auto_stories Corporate Plan 2026-30

KPI 1.1 – Provide quality, relevant, useful and timely market information.

Rationale

Providing market information that supports transparency, informed participation and decision-making helps build confidence in the schemes and markets we administer.

Measurement method

This composite measure assesses the effectiveness of market information demonstrated not only by the production and dissemination of analytical products, but also by how those products are perceived and used by stakeholders. Results from both components are interpreted collectively to form an overall assessment of performance.
Market information products are defined as CER‑produced publications, datasets or analytical outputs intended to inform about scheme operation, market activity, compliance settings or emerging trends.

Type of measure

Effectiveness and output

RPP

Continuous improvement and building trust

Risk‑based and data‑driven regulation

KPI 1.1.1 – Timely delivery of market information products.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Methodology

Qualitative assessment of the key market information products we deliver during the reporting period, including an analysis of their relevance, clarity and timeliness. Timely delivery refers to publication of market information products either in accordance with a published schedule or within a reasonable period following data finalisation.

Owners

Carbon Markets Branch

KPI 1.1.2 – Stakeholder assessment of the market information provided.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

Methodology

Quantitative analysis of responses from the independently administered stakeholder survey, focusing on questions relating to the relevance and timeliness of our market updates and information products.

Owners

Corporate Branch

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

Evidence demonstrates delivery of information in line with the methodology and ≥ 80% of survey respondents indicate positive assessment of our market information.

Evidence demonstrates delivery of information in line with the methodology, but stakeholder survey results are below the target threshold.

Insufficient evidence of the delivery of information in line with the methodology and stakeholder survey results are below the target threshold.

KPI 1.2 – Improvements to the way we use and share data.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Rationale

Improving data accessibility, quality and usability supports transparency, stakeholder understanding, evidence-based decision-making and confidence in our regulatory approach.

Measurement method

Performance will be assessed using a pre-selected qualitative case study to demonstrate material improvements in how the agency uses and/or shares data. ‘Improvements’ are defined as enhancements to data accessibility, quality, consistency, timeliness, usability or integration, and in how data is used to better inform regulatory decision making, market transparency or stakeholder understanding.

The case study selected for 2026-27 is Data-driven compliance. We will aim to demonstrate how improved use of data strengthens our ability to target our compliance effort, identify risks earlier, and support more timely and proportionate regulatory action.

Type of measure

Effectiveness 

RPP

Risk‑based and data‑driven regulation
Continuous improvement and building trust

Owners

Transformation Branch 

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

The case study demonstrates a material improvement in how we use and/or share data, supported by clear evidence of better regulatory decision-making, transparency or stakeholder understanding.

The case study demonstrates some improvement in how we use and/or share data, but the evidence shows the improvement is limited in scope, maturity or impact.

The case study does not demonstrate a clear improvement in how we use and/or share data, or the evidence is insufficient.

KPI 1.3 – Stakeholder assessment of the agency’s commitment to continuous improvement and building trust.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

Rationale

Stakeholder perceptions of the agency’s commitment to continuous improvement and building trust provide a direct measure of the agency’s integrity, transparency and effectiveness as a regulator.

Measurement method

Assessed through quantitative analysis of independently administered stakeholder survey results, supported by qualitative analysis of relevant verbatim comments to identify key themes, drivers of stakeholder sentiment and areas for improvement. Performance will be assessed using the proportion of respondents who provide a rating to survey questions specifically designed to measure trust, integrity, transparency and evidence of continuous improvement. 

Type of measure

Effectiveness

RPP

Continuous improvement and building trust 

Owners

Corporate Branch 

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

Greater than or equal to 80% of stakeholder survey respondents rate the agency positively (agree or strongly agree) on questions relating to trust, transparency, integrity and continuous improvement.

Greater than or equal to 80% of stakeholder survey respondents rate the agency largely positively (agree, strongly agree or mixed) on questions relating to trust, transparency, integrity and continuous improvement. 

Less than 80% of stakeholder survey respondents rate the agency largely positively (agree, strongly agree or mixed) on questions relating to trust, transparency, integrity and continuous improvement.

KPI 2.1 – Carbon abatement delivered by the schemes we administer.

Rationale

Reporting emissions‑reduction outcomes delivered through the schemes we administer demonstrates how our regulatory administration contributes to the agency’s purpose of accelerating carbon abatement for Australia.

Measurement method

This composite measure assesses the level of carbon abatement, measured in million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-e), estimated for schemes we administer where abatement is readily attributable using administrative data. Using a composite measure allows clearer communication of abatement outcomes across different schemes and methodologies, while recognising the uncertainty in estimating abatement. Results are reported by individual schemes supported by a narrative analysis of key drivers and external influences.

Type of measure

Effectiveness

RPP

Risk‑based and data‑driven regulation

Owners

Carbon Markets Branch

KPI 2.1.1 – Estimated abatement from the ACCU Scheme.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

≥ 21.6 Mt CO₂-e

Targets not set beyond 2026–27*

Methodology

Estimated abatement is calculated using the number of ACCUs issued during the reporting period, with each ACCU representing one tonne of CO₂-e abated, consistent with the Quarterly Carbon Market Report methodology.

Owners

ACCU Scheme Branches, NGER and Safeguard Branch

KPI 2.1.2 – Estimated abatement from the LRET and REGO.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

≥ 40 Mt CO₂-e

Targets not set beyond 2026–27*

Methodology

Estimated abatement is calculated by converting renewable electricity generation, proxied by validated LGCs and REGOs, into emissions abatement using applicable emissions‑intensity factors.

Owners

RET Branch

KPI 2.1.3 – Estimated abatement from the SRES.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

≥ 25 Mt CO₂-e

Targets not set beyond 2026–27*

Methodology

Estimated abatement is calculated by modelling renewable electricity generation or displacement from eligible small‑scale systems and applying emissions‑intensity factors, excluding the generation from small-scale solar systems that have been replaced. Abatement from small‑scale batteries is not directly estimated because the source and timing of charging and discharging cannot be reliably determined with available data, and battery‑related STCs are not designed as a proxy for abatement. 

Owners

RET Branch

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

Meeting or exceeding all sub-measure targets.

Meeting or exceeding targets for 2 sub‑measures.

Targets not met for 2 or more sub-measures.

KPI 2.2 – Applications processed within statutory or defined timeframes.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

≥ 99.5%

≥ 99.5%

≥ 99.5%

≥ 99.5%

Rationale

Timely processing of applications supports efficient and effective regulatory administration and provides certainty to scheme participants by streamlining their experience and meeting their expectations.

Measurement method

The proportion of scheme applications processed within statutory or agreed timeframes:

• ACCU project registration, project variation and crediting applications processed within the 90‑day statutory timeframe.

• NGER applications:

  • Register as a controlling corporation within 30-day agency defined timeframe.
  • Reporting transfer of certificates within 90-day statutory timeframe.
  • De-registrations within 90-day agency defined timeframe.
  • Responsible emitter registration within 90-day agency defined or statutory timeframe.
  • Reporting obligations transferred to a member of the corporate group within 90-day agency defined timeframe.
  • Nomination of national transport facility or multisite cement facility nominations within 90-day agency defined timeframe.
  • Requests to not publish information within 120-day agency defined timeframe.
  • Nomination of Operational Control within 90-day agency defined timeframe.
  • Section 9.18 of the NGER Measurement Determination within 75-day agency defined timeframe.

• Safeguard applications:

  • Emissions intensity determination within 60-day statutory timeframe.

  • Emissions intensity determination variation by 31 January 2027.

  • Successor determination within 30-days after the end of the period specified in the notice to make the successor.

  • Trade-exposed baseline-adjusted determination within 60-day statutory timeframe.

  • Exemption declaration within 60-day statutory timeframe.

  • Multi-year monitoring period by 31 January after the end of the proposed first financial year of the declared multi-year period.

  • SMCs by the relevant 31 January or within the 30-day agency defined timeframe.

  • Unit surrender within 20 days of receipt (agency defined timeframe).

• ANREU account holder and/or authorised representative or to update an account processed within 90‑day agency defined timeframe.

• REC Registry registration as a registered agent, registered person, for a general account, liable entity or STC Clearing House applications processed within the 6‑week agency defined timeframe.

• Large-scale renewable energy power station accreditation applications processed within the 6‑week statutory timeframe.

• Emissions-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) exemption certificate applications processed within the statutory timeframe of 60 business days from the date of valid application submission or 60 business days after receiving further information, whichever occurs later.

• Nature Repair Market applications processed within the 90‑day statutory timeframe.

• GO applications:

  • GO registered person applications processed within the 90‑day agency defined timeframe.
  • PGO profile and certificate applications processed within the 90‑day agency defined timeframe.
  • REGO facility and certificate applications processed within the 6-week agency defined timeframe.

The processing time is reset when a Request for Information (RFI) is issued to the applicant to provide further details to support the assessment.

Type of measure

Efficiency

RPP

Risk‑based and data‑driven regulation

Owners

ACCU Scheme Branches, NGER and Safeguard Branch, Compliance Branch, RET Branch

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

Greater than or equal to 99.5% of applications processed within the statutory or defined timeframes.

Greater than 95% but less than 99.5% of applications processed within the statutory or defined timeframes.

Less than or equal to 95% of applications processed within the statutory or defined timeframes.

KPI 2.3 – Investigations completed within defined timeframes.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

Rationale

Timely completion of investigations supports credible enforcement outcomes, reinforces deterrence and builds confidence in the regulator’s compliance framework. Completing investigations efficiently ensures that regulatory action remains effective, fair and transparent, while recognising that investigation complexity and external dependencies may influence delivery timeframes.

Measurement method

The proportion of investigations completed within defined timeframes, differentiated by investigation complexity and reported for the overall population of investigations finalised during the reporting period.

• Routine investigations are linear, low-risk matters focused on a single issue, with limited evidence and minimal stakeholder involvement. They generally progress in a stable and predictable way with little need to reassess strategy or scope, and are expected to be completed within 180 days.

• Complex investigations involve evolving scope, higher risk, more complex or contested evidence, and broader stakeholder involvement. They require ongoing reassessment, may escalate enforcement action or resource needs, and are more likely to result in a brief of evidence for civil or criminal litigation. These investigations are expected to be completed within 365 days.

Type of measure

Efficiency – using timeliness as a proxy indicator of the efficiency of compliance and enforcement activity.

RPP

Risk‑based and data‑driven regulation
Continuous improvement and building trust

Owners

Compliance Branch

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

Greater than or equal to 80% of all investigations finalised are completed within the defined timeframes.

Greater than 70% but less than 80% of all investigations are completed within the defined timeframes.

Less than 70% of all investigations are completed within the defined timeframes.

KPI 2.4 – Stakeholder assessment of the agency’s processes.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

Rationale

Effective and accessible processes support participants to engage with our schemes efficiently and confidently. Understanding participant experience helps us improve processes over time, deliver regulation in a clear, proportionate and responsive way, and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden.

Measurement method

Performance is assessed through quantitative analysis of responses from an annual independently administered stakeholder survey, focusing on questions relating to satisfaction with the agency’s processes. 

Processes in scope include key participant‑facing regulatory and administrative processes associated with scheme participation.

Type of measure

Effectiveness

RPP

Continuous improvement and building trust
Collaboration and engagement

Owners

Corporate Branch

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

Greater than or equal to 80% of stakeholder survey respondents rate the agency positively (agree or strongly agree) on questions relating to our processes.

Greater than or equal to 80% of stakeholder survey respondents rate the agency largely positively (agree, strongly agree or mixed) on questions relating to our processes.

Less than 80% of stakeholder survey respondents rate the agency largely positively (agree, strongly agree or mixed) on questions relating to our processes.

KPI 2.5 – No significant breaches of government, administrative, legal and policy requirements.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

Zero

Zero

Zero

Zero

Rationale

Compliance with government, administrative, legal and policy requirements underpin the effectiveness of our governance framework.

Measurement method

Assessed through a multi‑source compliance assurance process that identifies, validates and reports any significant breaches by the agency of the PGPA Act, Public Service Act 1999, Fraud Control and Corruption Framework, Protective Security Policy Framework, Legal Services Directions 2017, Work Health and Safety Legislation, Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, Freedom of Information Act 1982, Privacy Act 1988, and disclosure and secrecy provisions under CER acts.

A significant breach is one that:

• results in, or exposes the agency to, a material failure to meet a legislative, administrative or policy obligation, and/or

• gives rise to adverse findings by an external oversight body, and/or

• indicates a systemic weakness in governance, controls or compliance arrangements.

Type of measure

Effectiveness

RPP

Continuous improvement and building trust

Owners

Legal Services and Governance Branch, Corporate Branch

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

Zero significant breaches

Not applicable

One or more significant breaches

KPI 3.1 – Effective engagement, guidance and outreach activities.

Rationale

Providing targeted and timely guidance and outreach activities helps participants understand and meet scheme requirements, supports compliant participation, and builds confidence in our administration of the schemes.

Measurement method

Assessed through a composite measure combining qualitative evidence of guidance and outreach activities delivered with stakeholder perceptions of the usefulness, timeliness and effectiveness of engagement.

Type of measure

Effectiveness and output

RPP

Collaboration and engagement
Continuous improvement and building trust

KPI 3.1.1 – Practical and timely guidance and outreach activities with our participants.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Methodology

A qualitative assessment of the practical and timely guidance, education and outreach activities delivered by the agency during the reporting period. This includes analysis of key activities undertaken, supported by quantitative indicators where available, and may be illustrated through targeted case studies demonstrating effective engagement or improvements informed by participant needs.

Owners

All scheme areas

KPI 3.1.2 – Stakeholder assessment of the engagement and guidance provided.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

Methodology

Assessed through quantitative analysis of independently administered stakeholder survey results, supported by qualitative analysis of relevant verbatim comments to identify key themes, drivers of stakeholder sentiment and areas for improvement.

Performance will be assessed using the proportion of respondents who provide a rating to survey questions specifically designed to measure engagement effectiveness and whether guidance meets participant needs.

Owners

Corporate Branch 

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

Demonstrated delivery of guidance and outreach activities in line with the methodology and greater than or equal to 80% of survey respondents indicate positive assessment of engagement and guidance.

Demonstrated delivery of guidance and outreach activities in line with the methodology, but stakeholder survey results are below the target threshold.

Insufficient evidence of guidance and outreach activities in line with the methodology and stakeholder survey results are below the target threshold.

KPI 3.2 – Compliance by regulated and liable entities.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

≥ 95%

≥ 95%

≥ 95%

≥ 95%

Rationale

High levels of compliance with reporting and certificate surrender obligations are critical to the integrity and transparency of the schemes and markets we administer. 

Measurement method

Proportion of regulated and liable entities that meet key statutory obligations within required timeframes. Results across the obligation types below are interpreted collectively as an overall indicator of compliance with core scheme requirements.

• NGER reporting entities – submission of reports by 31 October each year.

• RET liable entities – submission of required statements/returns and surrender of required certificates by the relevant due dates.

• RET accredited power stations – submission of Electricity Generation Returns by the due date (or approved extension date).

Type of measure

Effectiveness

RPP

Risk‑based and data‑driven regulation
Continuous improvement and building trust

Owners

NGER and Safeguard Branch, RET Branch

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

Greater than or equal to 95% of regulated and liable entities complied with reporting obligations and surrender deadlines.

Greater than or equal to 90% and less than 95% of regulated and liable entities complied with reporting obligations or surrender deadlines.

Less than 90% of regulated and liable entities complied with reporting obligations and surrender deadlines.

KPI 3.3 – Net covered emissions from the operation of each designated large facility does not exceed its Safeguard Mechanism baseline for the reporting year.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

100%

100%

100%

100%

Rationale

Safeguard facilities keeping net covered emissions within baseline for the reporting year is an indicator of the effectiveness of our administration of the Safeguard Mechanism.

Measurement method

Proportion of Safeguard facilities with a net emissions number for the reporting year, at or below their determined baseline figure as at 1 April of the applicable financial year.

A safeguard facility’s net emissions number reflects the total covered emissions reported in its NGER Scheme report, subject to the following adjustments.

• ACCUs and SMCs surrendered to reduce the facility’s net emissions number for the monitoring period are subtracted from the net emissions number.

• ACCUs issued during the monitoring period that are attributable to avoidance of the facility’s covered emissions (attributable ACCUs) are added to the net emissions number. This is only if the responsible emitter is the project proponent for the ACCU Scheme project or has consented to another person carrying out the ACCU Scheme project.

• Attributable ACCUs ‘deemed surrendered’ by delivery under a carbon abatement contract are subtracted from the net emissions number.

Covered emissions are defined as scope 1 emissions, excluding emissions:

• from legacy waste (waste deposited before the Safeguard Mechanism began on 1 July 2016) at a landfill facility

• from the Greater Sunrise special regime area, and

• from a grid-connected electricity generator in a financial year covered by the sectoral baseline.

Type of measure

Effectiveness

RPP

Risk‑based and data‑driven regulation

Owners

NGER and Safeguard Branch

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

100% of Safeguard facilities have a net emissions number at or below their determined baseline figure for the reporting year.

Greater than or equal to 95% and less than 100% of Safeguard facilities have a net emissions number at or below their determined baseline figure for the reporting year.

Less than 95% of Safeguard facilities have a net emissions number at or below their determined baseline figure for the reporting year.

KPI 4.1 – Systems are available and secure as required by scheme participants, government standards and legislated requirements.

Rationale

Reliable and secure online systems support participants to access services, meet obligations and interact with us efficiently. They also protect information, maintain essential safeguards and support confidence in the integrity and continuity of scheme administration.

Measurement method

This composite measure is assessed through two sub-measures: the availability of our online systems and the absence of significant cyber security incidents. 

In-scope systems are the CER website, ANREU, EERS, REC Registry, Client Portal, Inspections Portal, Online Services, solar panel validation key.

Type of measure

Effectiveness and efficiency

RPP

Risk-based and data-driven regulation
Continuous improvement and building trust

KPI 4.1.1 – Availability of online systems.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

≥ 99.5%

≥ 99.5%

≥ 99.5%

≥ 99.5%

Methodology

Availability is measured as the proportion of time in-scope participant-facing online systems are available to scheme participants during the reporting period. This measure may exclude approved maintenance windows and is assessed using system monitoring and service performance data.

Owners

Digital Services Branch

KPI 4.1.2 – No significant system security incidents.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

Zero

Zero

Zero

Zero

Methodology

A significant system security incident is one that materially affects the availability, integrity or confidentiality of in-scope systems or associated regulatory data, results in major service disruption, unauthorised access, data compromise, or triggers formal escalation, notifiable reporting obligations, or significant remediation under the agency’s cyber security framework.

Owners

Digital Services Branch

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

IT systems are available for greater than or equal to 99.5% of the time and zero significant security breaches.

IT systems are available for greater than or equal to 95% less than 99.5% of the time and zero significant security breaches or IT systems are available for greater than or equal to 99.5% of the time and one significant security breach.

IT systems are available for less than 95% of the time and/or more than one significant security breach.

KPI 4.2 – Market, registry and data support services were delivered on time and met stakeholder expectations.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Rationale

Timely and responsive market, registry and data support services help participants access our systems and information, meet obligations and resolve issues efficiently. High-quality support services also contribute to confidence in our operational capability and the effective administration of schemes and markets.

Measurement method

Assessed using a pre-selected qualitative case study to demonstrate the efficient and effective delivery of market, registry and data support services. This can include improvements to the timeliness, accessibility, responsiveness, usability or effectiveness of participant-facing support services, including how those services enable secure access to systems, information or restricted data and support participants to meet obligations or resolve issues efficiently.

The case study selected for 2026-27 is Secure access to restricted data sets. We will aim to demonstrate how improvements to support arrangements, processes or controls enabled more timely and secure access to restricted data, while maintaining appropriate safeguards and supporting stakeholder confidence in the agency’s service delivery.

Type of measure

Effectiveness and efficiency

RPP

Collaboration and engagement
Continuous improvement and building trust

Owners

NGER and Safeguard Branch, Transformation Branch

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

The case study demonstrates improvement in the delivery of market, registry and data support services, supported by clear evidence of more timely, secure or effective access to systems, information or restricted data.

The case study demonstrates some improvement in the delivery of market, registry and data support services, but the evidence shows the improvement is limited in scope, maturity or impact.

The case study does not demonstrate a clear improvement in the delivery of market, registry and data support services, or the evidence is insufficient.

KPI 4.3 – Stakeholder assessment of the agency’s online systems.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

≥ 80%

Rationale

Stakeholder experience of the agency’s online systems is an important indicator of whether our digital services are supporting efficient participation in the schemes we administer.

Measurement method

Performance is assessed through quantitative analysis of responses from an independently administered stakeholder survey, focusing on questions relating to satisfaction with the agency’s online systems. 

Systems in scope include participant facing systems: CER website, ANREU, EERS, REC Registry, Client Portal, Inspections Portal, Online Services, solar panel validation key.

Type of measure

Effectiveness

RPP

Collaboration and engagement
Continuous improvement and building trust

Owners

Corporate Branch

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

Greater than or equal to 80% of stakeholder survey respondents rate the agency positively (agree or strongly agree) on questions relating to our online systems.

Greater than or equal to 80% of stakeholder survey respondents rate the agency largely positively (agree, strongly agree or mixed) on questions relating to our online systems.

Less than 80% of stakeholder survey respondents rate the agency largely positively (agree, strongly agree or mixed) on questions relating to our online systems.

KPI 4.4 – Flexibility and adaptability in our staff to meet current and future requirements.

Year

2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

Target

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Rationale

A flexible and adaptable workforce helps the agency respond to changing operational demands, build capability for future requirements and sustain effective regulatory delivery.

Measurement method

Assessed using a pre-selected qualitative case study to demonstrate improvements in workforce flexibility and adaptability. Improvements are defined as enhancements to the agency’s ability to build capability quickly, redeploy skills, embed new ways of working, respond to changing operational priorities and maintain effective delivery in a changing environment.

The case study selected for 2026-27 is Staff adaptability to effectively rollout new programs. We will aim to demonstrate how workforce capability, responsiveness and ways of working adapted to support the effective implementation of new programs while maintaining service delivery and quality.

Type of measure

Effectiveness

RPP

Continuous improvement and building trust

Owners

Corporate Branch 

Assessment scale

Achieved

Partially achieved

Not achieved

The case study demonstrates a material improvement in workforce flexibility and adaptability, supported by clear evidence of a stronger ability to respond to changing capability needs, operational priorities or future requirements.

The case study demonstrates some improvement in workforce flexibility and adaptability, but the evidence shows the improvement is limited in scope, maturity or impact.

The case study does not demonstrate a clear improvement in workforce flexibility and adaptability, or the evidence is insufficient.