Thank you for the question.
Yes, we have reduced the indicators from 29 to 12. What we noticed is that as part of the 29 there were some that were actually overlaps and some that were somewhat duplicative, which made the reporting much more burdensome for departments. The 12 that have been put forward were some of the key ones, and they've been used as is indicated in the report.
What we've now noticed at this point is that we have received very good data and very good reports from departments, which indicates that the staffing system is extremely mature. What we're seeing is that even if we continue to ask on a regular basis for the reporting, the activities demonstrate that the levels are being maintained.
In the context of the monitoring we do and as well in the context of the fact that we receive other forms of information through our different oversight mechanisms, such as audits or investigations, we're able to see that there is stability within the system. Therefore, depending on the size of the department and the number of activities, we can actually take a bit of a step back.
We're even considering at this point whether or not some of the burden can be reduced in certain departments. Small and micro departments may have two or three staffing actions a year, so it's a bit ridiculous to ask them to do really big reporting on 12 indicators.
We're looking at what's happening horizontally in the system to see whether or not we're seeing signals that the system probably needs to be reviewed in certain aspects. Instead of forcing departments to perform on 12 indicators, in the past two years we've been going to six indicators a year to make sure that we have a full cycle, and to see what was happening with the indicators. Actually, this year we've asked departments to report on three.
The reason we chose three is that we knew things were going well in the other areas of activity, and we needed to have further data on what was happening with official languages. Also, we always ask departments, if they've been audited, to report on the audit conditions or whatever observations we've put forward to them. We also ask that they report on the priority system, because we noticed through our different mechanisms that certain activities in the priority systems were not quite up to par in all departments.
More and more, as we're doing an integration of our policies and our oversight tools, we're looking to see this through different signals and also through the accountability that is exercised by the delegation to deputies. They best know their operations. They best know their activities. Therefore, what we're going to be thinking about as we're moving forward is for deputies to ask their systems or their departments to report to them and to share that information with us. The problem with going with a set of indicators is that it may not be pertinent to everybody that year, so deputies are in the best position to know what they need to be accountable for in the context of their staffing system. Sharing that information with the commission will give us the right data that we need to compile through the cycle.
I don't know, Michael, if there's anything I've missed that you want to add.