simply trying to understand how we can make things better
Almost every aspect of human activity can be improved, made better. Kudos to all who strive to really improve things.
Bureaucratic processes tend to have lots and lots of room for improvement. These are not so easily accomplished, however, and especially when there are many competing priorities to consider.
As far as I am aware, current policy still requires a GCMS check EVERY TIME any action is taken on a file. This cannot be automated under current procedures requiring the exercise of human judgment in assessing the GCMS background check. So, just scheduling an event like the test, the interview, or the oath, requires at least a processing agent to take action including a review of GCMS screening output (which includes things like reviewing FOSS and name-record criminal history records, at least for RCMP name-records and U.S. NCIC/FBI name-records, and probably INTERPOL as well although I am not sure of the latter).
Whether such manually-intensive steps could be eliminated, that is a separate question. That is a policy rather than process question.
As a matter of practice, in the past IRCC (or CIC before IRCC) often short cut the process by doing the GCMS background screening for the test and interview and oath in one step, at least for some applicants. In such cases, the oath is typically scheduled (as in a date, time, and place is designated) as part of the same action/task during which the test and interview is scheduled, whether the oath is scheduled for the same day as the interview, or within a few days or a week or three (mine was scheduled for the second day after my interview). BUT many (probably most) applicants do not benefit from this and thus will typically have to wait longer. In the best of times, the overall timeline for MOST (just most, just some number more than a majority, recognizing there are also many more who are not among the most) has tended to be six months to a year, with most of these taking 8 to 10 months. Circumstantial conditions occasionally cause the timeline to increase.
This year applicants can anticipate a somewhat to significantly longer timeline. Main cause, obviously, is the huge surge in applications submitted in the last quarter of 2017.
Obviously, if more than a couple or four weeks pass following the test and interview,
the risk of a change in circumstances increases accordingly. Unfortunately, citizenship applicants do not have a stellar record reporting changed circumstances. Indeed, oft times there will be posts in this forum suggesting applicants decline to timely notify IRCC of changed circumstances (like being issued a Peace Bond or otherwise involved in a domestic dispute, or being charged with driving while impaired . . . or moving to a different residential address). So, for applicants not scheduled for the oath contemporaneously with the test and interview, there will necessarily be (according to current policy) another GCMS background clearance check before the oath. For the procedure itself to change would require a change in policy.
As for changes in policy, the bottom line is that the government of Canada is almost certainly more focused on assuring appropriate outcomes than it is on decreasing the timeline. So, for the near-future efforts to improve efficiency are far more likely to focus on outcome elements than on the timeline.
In the meantime, sure, improvement is a worthy endeavor. My sense is that there are indeed individuals within the IRCC hierarchy who have duties related to improving timelines for all sorts of processes and the individual steps in the process. But it is my sense other aspects of the procedure have a greater priority and the citizenship application timeline is down the list. How it works, now, is how it works, and this is what dictates REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS. What is troublesome, lately, is the extent to which unrealistic expectations have so prolifically dominated timeline related discussions here. Just because the process is taking longer is NO reason for qualified applicants to worry. No reason to commence a call centre campaign or to consult with a MP or make the ATIP request. Qualified applicants can relax. The system is NOT broken. Their file is not lost. For the vast majority, all is well. Slow but well. As bureaucracies are wont to be.
