the Hub (see Figure 1). They work within a matrix structure to support four teams: 1) client service, 2) data, 3) priorities and planning, and 4) outreach. An NRCan employee and an ISED employee co-lead each team. Hub employees also work as client service officers.

A Director General (DG) Governance Committee and Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) Governance Committee (see Figure 1) govern the Hub. The Deputy Minister (DM) of NRCan and DM of ISED hold bilateral meetings to discuss the Hub within the context of broader federal clean technology priorities.

Figure 1: The Hub’s Governance Structure

Transcript

Infographic showing the Hub’s governance structure and membership levels. The Governance Committees include the Hub DM Bilats, the Hub ADM Governance Committee, and the Hub DG Governance Committee, in the order of highest to the lowest level. The Hub DM Bilats include NRCan, ISED, and other Hub partner DMs to be invited as ex-officio (as required). The Hub ADM Governance Committee is formed by the principal members. The Hub ADM Governance Committee provides strategic advice and direction on whole-of-government clean growth issues. The Hub DG Governance Committee is formed by the principal members and associate members. The Hub DG Governance Committee provides strategic advice on issues and priorities from across the federal government; provides strategic direction and advice on the coordination of federal clean technology programs and policies; and directs the implementation of the “no wrong door” client service approach across the participating organizations. NRCan and ISED are the Hub’s co-chairs for all Governance Committees.

The principal members include NRCan, ISED, AAFC, BDC, DFO, ECCC, EDC, GAC, NRC, and SDTC. Principal members are organizations with a direct and significant role in clean technology programs and services. They actively participate in the Governance Committees. Their programs and services are included in the Hub’s knowledge tools and products. They dedicate staff to the co-location to work on Hub activities, or their staff may use the hoteling space. Their staff members support Hub activities, including matrix teams, with the exception of Crown Corporations (BDC, EDC, SDTC). The associate members include CCC, CIRNAC, ISC, SCC, TBS, and TC. Associate members are organizations with programs and services that are narrow in scope to clean technology or broad in scope but relevant to clean technology. They participate in the DG Governance Committee and would be invited to the ADM Governance Committee on an ad-hoc basis. Their programs and services are included in the Hub’s knowledge tools and products, if desired. They dedicate a point of contact or staff to the co-location. Their staff members support Hub activities on a part-time basis. Affiliate members are organizations with small or regional programs or services indirectly related to clean technology. They participate in the Governance Committees on an ad-hoc basis. Their programs and services are typically not included in the Hub’s knowledge tools and products but could be added where relevant. They dedicate a process for client referrals, as well as a point of contact to answer questions and share updates. Their staff members usually do not participate in Hub activities.

Target Group and Key Stakeholders

The Hub’s key stakeholders are clean technology proponents, clean technology programs, as well as federal departments and agencies with policies or programs that support clean technology. The Hub does not allocate funding – it connects stakeholders to programs and services that best suit their needs.

Program Resources

NRCan and ISED were each allocated $1.5 million per year from FY 2017-18 to FY 2020-21 for Operating Expenditures and Employment Benefit Plans. NRCan and ISED each received funding for eight Full-Time Employees (FTEs). Member organizations could allocate FTEs to the Hub using their own resources. GAC provided a full-time Trade Commissioner as a representative at the Hub funded through the International Business Development Strategy for Clean Technology.

Evaluation Objectives and Methods

In view of the evaluation objective, the evaluation focused on the Hub’s capacity to respond to identified needs, achieve intended outcomes, and attain operational efficiency. An evaluation working group consisting of representatives from the Hub and ISED’s AEB supported the evaluation.

Gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) is a government-wide policy consideration used to assess how diverse groups of people may experience federal policies, programs, and initiatives. A GBA+ assessment was conducted for the Program Information Profile for NRCan’s Clean Energy Technology Policy, Research and Engagement Program. The assessment revealed that women and Indigenous peoples are underrepresented in natural resource and clean technology sectors. The assessment also found that the lack of disaggregated data is a significant barrier to understand gender and other diversity factors in these sectors. Accordingly, the evaluation examined the Hub’s potential role to help address equality and diversity as they relate to relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. Findings will help improve the Hub’s future directions and provide meaningful contributions to the GC’s priorities to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, as well as to create a more equitable, diverse and inclusive economy for women and other underrepresented groups [see 43rd Speech from the Throne (2020)].

The evaluation used the following lines of evidence (see Figure 2):

Figure 2: The four lines of evidence

Transcript

Infographic showing the four lines of evidence. Key informant interviews included interviews (N = 43) with the Hub DG Governance Committee members, Hub representatives, and representatives from federal programs. These interviews were used to obtain viewpoints on the Hub’s relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. Program document review includes a review of internal documents, strategic documents, and publicly available documents. These documents were used to understand the Hub’s decision-making processes, governance, operational challenges, departmental priorities, governmental priorities, and role in the clean technology innovation ecosystem. Secondary data analysis of a client survey included a review of the consultant’s findings on the 2019 Client Satisfaction Survey (N = 198). This method also included sub-analyses of the survey data to gain specific information. These data sources were used to obtain clients’ experiences with and perception of the Hub. Consultant report review included a review of three consultant reports included: (a) gaps in federal support for clean technology projects; (b) processes, tools, and models to improve service delivery and client service excellence; as well as (c) strengthening collaboration in the clean technology innovation ecosystem. These consultant reports were used to understand best practices, lessons learned, gaps, and mechanisms that could inform the Hub’s design and delivery.

Evaluation Limitations and Mitigation Strategies

The evaluation used a mixed-method approach with multiple lines of evidence to mitigate against any limitations associated with individual methods. This enabled the triangulation of evidence across sources of information to identify valid findings and draw evidence-based conclusions. However, the following limitations should be considered when reviewing the evaluation findings:

• Due to the Hub’s early stage of operation, the evaluation of the Hub’s effectiveness was limited to its immediate outcomes. The evaluation focused on the extent to which achievement towards the immediate outcomes would facilitate achievement of its intermediate outcomes and ultimate outcome.
• The Hub had engaged with its clients several times before and during the evaluation period, which created a risk of engagement fatigue. In response, views of clean technology proponents were derived from the consultant reports and client survey. Although the consultant reports and client survey were not designed to answer all the evaluation questions, there was some alignment in the content covered by those sources (e.g., questions on relevance and effectiveness).

What We Found: Relevance

To what extent is there an ongoing need for the Hub in the area of clean technology innovation?

To what extent is the Hub aligned with Government priorities, frameworks, and strategies?

Is there a legitimate and appropriate role for the Hub to play in acting as the focal point for clean technology innovation?

There is an ongoing need for the Hub in the area of Clean Technology Innovation

The Hub is responsive to the needs of stakeholders in the clean technology innovation ecosystem

Document review and interviews showed that the Hub addresses gaps related to poorly connected programs and a lack of a focal point. The Hub helps clean technology proponents navigate the federal ecosystem to advance innovation. It increases the degree to which clean technology proponents are matched with resources and opportunities. Stakeholders affirmed that the Hub’s role is helpful because it brings multiple programs and services into the same space. They believed that the need for the Hub continues to exist as long as the federal government provides clean technology programs and services.

Document review and interviews showed that the Hub breaks down inter-departmental silos among federal departments and agencies that have policies or programs that support clean technology. Clean technology activity cuts across many economic sectors and falls under the mandate of many federal entities. Therefore, having a focal point for clean technology at the federal level is beneficial. The Hub provides a whole-of-government focal point at the federal-level where one did not otherwise exist. In FY 2018-19, the Hub expanded its connections from 11 to 16 member organizations to improve its client services and strengthen federal coordination for clean technology. Representatives from member organizations were generally satisfied with their collaboration with the Hub. They gained several benefits, such as receiving targeted referrals, reaching a wider audience, and networking with other organizations.

There is a demand for the Hub from clean technology proponents

Document review and interviews revealed continued demand for the Hub (see Figure 3). The number of clients increased consistently over time since the launch of the Program. The number of website visit also increased consistently since 2018, reaching approximately 2,000 visits per month by 2020. Additionally, the Hub’s referrals of high-potential projects between programs have enabled the funding of these projects. Project referrals reduce the application burden for clients and increase opportunities for high-potential projects to receive funding. Project referrals were well received by both clients and programs.

Figure 3: Continued demand for the Hub

Transcript

Infographic showing continued demand for the Hub, consisting of two line graphs. First line graph is showing the increasing number of clients, 2018 to 2020.

Number of clients by year

Year	2018	2019	2020
Number of clients	300	1235	1500

Second line graph is showing the increasing website visits, 2018 to 2019.

Number of website visits by year

Year	2018	2019
Number of website visits	6400	40300

The Hub is mandated to establish linkages with provinces and territories when they are of interest to both parties. During the evaluation period, the Hub had established three Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with provinces and regional agencies to facilitate collaboration on shared priorities such as working together to support provincial-based companies and projects.

The number of events (e.g., conferences, trade shows, workshops, and summits) attended was 60 and counting since the launch of the Hub. Document review and interviews revealed that the Hub’s presence at these events was generally positive. The client survey showed that industry events (18%) were the second most common way for prospective clients to learn about the Hub. The most common way for prospective clients to learn about the Hub was referrals (60%). Of those referrals, 81% were from federal government institutions. Clients were most likely to come to the Hub to obtain information about government programs (82%).

The client survey showed that clients came from various technology areas, organization sizes, and organization types across Canada (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Profile of Hub clients

Transcript

Infographic showing the profile of Hub clients, consisting of bar graphs. First bar graph is showing the percentage of clients coming from various technology area. Notably, 22% of clients were from renewable or non-emitting energy supply area.

Percent of clients by technology area

Technology area	Percent of clients
Renewable/non-emitting energy supply	22%
Energy efficiency	12%
Water and wastewater	8%
Water, recycling, & recovery	8%
Transportation	7%
Other (9+)	43%

Second bar graph is showing the percentage of clients coming from organization of all sizes. Notably, 89% of clients were from organizations with less than 100 employees.

Percent of clients by organization size

Organization size	Percent of clients
Micro (0-4)	33%
Small (5-99)	56%
Medium (100-499)	7%
Large (500+)	5%

Third bar graph is showing the percentage of clients coming from across Canada. Notably, 41% of clients were located in Ontario. Statistics may be inflated for some locations as some survey respondents reported the head office location.

Percent of clients by organization size

Province	Percent of clients
Ontario	41%
Alberta	18%
British Columbia	15%
Quebec	10%
Nova Scotia	5%
Other (7+)	11%

Fourth bar graph is showing the percentage of clients coming from various organization types. Notably, 81% of clients came from businesses.

Percent of clients by organization size

Organization size	Percent of clients
Business	81%
Not for profit	11%
F/P/T/M	3%
Research or development	1%
Government relations	1%
Other (3+)	3%

More than half of the clients who responded to the survey were satisfied

The client survey conducted in 2019 showed that clients generally benefited from the Hub, such as saved time (55%) and access difficult-to-obtain information (53%). They described that the Hub was useful, helpful, and valuable. Clients were generally satisfied with the Hub: 58% of clients were satisfied in general, and 55% of clients were satisfied with the relevance of the information. Majority of the clients followed-up on the advice provided (73%).

In general, clients who were dissatisfied commented that the Hub did not provide useful information. Clients at the early stage of business or project development were more likely to be dissatisfied than clients who were more advanced in developing their businesses or projects. All lines of evidence revealed that the dissatisfaction could be in part attributed to the mismatch between clients’ expectations and the Hub’s scope of activities. Some clients expected that the Hub could provide all solutions to advance their ideas or technologies. However, some solutions were outside the Hub’s mandate. For example, there is a lack of procurement advisory services to help clean technology proponents land their first clients. There is also a lack of funding and support for certain innovation stages, including early-stage innovators, export, and late-stage development. Likewise, there needs to be more business advice and support via the Hub to help clean technology proponents be business-savvy and to help them drive new ideas to market. Additionally, some clients were confused about how the Hub’s services differ from other similar programs (e.g., Innovation Supercluster Initiative, Strategic Innovation Fund, Innovative Solutions Canada, and Accelerated Growth Service).

Document review and interviews revealed that the Hub also attracts clients who are not ready for clean technology programs. The lack of a strategic and proactive focus in its outreach and communications makes it challenging to attract “program-ready” clients that it is best positioned to serve. Outreach and communications tend to focus on raising awareness about the Hub without a solid understanding of the target audience’s needs. The client survey revealed that some clients found that the Hub’s advice was too general. Further, interviews, consultant reports, and the client survey showed that the Hub could improve its services to meet certain clients’ needs (e.g., early-stage companies, sole proprietorships, clients who are not website-savvy, and clients from rural, northern and remote communities).

Despite some of the limitations, findings from a recent client survey showed positive trends over time, as illustrated the data below.

Clients …	2019	2021
… were satisfied or extremely satisfied with the quality of service	64%	75%
… indicated that their knowledge of clean technology government programs and services improved through the assistance provided by the Clean Growth Hub	54%	72%
… were satisfied or extremely satisfied with timeliness	72%	77%
… acted on the advice or information provided by the Hub (such as applied to government programs)	65%	66%
… would recommend the Hub to peers	66%	66%

The Hub aligns with federal government, NRCan, and ISED priorities, frameworks, and strategies

The Hub aligns with federal priorities, frameworks, and strategies to advance clean growth and climate action objectives

The federal government has made several commitments to advance clean growth and climate action objectives. Canada ratified the Paris Agreement in October 2016. In December 2016, Canada’s First Ministers adopted the PCF that will enable Canada to achieve its commitments under the Paris Agreement.The PCF’s “Clean Technology, Innovation, and Jobs” pillar encompasses improving access to government programs, increasing support to advance and commercialize innovative technologies, enhancing inter-governmental alignment, and establishing a clean technology data strategy. To this end, 2016 strategic documents articulated measures the federal government would take to advance clean growth and climate change objectives, including the creation of the Hub. Budget 2017 provided support to the Hub. As part of Budget 2017, one of the Six Economic Strategy Tables’ key sectors is the Clean Technology Economic Strategy Table.

The federal government has the Joint Declaration on Canada-China Clean Technology Cooperation and the Joint Statement from former President of the United States Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Further, the federal government has doubled its investment in clean energy research, development, and demonstration to $775 million annually by 2050 as part of Mission Innovation.

The 43rd Speech from the Throne (2020) stated that the government will make Canada a world leader in clean technology. The federal government will get Canadian resources to new markets and offer support to workers in Canada’s natural resource sectors. The federal government has pledged to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions to “net-zero” by 2050.

The Hub aligns with departmental priorities, frameworks, and strategies to advance clean growth and climate action objectives

The Minister of Natural Resources’ mandate letter (2019) included that NRCan will support resource communities and workers as they transition into cleaner technologies and as Canada meets its climate objectives. Further, NRCan will support and promote Canadian companies’ competitiveness to attract investment, open international markets, and get resources to markets. NRCan’s Departmental Results Framework (DRF) 2018-19 and 2019-20 position the Hub under the Clean Energy, Technology Policy, Research and Engagement program, which is under NRCan’s CR 2 “Innovation and Sustainable Natural Resources Development”. The Hub helps NRCan accelerate the development of clean technology and support the transition to a low-carbon future. Budget 2018 confirmed NRCan’s central role in the federal efforts to make Canada a leader in the clean growth future.

The Minister of Innovation, Science, and Industry’s mandate letter (2019) included that ISED will continue to support the innovation ecosystem across the country and Canada’s traditionally strong industries, especially as Canada transitions to a low-carbon economy. ISED’s DRF 2018-19 and 2019-20 position the Hub under the Clean Technology and Clean Growth program, which is under ISED’s CR 3 “Companies, Investment and Growth”. Through the Hub, ISED helps clean technology companies and projects identify appropriate federal programs and services, improve federal coordination of clean technology activities, and publish guidelines for better tracking and reporting of clean technology federal efforts. The Hub helps ISED deliver results on government-wide efforts to make Canada a global leader in the growing clean technology market.

These mandate letters stated that the Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and Minister of Environment and Climate Change are to work together to position Canada as a global leader in clean technology.

The Hub has a legitimate and appropriate role to play in acting as the federal focal point for clean technology innovation

The Hub aligns with departments’ legislated roles in areas related to clean technology and innovation

The keys to the Hub’s success are its horizontal structure and collaborative model

Document review, consultant reports, and interviews showed that the Hub provides a consistent and targeted voice for the federal clean technology innovation ecosystem. Clean technology activity cuts across many economic sectors and falls under the mandate of many federal entities. Therefore, stakeholders will continue to benefit from assistance locating services such as the Hub.

The Hub’s horizontal structure and collaborative model contribute to its success

• Facilitate communication and real-time coordination.
• Accelerate the reach and impact of federal clean technology programming.
• Bring organizations together for information exchange.
• Increase progress towards critical Canadian clean technology breakthroughs.

Identified area for improvement

The evaluation found that the Hub is relevant to meet the needs of clean technology proponents. However, there are gaps in the Hub’s capacity to meet particular needs. Accordingly, the evaluation recommends the following:

Recommendation 1: The Hub should develop and implement a plan that enhances its outreach and communications approach to ensure activities are more proactive, targeted and tailored based on an understanding of client needs and concerns, as well as opportunities to advance government priorities.

What We Found: Effectiveness

To what extent has there been progress towards the Hub’s intended immediate outcome?

To what extent has the Hub been implemented as planned?

To what extent has the Hub been responsive to internal or external factors affecting the achievement of its intended outcomes?

The Hub has made progress towards its immediate outcomes, which May facilitate progress towards long-term outcomes

The evaluation examined the Hub’s capacity to achieve its immediate outcomes (see Appendix 1). The presumption is that achieving the immediate outcomes would facilitate the achievement of the intermediate outcomes and ultimate outcome. Accordingly, the evaluation examined the Hub’s capacity to achieve the intermediate outcomes and ultimate outcome based on its progress towards the immediate outcomes.

In the reporting of the Hub’s progress towards its intended outcomes, the evaluation used the following benchmark:

Statement	Definition
Demonstrated	The intended outcomes or goals have been achieved or met.
Mostly demonstrated	Considerable progress has been made to meet the intended outcomes or goals. Management attention is needed to fully achieve the intended outcomes and goals.
Partially demonstrated with opportunity for improvement	Some progress has been made to meet the intended outcomes or goals. Management attention is needed to ensure progress towards achieving the intended outcomes and goals.
Too early to conclude	The program has not operated for a sufficient period of time to draw valid conclusions on its achievement.

Immediate Outcome 1: Clean technology advisory services, opportunities and knowledge products are provided to help navigate government programming – Demonstrated

Indicators:

• Metrics on volume of services and documents produced to help navigate federal government programming
• # of clients served (Hub and webpages)
• Extent of user satisfaction with services, opportunities and knowledge products
• Metrics on external engagement

Document review and interviews revealed that the Hub has met Immediate Outcome 1. The Hub has produced services and documents to help clean technology proponents navigate the federal ecosystem, including newsletters, infographic, program inventory on the Hub website, tailored advisory services with real-time advice, project referrals, and ongoing support. The number of clients, website visits, and external engagement (e.g., MOUs, internal events, and external events) have increased since the launch of the Hub. More than 50% of the clients surveyed in 2019 were satisfied with the Hub.

Immediate Outcome 2: Inter-departmental collaboration is strengthened with clean technology programs and stakeholders – Mostly demonstrated

Indicators:

• Metrics on internal engagement, collaboration and consultation (information sharing mechanisms and off ramping) activities between departments
• Evidence of having representatives of the departments funding the whole spectrum of innovation continuum

Document review and interviews showed that the Hub has made considerable progress towards Immediate Outcome 2. The number of members has increased from 11 to 16 organizations. The Hub has disseminated reporting tools and trackers, signed MOUs, coordinated federal participation in external events, and advanced emerging transformative technologies. The Hub has worked with programs to establish a process for identifying and referring high-potential projects to relevant programs through the Project Review Committee (PRC). The PRC provides a regular forum for information exchange for new programs that become available after Budget 2017. The Hub has enhanced the strategic alignment of clean technology programs across federal and provincial lines by playing a brokering role to share information and advice among programs.

However, there were gaps in the representatives of the departments funding the whole spectrum of innovation continuum at times. For example, the Hub experienced a delay in procuring representatives from some member organizations to be present at the Hub. Interviewees said that although the Hub generally has buy-in from the member organizations, there are some discrepancies in the level of commitment among the member organizations. For example, some member organizations do not prioritize Hub activities, which impedes horizontality and collaboration. Some of the member organizations experience internal organizational challenges when working on Hub activities. For instance, some member organizations experience high staff turnover that hinders a seamless engagement with the Hub. Although this is outside the Hub’s purview, they stated that the Hub could work with the member organizations to identify their needs, challenges, barriers, and solutions to strengthen collaboration.

Immediate Outcome 3: Data collection guidance is provided to programs that fund clean technology projects – Partially demonstrated with opportunity for improvement

Indicators:

• Metrics on data collection protocols developed by the Clean Growth Hub to support federal programs in tracking and reporting outcomes
• Extent of departmental programs satisfaction with data collection guidance and protocols provided to them

Document review and interviews demonstrated that the Hub has made some progress towards Immediate Outcome 3. The Hub launched the information collection phase, conducted pilot studies, held four working-level workshops, and standardized data collection and reporting methods. These activities led to the development of two data guidance documents in draft form. The Hub continues to make progress in the right direction. Interviewees described that the ongoing work is generally well-received by programs. However, the Hub has not provided the data collection guidance to the programs at the time of the evaluation. Therefore, there is no evidence of program satisfaction with the data collection guidance.

Progress towards the immediate outcomes may facilitate the achievement of the intermediate outcomes and ultimate outcome, but more time is required

Stakeholders are better equipped to make decisions related to clean technology innovation, deployment and growth opportunities: Document review and interviews demonstrated that the Hub has mostly demonstrated that progress towards Immediate Outcome 1 may facilitate the achievement of this intermediate outcome. For example, the Hub provides enhanced strategic coordination by referring clients directly to programs and providing personalized advice. It also conducts additional services, such as coordination via telephone calls and emails to gather information for clients with further questions, to assist clean technology proponents with complex projects. Approximately 74% of clients surveyed in 2019 followed the Hub’s advice. However, it is unclear to what extent that the Hub has helped clean technology proponents with decision-making. The Hub does not conduct routine follow-up with projects and programs to assess the extent of its contribution to stakeholders’ decision-making.

Programs and policies are better aligned to support Canadian clean technology producer and users: Document review and interviews revealed that the Hub has mostly demonstrated that progress towards Immediate Outcome 2 may facilitate the achievement of this intermediate outcome. For instance, interviewees stated that there is better alignment in activities between the NRCan and ISED co-leads. Document review showed that member organizations provided positive feedback and additional ideas for the Hub when they were canvassed during the Governance Committee meetings. Interviewees said that the Hub has developed a positive relationship with the member organizations’ research facilities. Clean technology priorities are better aligned because of the Hub, although it is unclear to what extent they are better aligned.

Interviews showed that some programs and stakeholders are still working in silos such that there is a lack of coordination in information gathering and sharing. For example, the Hub depends on the member organizations’ goodwill to provide program information, which can be problematic when programs do not provide up-to-date information. The Hub has a supporting role in policy processes, including by sharing information on the needs and concerns of clean technology stakeholders, and by developing guidance on the design and delivery of clean technology programs. The Hub also works closely with its colleagues in respective clean technology policy divisions. However, some interviewees stated that the Hub’s policy function is unclear. Although the Hub has conducted some policy-related activities, it is generally not as involved in policy coordination. The Hub does not have control over the development of programs and policies.

Federal capacity is enhanced to track and report on outcomes from clean technology investment: Document review and interviews showed that it is too early to conclude that progress towards Immediate Outcome 3 may facilitate the achievement of this intermediate outcome. The deliverables for the Administrative Data component was in-progress during the evaluation period; therefore, there was no evidence of implementation.

Canadian clean technology stakeholders innovate, deploy, grow and are globally competitive: It is too early to conclude that progress towards its intended outcomes may help facilitate the achievement of the ultimate outcome. The Hub was in operation for approximately two years during the evaluation period. Interviewees stated that the Hub’s achievement of the ultimate outcome depends on multiple factors, including factors that are external to the Hub.

The Hub is on track to be implemented as planned

The Hub’s delivery is effective

Document review and interviews revealed that the Hub has enhanced its design and delivery based on lessons learned, observations, and stakeholders’ feedback. The Hub is in a constant state of learning and improvement to better respond to emerging needs and meet its mandates. For example, the Hub has commissioned studies to improve its operations.

The Hub successfully addressed early delivery challenges

Document review, client survey, and interviews showed that there were early delivery challenges. The Hub was able to identify problems and solutions quickly, for example:

Delivery challenge	The Hub’s response
There was a lack of a standard process because the Hub was new and experimental. For example, the Hub did not have a service standard to how quickly they should respond to client inquiries.	The Hub has implemented a service standard and triage process for client service. The Hub has also created an online intake form.
Horizontality was challenging to implement at times because member organizations may have conflicting priorities, mandates, and directions. In the beginning, the Hub struggled to gain buy-in from some of the member organizations.	The Hub has increased its level of communication with the member organizations, such as conducting more frequent meetings and opportunities for feedback.
The Hub did not have a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system to record client information. Hub Representatives used an Excel file to log client information, which became challenging as the number of clients increased.	The Hub has recently implemented a CRM system.

Since the Hub was able to adjust, adapt, and evolve to address delivery challenges, these challenges did not affect the Hub’s overall milestones.

Challenges related to IT, which is beyond the Hub’s control

The Hub experiences challenges with IT integration, such as getting all Hub representatives access to the network, information management platform, and computers. Due to Shared Services Canada’s limitations, Hub representatives who are not ISED employees experience IT issues in some situations because the Hub office is located within the ISED building. The federal IT system is not designed for horizontal initiatives. Therefore, horizontal initiatives, such as the Hub, require special IT considerations to operate effectively.

There were unintended outcomes associated with the Hub

Document review and interviews showed that the implementation of the Hub is associated with several unintended outcomes.

Positive unintended outcome

Negative unintended outcome

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic became salient for the Hub at the end of the evaluation period. The Hub has become a central place for information and support during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the Hub has helped small- and medium- sized enterprises to navigate complicationsduring the pandemic by setting up industry calls, as well as to understand changes to the federal clean technology programs and services due to the pandemic. Through the PRC, the Hub has identified programs with an excess of unsuccessful and unsuitable applicants with high-potential projects that could be transferred to another program. Some of these projects received funding where they may not otherwise have succeeded.

The Hub was unable to manage the expectations of some clean technology proponents. For example, some clients believed that they would successfully secure funding after engaging with the Hub, although the Hub does not influence funding decisions and availability. Some clients surveyed in 2019 expressed disappointment with the federal government when their expectations were unmet.

The Hub is responsive to factors affecting its ability to achieve its intended outcomes.

Internal factors and the Hub’s responses

Document review and interviews showed that the internal factors that affect the Hub’s ability to achieve its intended outcomes include:

Internal factors	The Hub’s response
Co-lead structure slows things down because it creates an extra level of collaboration, communication, and approval. For example, double corporate reporting can be inefficient, redundant, and time-consuming.	The Hub has factored in the time needed for consultation and collaboration.
The Hub’s ability to recommend clean technology proponents to relevant programs and services depends on the life cycle of the federal clean technology programming. Clean technology looks different in every department and sector. There is no automated system in place for programs to report to the Hub. Further, these programs are not mandated to provide information to the Hub.	The Hub has tried to get advance notice when programs are launching, so it can inform clients. However, this is not always successful.
Recruitment and retention of staff are challenging at times. For instance, the Hub experiences a high staff turnover.	The Hub persists with the onboarding of staff members. It has succeeded in recruiting representatives from several member organizations that are initially challenging to enlist.

External factors and the Hub’s responses

Document review and interviews revealed that the external factors that affect the Hub’s ability to achieve its intended outcomes include:

External factors	The Hubs’ response
There is a high demand for the Hub. The Hub receives many requests from stakeholders because it is a federal focal point. For instance, stakeholders are coming to the Hub to seek assistance for program design and delivery. Given that the Hub was never set up to serve this purpose, it creates additional workload.	The Hub has organized discussions and implemented strategies to address its workload. For example, the Hub is trying to better distribute clients among the Hub officers.
The COVID-19 pandemic prevents the Hub from working physically together. The Hub also could not meet clients in person. The Hub has to re-prioritize its activities and resources to work on the COVID-19-related issues.	The Hub is using collaboration software for effective, real-time communication among Hub representatives. The Hub has switched its client engagement to a virtual platform. It has also convened other strategic discussions involving both internal and external partners during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Identified area for improvement

The evaluation found that the Hub is effective in achieving its intended outcomes. However, there are gaps in inter-departmental collaboration. Accordingly, the evaluation recommends the following:

Recommendation 2: Building on measures introduced to date, the Hub should work with its member organizations to focus its client service approach and strengthen inter-departmental collaboration, in order to maximize outcomes for clients and partners within existing resources. In doing so, the Hub should work to improve how it leverages the knowledge, expertise, and networks of federal organizations.

What We Found: Efficiency

To what extent is the Hub’s design an efficient and economic means of achieving the intended outputs and outcomes?

To what extent does the Hub’s performance information support the determination of its effectiveness, efficiency, and economy?

The Hub’s design is efficient and economical to achieve its intended outputs and outcomes

The Hub has clear roles, responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms at the governance- and working- level

Document review and interviews showed that the Hub has clear roles, responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms. The Hub was modelled after the NRCan’s Major Projects Management Office, a horizontal initiative established in 2007.

Governance: DG and ADM Governance Committees are co-lead by NRCan and ISED. The ADM-level Governance Committee provides strategic advice and direction on whole-of-government clean growth issues. The DG-level Governance Committee provides strategic advice on issues and priorities from across the federal government. It also provides strategic direction and advice on the coordination of federal clean technology programs and policies. It directs the implementation of the “no wrong door” client service approach across the participating organizations. The Hub co-directors are responsible for implementing the priorities, programs and policies coordination, as well as client service model set out by the DG-level Governance Committee.

NRCan and ISED have developed specific protocols for information sharing, client triage, client engagement, and communication. The Hub membership is based on the discretions of the Hub co-leads. Member organizations are responsible for covering the costs associated with their staff. NRCan and ISED provide funds to cover initial office start-up costs. Each membership level has its prescribed roles, responsibilities, and activities at the Hub (see Figure 1).

Matrix teams: Each Hub representative is part of two matrix teams. Hub representatives retain full reporting responsibilities to their home departments and agencies while engaging in the Hub activities under the co-leadership. Interviewees reported that the co-leads have good rapport, leadership, commonalities, and information sharing. There are many opportunities for the Hub representatives to communicate with the Directors because they meet frequently. Team co-leads report to the Directors, who in turn report to his or her respective branch’s DG and ADM. ADMs report to their department’s DM.

The resources allocated for the delivery and operation of the Hub are efficient and economical

From FY 2017-18 to FY 2019-20, NRCan and ISED each had a total allotted budget of $4.5 million for the Hub’s salary, operating and corporate expenditures. After relevant deductions (for example, accommodation and IT expenses), NRCan’s planned budget was $3.52 million and ISED’s planned budget was $3.99 million during the evaluation period. Document review indicated that NRCan spent $3.45 million and ISED $3.25 million relative to their planned budget. For NRCan, the actual salary expenditures were 31% and operating expenditures were 69%. For ISED, the actual salary expenditures were 33% and operating expenditures were 67%.

Small fluctuations in the actual expenditures across three fiscal years that did not exceed the planned expenditures demonstrated that the Program was operating efficiently and economically. The underspending, particularly in the first year, was related to delays of launch and factors beyond the Hub’s control, such as obstacles in IT-related expenditures (e.g., delays for the CRM), staff hiring, and staff turnover.

Document review, interviews, and consultant reports revealed that the factors related to the Hub’s efficiency and economy include:

Document review, interviews, and consultant reports also revealed that the Hub could benefit in efficiency and economy by implementing a more systematic way to gather and share program and project information, including exploring if automation of inter-departmental processes would allow a real-time flow of information. Interviewees stated that the current process to gather and share information is manual and time-consuming (e.g., Hub representatives have to contact member organizations to obtain information manually).

The Hub could also enhance the coordination of the matrix teams because it can be challenging for team co-leads to delegate tasks, set priorities, and be informed on progress. Interviewees explained that Hub representatives have multiple responsibilities due to the matrix structure. Since they are in two teams (in addition to other responsibilities from their home departments), co-leads sometimes find it challenging to know who is working on what and who is available.

Interviewees generally perceived that the Hub is an efficient model

Interviewees stated that the Hub could be replicated in other federal initiatives. Additionally, they provided suggestions to increase the model’s efficiency, such as by including non-federal or local entities within its network (e.g., regional nodes or “sub-Hub”). Interviewees also suggested that the Hub could deliver some of its advisory services virtually, similar to the Innovation Canada web platform.

There are limitations in the performance information available to support the determination of the Hub’s progress

Current performance information is not the best to measure and indicate progress and accomplishment

The initial indicators from the foundational documents were inadequate to inform the Hub’s progress and accomplishment because they focused on outputs rather than outcomes, results, and impacts. For example, the number of clients and website visits is inadequate to demonstrate the extent of the Hub’s influence on clients’ capacity to navigate federal programming and make decisions. Further, the initial program logic model did not fully explain the Hub’s scope of activities. Accordingly, the Hub updated the logic model and indicators with the evaluation team’s help at the beginning of the evaluation.

Although the updated logic model and indicators are informative about the expected results, the Hub has not created or implemented a performance measurement strategy to collect the performance information. This could be expected given that the Hub has recently updated its logic model. Document review showed that the performance information that is currently collected does not align with the updated logic model or the foundational documents. Interviewees stated that the current performance information is not providing the full story on progress and accomplishment, which corroborates the evaluation team’s observation of the quality of the performance information collected. The Hub also does not collect performance information to identify gaps and limitations to inform future directions.

Interviewees explained that the Hub experiences challenges with defining meaningful performance information because it is an enabler for other clean technology programs and services. The Hub helps to expand the reach of other programs and to ensure coordination between programs, which makes it difficult to draw a direct attribution to the Hub.

The updated program logic model is adequate

Interviews demonstrated positive feedback for the updated logic model. For instance, the updated logic model consists of outputs and outcomes that are well aligned, as well as reflects the Hub’s operational realities.

Identified area for improvement

The evaluation found that the Hub is an efficient program. However, there are limitations in its performance measurement strategy and data collection. Accordingly, the evaluation recommends the following:

Recommendation 3: The Hub should update its performance measurement strategy to collect the performance information that best informs progress and accomplishment of its expected results with clear definitions, targets, and data strategies.

GBA+: A Future Direction for the Hub

The evaluation identified key findings to ensure relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency in the Hub’s future direction to serve diverse groups that are underrepresented in the clean technology sector. Document review and interviews revealed that the Hub has pursued several efforts to meet diverse groups’ needs, such as set up several phone numbers for Indigenous clients, held discussions to advance Indigenous-led companies, and added CIRNAC and ISC to the Hub governance. Interviews revealed that the Hub has future opportunities to meet diverse groups’ needs, including women- and Indigenous- led companies. The Hub’s focal point design makes it an efficient entity to contribute to GC’s priorities on reconciliation, equity, diversity, and inclusivity in the clean technology sector. Members of diverse groups would know where to go for federal clean technology programs and services.

Interviewees stated that there are some limitations in the Hub’s design and delivery. It is challenging for Hub representatives to recommend specialized programs and services for diverse groups due to the lack of a self-identification system. However, they affirmed that the online intake form would address this issue because it contained questions that allow clients to self-identify. Further, the Hub does not have sufficient staff members to provide specialized services for these groups. It also does not have the information (e.g., disaggregated data) required to understand diverse groups’ needs in this sector to tailor its initiatives, resources, and targets. Diverse groups may have unique needs and challenges that require the Hub to go beyond the mainstream approach.

Identified area for improvement

For the Hub’s future opportunities to contribute to the aforementioned GC’s priorities, the evaluation recommends the following:

Recommendation 4: To support the GC’s priorities on reconciliation, gender equality and fighting discrimination, the Hub should develop and implement an equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) strategy to better understand and meet the needs of diverse groups.

Conclusions

The objective of this evaluation was to examine the Hub’s relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency with an emphasis on program design and delivery. Overall, the evaluation found that the Hub has achieved meaningful progress and achievement, although there are few areas for improvement as reflected in the recommendations.

Relevance: All lines of evidence suggest that the Hub is relevant to meet stakeholders’ needs in the clean technology innovation ecosystem. The need for the Hub is likely to grow over the next few years as Canada pursues its climate goals. The Hub functions as a federal focal point that brings clean technology stakeholders to the same space. Clean technology proponents are more likely to be matched with relevant resources and opportunities. However, the Hub’s outreach and communications activities need to ensure that its services reach the clients that it is best positioned to serve. Federal organizations are more likely to collaborate and communicate to advance clean technology innovation. The Hub aligns with Canada’s national and international commitments in the areas related to clean growth, climate actions, as well as clean technology and innovation.

Effectiveness: All lines of evidence suggest that the Hub is effective in achieving its intended outcomes. The Hub has produced deliverables to help clean technology proponents with decision-making. It has engaged in numerous activities for better program and policy alignment. Although the Hub has contributed to better tracking and reporting of clean technology data, more time is required to conclude the Hub’s achievement in this area. Interviewees explained that this area requires more time due to the nature of the work and state of the program data. The Hub’s progress and accomplishment provide a promising foundation towards the intermediate outcomes and ultimate outcome. The Hub’s has made progress towards its intended outcomes, despite the inherent challenges related to delivering a horizontal initiative or focal point. The Hub needs to strengthen its inter-departmental collaboration to leverage its member organizations’ knowledge, expertise, and networks.

Efficiency: All lines of evidence suggest that the Hub has attained operational efficiency. The Hub is efficient because it has clarity in its structure and protocol at the governance- and working- level. Although the Hub’s total expenditures were less than the planned budgets from FY 2017-18 to FY 2019-20, its delivery and operation were still efficient and economical. The design and delivery of the Hub are efficient. Federal initiatives that would like to implement a horizontal approach could learn from the Hub. To assess its outcomes, results, and impacts in the long-run, the Hub needs to implement a performance measurement strategy tailored to the Hub’s design.

Finally, the Hub has future opportunities to contribute to GC’s priorities to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, as well as to create a more equitable, diverse and inclusive economy for women and other underrepresented groups in the clean technology sector. To advance GC’s priorities, the Hub should develop and implement an EDI strategy.

Appendix 1 Program Logic Model

Transcript

The logic model for the Hub. For client services, the activities are ”services, advices, products for Hub clients”, “knowledge products for target groups”, “content for website/newsletters”, and “web Links for GC Clean technology policies and programs”. These lead to the outputs, including the CGH website, outreach at events, and information and knowledge products. The reach includes clean technology innovators, as well as clean technology adopters. These lead to the immediate outcome that “clean technology advisory services, opportunities and knowledge products are provided to help navigate federal government programming”. This in turn leads to the intermediate outcome that “stakeholders are better equipped to make decisions related to clean technology innovation, deployment and growth opportunities”.

For program coordination, the activities are “discussions about clean technology programs and policies”, “information sharing activities”, and “centralized office for departments and agencies representations”. These lead to the outputs, including cross-government information-sharing mechanisms and services provided by departments and agencies employees working at the Hub. The reach includes clean technology programs, as well as federal departments and agencies. These lead to the immediate outcome that “inter-departmental collaboration is strengthened with clean technology programs and stakeholders”. This in turn leads to the intermediate outcomes that “programs and policies are better aligned to support Canadian clean technology producer and users”.

For data tracking and reporting, the activities are “data collection and guidance” and “consolidation of project data”. These lead to the output, including data collection guidance and data consolidation. The reach includes clean technology programs, as well as federal departments and agencies. These lead to the immediate outcome that “data collection guidance is provided to programs that fund clean technology projects”. This in turn leads to the outcome that “federal capacity is enhanced to track and report on outcomes from clean technology investment”.

The aforementioned activities, outputs, and outcomes lead to the ultimate outcome that “Canadian clean technology stakeholders innovate, deploy, grow and are globally competitive”.

Appendix 2 Bibliography

Government of Canada (2020). Speech from the Throne to Open the Second Session of the 43rd Parliament of Canada. Ottawa: September 23, 2020.

Government of Canada. (2017). Building a Strong Middle Class – Budget 2017.

Government of Canada. (2016). Joint Declaration on Canada-China Clean Technology Cooperation.

Government of Canada. (2016). Pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. (2019-20). Departmental Plan and Results Framework.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. (2018-19). Departmental Plan and Results Framework.

Natural Resources Canada. (2019-20). Departmental Plan and Results Framework.

Natural Resources Canada. (2018-19). Departmental Plan and Results Framework.

Office of the Prime Minister. (2019). Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry Mandate Letter.

Office of the Prime Minister. (2019). Minister of Natural Resources Mandate Letter.

Office of the Prime Minister. (2017). Joint Statement from President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Statistics Canada. (2018). Environmental and Clean Technology Products Economic Account, 2017.

Appendix 3 Program Logic Model

Michel Gould, Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive (CAEE)

David Ash, Senior Advisor to the CAEE

Marc Riopel PhD, Evaluation Manager

An Gie Yong PhD, Evaluation Officer