performance management Audit report

Internal Audit and Investigations Group (IAIG)
Audit report no. IAIG/2103: Performance Management process (HRPG) Page 1
INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
OF
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PROCESS
IN
HUMAN RESOURCES PRACTICES GROUP (HRPG)
Final Audit Report
No. IAIG/2103
Issue Date: 07 December 2012

Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... 3
II. AUDIT REPORT........................................................................................................................................... 5
Background of the performance management process....................................................................... 5
III. DETAILED ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................................. 6
Control Environment............................................................................................................................ 6
Control Activities .................................................................................................................................. 9
Monitoring.......................................................................................................................................... 18
ANNEX 1. Definitions of audit terms – Ratings, Causes, and Priorities ........................................................... 20
ANNEX 2. Definitions Glossary ........................................................................................................................ 21

Report on the audit of performance management process
under Human Resources Practices Group (HRPG)
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
1. As part of its annual work plan for 2012, the Internal Audit and Investigations Group (IAIG) conducted
an audit of the Performance Management process under the Human Resources Practices Group
(HRPG).
2. The audit was carried out in accordance with the International Standards for the Professional Practice
of Internal Auditing. These Standards require that IAIG plans and performs the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of the governance, risk management, and
control processes. The audit includes reviewing and analysing, on a test basis, information that provides
the basis for its conclusions.
Audit objectives and scope
3. The overall objective of the audit was to assess and to provide assurance on the adequacy and
effectiveness of the internal controls over the performance management process. The audit also aimed
to assist management in continuously improving the processes in place. The following elements of the
internal controls were covered: control environment; control activities; information and
communication; and monitoring of internal control system performance. The assessment was based
on the status of the internal control system at the time of the audit (September to October 2012). On-
going and planned developments of internal controls were taken into consideration.
Audit rating
4. The IAIG’s opinion on the overall level of internal control over the performance management process in
HRPG is Satisfactory.1
Ratings for each internal control component are summarized below.
Internal control component Rating
Control environment Satisfactory
Control activities Partially Satisfactory
Information and communication Satisfactory
Monitoring Satisfactory
Overall Rating Satisfactory
Key audit issues and recommendations
5. The audit report contains 10 recommendations, two of which are considered high priority and the
remaining eight of medium priority.
6. The review also noted several good practices in the performance management process. These include:
(i) establishment of sound control environment through issue of Organizational Directive 38 (revision 1)
and related Administrative Instruction AI/HRPG/2011/04 as well as guidance on the knowledge system
on intranet; (ii) development of PRA tools to support implementation of the established policies and
procedures; and (iii) regular follow up and monitoring leading to high PRA completion rates.
1
See definitions in Annex 1

7. The high priority recommendations include:
Internal control component Audit issue and recommendation
Control environment In order to align corporate goals with individual goals, IAIG recommends
establishing a suitable process, such as the use of a cascading top down
system, for setting goals and priorities.
Control activities In order for the PRA process to be used effectively, IAIG recommends
strengthening the capacity building process, for developing skills to enable
the setting up of SMART objectives, and fair and balanced evaluation.
8. The medium priority recommendations include actions required to strengthen management oversight
such as: considering the introduction of a multi-rater feedback mechanism, for developmental
purposes; periodically reviewing, on sample basis, if objectives set up are SMART; maintaining
consistency in evaluation process; making changes in the internal control system as recommended;
considering the recommendations of the HR Network report as best practices for adoption; and
improving data quality.
9. Management accepted the audit recommendations and is taking action to implement them. The follow
up of the action taken by management to implement the audit recommendations is monitored by IAIG
on its web-based Issue Tracking system.

II. AUDIT REPORT
Background of the performance management process
1. Performance Management is the cornerstone of UNOPS HR Strategy “Putting people first, a priority for
UNOPS”, which provides the framework to recognize and reward excellent results, and which states,
“Performance Management will be a driver for organizational excellence and will be closely linked to
Learning and Development, Career management and Rewards and recognition.”
2. It is in accordance with Staff Rule 1.3. (a), which states, “Staff members shall be evaluated for their
efficiency, competence and integrity through performance appraisal mechanisms that shall assess the
staff member’s compliance with the standards set out in the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules for
purposes of accountability.”
3. UNOPS has had a performance management system in place since 2007. Despite the importance of
performance management as an integral component of the ‘people’ dimension of the Strategic Plan
2010-2013, compliance rates have been low. UNOPS has therefore strengthened its performance
management process by issuing Organizational Directive number 38, with related administrative
instruction, which provides the policy for the implementation of Staff Rule 1.3. Guidance and tools
have also been set up, such as the online PRA system, statistics on completion rates, ratings distribution
etc. on the HR workforce management tool on the intranet, along with guidance on how to use the PRA
system in the knowledge management system.
4. IAIG extends its appreciation to the management and personnel of UNOPS’ HRPG, as well as to those
who were involved in the audit, for their full cooperation.
5. The detailed audit observations and recommendations are provided in Part III of the report.

III. DETAILED ASSESSMENT
Observation / Impact Recommendation
Responsible
Manager
Management comments/ action plan Due Date
Priority/
Category
Status
Control Environment
1 Alignment of individual goals with
organizational goals.
Process:
Performance management
Comparison criteria:
Para 3.1.2. of OD 38 states that one of the
objectives of the policy is ‘to reinforce the
linkage between performance management and
UNOPS corporate goals, through a cascading
process’.
Para 6 of the OD also refers to the alignment of
individual goals and corporate goals, and as per
Para 7.1.1, performance management provides a
means for supervisors to ensure alignment of
individual and team work with the strategic
direction of the organisation.
The HR Network report also recommends ‘that
establishing clear links between business/office
plans and individual objectives is a fundamental
element for effective performance management’
(recommendation # 20) and ‘that….corporate
goals are cascaded down to team members so
that the needed linkage between organisational
and individual performance is reinforced’
(recommendation # 21).
IAIG/2103/01
Set up suitable process for
aligning corporate goals
with individual goals, such
as following a cascading top
down system for setting
goals and priorities.
Director,
HRPG
The link between corporate and
individual goals is critical for effective
performance management. The
understanding, communicating and
translating of corporate goals down
to respective teams and individuals is
part of UNOPS Leadership
responsibility, and HRPG will take
action to support this. The focus
area for this will be at senior
management level, so that each
business unit has clearly aligned and
articulated goals.
In 2013, HRPG will work to address
this issue with the EO and CPMG to
ensure that the corporate goals,
target agreements and business
priorities, once established, are
translated into individual PRA goals
for senior managers, with clear lines
of accountability.
A tentative timeline (subject to
agreement with all parties involved,
and the establishment of corporate
goals) could be to do so for Directors
by 31 March 2013.
31 March
2013
Priority:
High
Category:
Strategic
Open

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
Facts:
A review of a sample of 30 PRAs showed that
there is limited linkage between individual goals
and corporate goals. There is a need to put in
place a mechanism/process to implement this.
Management agreed with the observation and
informed that while this is planned for 2013, it
can, for example, be improved by working on a
few standardized objectives for all RDs/OC
Directors, and standardizing some of the
performance objectives for other replicable
functions across the organisation.
Impact:
Achievement of organisational goals, once
individuals understand how their objectives
relate to and support the overall goals of the
organization.
Cause:
Guidelines - Lack of or inadequate corporate
policies or procedures
Beyond this, HRPG proposes this is a
shared responsibility with the EO and
CPMG and suggests reviewing the
mechanisms and tools available to
managers to support them in
cascading corporate goals into
business unit work plans.
2. Review of performance assessments
Process:
Comparison criteria
Para 5.1 of OD38 (rev.1) identifies ‘fairness and
transparency’ as one of the guiding principles of
the performance management system.
IAIG/2103/02
Review and consider the
introduction of:
a) A multi-rater feedback
mechanism, for
developmental
purposes;
b) A process for review
of PRA assessments
Director,
HRPG
This recommendation is already
addressed. HRPG does and will
continue to consider the
introduction of multi-rater feedback
mechanisms. This review was done
initially in 2010 and it was
determined that introduction of 360
feedback was not appropriate at that
time.
31 March
2013
Priority:
Medium
Category:
Strategic
Open

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
Para 7.7 of OD38 (rev.1) states that ‘Supervisors
will be held accountable for managing the
performance of their supervisees in a fair,
thorough and transparent manner’.
Para 6.8 to 6.10 of AI/HRPG/2011/04 defines the
matrix reporting structure for primary and
secondary supervisors.
Facts:
A review of the performance management
policies from the point of view of management
oversight of the reliability, objectivity and validity
of the evaluation process showed that:
• There is no mechanism for multi-rater
feedback (360 degree review) to build in
checks and balances, even for
developmental purposes.
This is also brought out in recommendation 30 of
the Report of the HR Network (June 2012) which
says ‘that the use of multi-rater feedback is
included in performance appraisal, with a view of
gaining a more balanced overview of an
individual’s performance’. In Annex C to that
report (questions 29-31), it also recommends
limiting the use of multi-rater feedback to
managerial levels, and considering it for
development purposes only (until this cultural
change is accepted).
• There is no mechanism available for
hierarchical review through four-eye review
by the next higher supervisor;
such as hierarchical
review mechanism,
with clearly defined
scope of review.
This decision is reviewed periodically.
HRPG is introducing a 360 feedback
element for UNOPS leadership
development programme where we
think it adds significant value as a
development tool, however at the
present time, we have intentionally
chosen not to include it within the
performance assessment process,
The hierarchical view is available
through the workforce management
portal (i.e. any supervisor can view
the evaluations of personnel
supervised by his/her own
supervisees), and HRPG recommends
that managers review and confirm
ratings within their own unit with the
head of unit. This will reinforce the
accountability of heads of business
units for the rating distribution
curves. This can be done either
within or outside of the system.
The hierarchical view is available for
supervisors on this link:
https://intra.unops.org/ToolsResour
ces/strategicworkforce/PagesRestrict
ed/PRA%20Reports%20-
%20PRA%20Status.aspx
IAIG comments: IAIG appreciates
management comments regarding
the existing system which allows

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
At present, a matrix reporting system is followed
by the primary and secondary supervisor system.
However, where there is no secondary
supervisor, no mechanism is available for review
of performance assessment by the next higher
supervisor, for fair and objective evaluation. As
per data obtained for HRNW report (annex C of
that report), 17 UN Agencies follow the
hierarchical second supervisor system (supervisor
of the supervisor) with clearly defined scope of
review.
Impact:
Objectivity and fairness of the evaluation
process.
Cause:
Guidance: Lack of or inadequate guidance or
supervision by HQ.
supervisors to view the reports of
their team. However, the audit
recommendation is for the
introduction of a mechanism for
hierarchical review of performance
assessment, with clearly defined
scope of review.
Control Activities
3 Setting up of SMART objectives
Process:
AI/HRPG/2011/04 Para 5.2 which states that
objectives should be ‘SMART’ (Specific,
Measurable, Actionable, Realistic and Time-
bound) in line with the priorities of the specific
entity and practice.
IAIG/2103/03
Management should:
a) Periodically assess on a
sample basis whether
targets set up in PRAs
are SMART;
b) Incorporate this as a
subject in the training
course on performance
management.
Director,
HRPG
A performance management
learning programme is under
development and will be rolled out
in alignment with the performance
appraisal cycle, starting from January
2013.
The performance management
learning programme (including a
performance management toolkit
and virtual workshops) will be
31 March
2013
Priority:
Medium
Category:
Compliance
Open

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
Also, guidelines on knowledge system on
intranet on ‘defining SMART objectives’.
Facts:
In a sample of 30 PRAs reviewed in audit,
involving 150 objectives, it was noted that 48
objectives were not SMART. In most cases, they
were not specific or measurable.
No review mechanism is currently available to
see if the objectives being set up in the
beginning of the year meet the criteria of being
SMART.
Impact:
Clarity of objectives/goals impacting on
performance.
Cause:
Guidance - inadequate oversight by
Headquarters; and
Resources - inadequate training.
c) Provide suggested
generic objectives in
various functional areas
for guidance of business
units.
aligned to UNOPS performance cycle
and aims to address this issue,
amongst others.
HRPG notes the need for periodical
reviews of performance appraisals to
assess whether objectives are
SMART, and will take action on this
in 2013, with a review of a random
sample on an annual basis.
4 Overall performance evaluation ratings and
their consistency.
Process:
Para 6.5 of AI/HRPG/2011/04 states that the
percentage of overall ratings of ‘exceptional
performance’ is not expected to exceed 15%.
Further, Para 7.3 of OD38 says that ‘managers
IAIG/2103/04
Incorporate the evaluation
skills required for
performance ratings as a
subject in the training
course on performance
management.
Director,
HRPG
and aims to address this issue,
amongst others.
31 March
2013
Priority:
Medium
Category:
Operational
Open

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
are responsible for the overall distribution of
ratings in their respective region, office or
group’.
Para 5.1.4 of OD38 defines one of the guiding
principles of the policy as ‘fairness and
transparency - a consistent, objective evaluation
process across the organisation’.
Further, Para 6.6 of AI/HRPG/2011/04 states
that ‘Staff members performance is assessed on
both the achievement of the approved
objectives and the proficiency displayed in the
related competencies… The online PRA provides
a guide for the supervisor as to the appropriate
final rating, based on their assessment… If the
supervisor chooses to deviate from the proposed
overall rating, justification must be noted in the
appropriate comment field in the PRA’.
Facts:
Review of the overall rating and its consistency
with ratings of individual objectives and
competencies showed that:
• In 2012, the actual percentage of exceptional
performance was 34.5%, much more than
estimated (15%). Supervisors need to
exercise more scrutiny with respect to ratings
so as to keep these within the estimated
numbers. There is a need to develop skills
and for HQ to make sustained efforts to
monitor this more closely.
Management has stated that ‘the effort is to
IAIG/2103/05
Ensure increased
consistency between the
overall ratings and ratings
for individual objectives and
competencies.
Director,
HRPG
The consistency of performance
appraisal ratings globally is an HRPG
priority, and HRPG will work with
management to address this at a
senior level, so that each Director
will be held accountable for the
rating distribution in his /her team.
31 March
2013
Priority:
Medium
Category:
Operational
Open

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
make the rating ‘fully satisfactory’ as the
norm and when following up on 2012
compliance in early 2013, we are planning to
communicate directly with heads of business
units on their accountability for the rating
distribution’.
• There is a mechanism (formula) available in
the PRA process by taking weighted average
across objectives (60%) and competencies
(40%) to guide supervisors on the proposed
overall rating. Based on this formula, the
percentage of deviations has reduced from
18% in 2009 to 11% in 2010 and 9% in 2011.
The rating system is not expected to be a
strictly mechanical process. Yet, while
deviations are reducing, there is still
considerable scope for ensuring that overall
ratings are consistent with individual ratings
of objectives and competencies, and
justifications for deviations are recorded.
Impact:
Fairness and transparency of the evaluation
process.
Cause:
Guidance - inadequate oversight by
Headquarters; and
Resources - inadequate training.

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
5 Strengthening the PRA assessments process
Process:
Para 5.1.4 of OD38 which defines one of the
guiding principles of the policy as ‘fairness and
transparency - a consistent, objective evaluation
process across the organisation’.
Also, OD38 Para 11, 7.10 and 7.11
Facts:
A review of the performance management policy
showed that:
1. The rebuttal mechanism as defined in Para
11 of OD38 applies only if the overall rating is
‘partially satisfactory’. In the case where
competencies are assessed as ‘developing
proficiency’, Para 6.4 (c) of the
AI/HRPG/2011/04 provides that examples of
situations where the competency was not
displayed at an appropriate level should be
shared with the staff member. For adverse
comments/remarks made in PRA, these
should be discussed during mid-term
appraisal or final review discussion. No
mechanism is available to staff members for
review of adverse comments, if any, which
have been made without valid justification
and/or providing due opportunity to the staff
member as per the existing systems.
IAIG/2103/06
Improve the objectivity of
the PRA process by:
a) Prescribing a process for
review of adverse
comments/remarks,
where adequate
justification/provision of
due opportunity is not
available.
b) Including a clause under
Para 7.10 of OD38
stating ‘provided either
supervisor has seen the
performance of the
supervisee for at least
three months (or any
other suitable period as
decided by manage-
ment) during the
calendar year’.
c) Including a clause under
Para 7.11 of OD38
stating ‘It shall not be
competent for a
departing supervisor to
write any performance
appraisal more than one
month (or any other
suitable period as
decided by manage-
ment) after the date on
Director,
HRPG
HRPG underlines that there is an
existing process in place for this.
Staff members already have
opportunity to discuss their PRA and
resolve issues as outlined in
AI/HRPG/ 2011/04 Para.6.10 and
OD. 38 rev1 Para 11.3. Continuous
improvement is expected as part of
an on-going development process.
If the PRA rating is less than
satisfactory, and includes adverse
comments, staff members may be
offered a performance improvement
plan. In the case where adverse
comments are included where the
PRA rating is fully satisfactory or
higher, then staff members have the
opportunity to improve as part of
the development plan for the
following year.
One of the guiding principles of our
performance management policy
(OD.38) is “Simplicity and stream-
lining of performance management
process and tools;” (OD.38, rev.1
Para 5.1.3.). HRPG believes that
introducing further processes
relating to adverse comments would
be detrimental to an efficient and
effective performance appraisal
process.
HRPG does not support
31 March
2013
Priority:
Medium
Category:
Operational
Open

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
2. Para 7.10 of OD38 explains the procedures
with respect to a change of supervisor. In the
event of change of supervisor, the old and
new supervisors shall agree on who is
responsible for completing the PRA.
However, it does not prescribe any minimum
period for either supervisor to assess the
performance of the supervisee.
3. Para 7.11 of OD38 says that supervisors must
complete the evaluations of the personnel
they supervise before leaving UNOPS.
However, no time limit is prescribed within
which the supervisor who leaves office
should complete the PRAs of his/her
supervisees.
Impact:
Fair and balance assessment of performance
Risks:
1. Risk of not providing fair opportunity to
supervisee for balanced assessment of
performance.
2. Risk of insufficient experience of either
supervisor with work done by supervisee, for
fair and balanced assessment.
3. Risk of influencing decision making of
supervisees after leaving office.
Cause:
which he/she leaves
office or relinquishes
his/her position’.
IAIG/2103/06 recommendation b)
and c). Our aim is to ensure fair and
timely completion of performance
appraisals where current supervisors
are accountable for the completion
of the staff under their supervision,
in collaboration with other
stakeholders – including former
supervisors. We are grateful to past
and present supervisors for their role
in ensuring all staff members receive
timely appraisals. If they have not
been the supervisor for the full
performance appraisals period, they
should do the performance appraisal
in consultation with the previous
supervisor (OD.38, rev1, Para 7.10).
In the event of a change of
supervisor(s) within UNOPS in the
course of the appraisal period, the
former supervisor(s) and the new
supervisor(s) should agree on who is
responsible for completing the
performance appraisal records. In
any case, the supervisor at the end
of the assessment period is
responsible for ensuring that
performance appraisals are
completed within the prescribed
deadlines.
IAIG comments: Management
comments reiterate the system
already in place, which has been

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
mentioned in the audit criteria. The
audit recommendations seek to
address the risks noted.
6 Capacity building
Processes:
Performance management and learning and
development
Para 3.1.3. of OD38 which says that one objective
of the policy is ‘to reinforce the linkage between
performance management and learning and
development’.
The HR Network report also recommends
(recommendation # 37) ‘that UN entities
organise mandatory training on performance
assessment for supervisors and management’.
Facts:
A review of the efforts made to build capacity
showed that:
a. One course was done in 2012
online course on performance
management) for 32 participants at cost of
$5500. A Request for Proposal (RFP) has
also been initiated for developing training
options and virtual skills building workshops
for 2013.
b. A training plan is currently in the process of
preparation. The plan identifies the list of
IAIG/2103/07
Finalise the training plan on
performance management,
based on the training needs
assessment.
Director,
HRPG
and is under development. This
learning programme will be rolled
out globally from January 2013 and
will run throughout the year.
31 March
2013
Priority:
High
Category:
Operational
Open

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
trainings, period of training, criteria for
selection of trainees, etc., based on the
recognition of the need to develop soft
skills.
Impact:
Strengthening PRA assessment process by
improved professional skills.
Cause:
Resources: inadequate training
7 Implementation of HR Network report
Process:
HR Network report issued in June 2012.
Facts:
Several recommendations have been made in
the HR Network report. These are best practices
for strengthening the performance management
process. One of the recommendations is as
follows:
• UN entities report on their performance
compliance rates to internal oversight
bodies and also refer to them in their
annual reports (#6) ;
Management informed that only
IAIG/2103/08
Consider the other
recommendations of the HR
Network report as best
practices, for suitable adop-
tion in the organisation.
IAIG/2103/09
Report on performance
compliance rates to internal
oversight bodies and also
refer to them in the annual
report.
Director,
HRPG
Director,
HRPG
UNOPS has implemented all the
approved HR Network
recommendations (7, 10 [with
modification], 11, 28 and 38).
We are awaiting further decision
from the HR network on the
remaining recommendations, before
any further implementation.
HRPG notes the recommendation
regarding reporting on performance
compliance rates to internal
oversight bodies and ensuring their
inclusion in the annual report. In the
annual report, the Executive
Director provides balanced reporting
of UNOPS management results, with
selected highlights reported in a
31 March
2013
31 March
2013
Priority:
Medium
Category:
Strategic
Priority:
Medium
Category:
Reporting
Open
Open

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
recommendations 7, 10 (with modification), 11,
28 and 38 were approved by the HR Network.
Further, compliance rates are not currently
included in UNOPS annual report, but were
included in the mid-term review of the Strategy
Plan 2010-13 submitted to the Executive Board.
Impact:
Streamlining and improvement of performance
management process.
Cause:
narrative format under the four
perspectives of UNOPS balanced
scorecard. Extensive reporting on
relevant performance indicators
from UNOPS management results
framework, including performance
and results assessment (PRA)
compliance rates, were presented in
both a narrative and a tabular
format in the Midterm review
(MTR) of the UNOPS strategic plan,
2010-2013 and its annexes. As such,
the MTR is to date the most recent
and comprehensive account of
UNOPS management results 2010 to
2011 which has been submitted to
the Executive Board. HRPG will
continue to ensure these statistics
are available for corporate reporting
purposes.
IAIG comments: While performance
compliance rates have been reported
to internal oversight bodies, these
should also be referred to in the
UNOPS annual report to the
Executive Board.

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
Monitoring
8 Monitoring of PRA data
Process:
Para 7.4 of OD38 (rev 1) states that ‘HRPG is
responsible for providing reports and analysis on
completion rates and rating distributions for
each region’.
Facts:
Review of PRA data showed that:
a. The numbers recorded for PRAs (due and
completed) in the Workforce Management
Portal (WMP) are different on different pages
of the WMP, and are also different from data
provided by management as shown below:
Year No. of PRA
required as
per HRPG
No. of PRA
required as
per WMP
2009 247 510
2010 503 638
2011 513 762
Management informed that WMP data is not
reliable, because data on supervisor type is not
entered correctly in Atlas. This was because data
in WMP is currently being migrated to the
Management Work Space (MWS). Accordingly
the number of PRAs due for the year has to be
IAIG/2103/10
Improve data quality by:
a) Conducting a one-time
exercise to clean up the
HR data to ensure that
HR data correctly
reflects different
segments of the work
force;
b) Record the completion
date for mid-term
appraisals, to facilitate
monitoring of their
timely completion.
Director,
HRPG
UNOPS should identify the workforce
segments (e.g. UNOPS and partner
supervised) and have clarity on these
target groups and our performance
management responsibilities, with
corresponding information in HR
Systems. This will require corporate
resources – identification of
personnel by type and a one off
clean-up of HR data in our systems.
HRPG does not believe that
reporting on the completion date of
the mid-term review, which is an
optional element of the cycle, will
add any significant value to the
process, taking into consideration
the investment required to put this
in place, which would require ICT
development resources. HRPG and
managers already have an oversight
tool that provides us with an
overview of PRA status for this
purpose.
31
December
2013
Priority:
Medium
Category:
Operational
Open

Responsible
Manager
Priority/
Category
Status
checked manually. IAIG notes that a one-time
exercise should be carried out to clean up the
data in Atlas HR so that WMP shows reliable
figures.
b. Mid-term review. According to the data on
WMP as on 3 October 2012, 246 out of 547
PRAs due for 2012 had not yet completed
their mid-term appraisals. These were due to
be completed by 31 August 2012, as per HR
Director’s instructions. This data is not
reliable, as the system does not record date
stamp, as it is optional to do mid-term
appraisals. So, date of completion (for
ticking, if objectives are on track and for
recording the mid-term comments in other
cases) is not recorded making it difficult to
monitor their completion. The system can,
however, be improved to provide this
information for monitoring of mid-term
completions.
Impact:
Non availability of valid data leading to
insufficient managerial oversight
Cause:

ANNEX 1. Definitions of audit terms – Ratings, Causes, and Priorities
A. AUDIT RATINGS
Effective 1 January 2010, the internal audit services of UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNOPS and WFP adopted harmonized audit rating definitions, as
described below. IAIG assesses the entity under review as a whole as well as the specific audit areas within the audited entity:
• Satisfactory Internal controls, governance and risk management processes were adequately established and functioning well. No issues
were identified that would significantly affect the achievement of the objectives of the audited entity.
• Partially Satisfactory Internal controls, governance and risk management processes were generally established and functioning, but
needed improvement. One or several issues were identified that may negatively affect the achievement of the objectives of the audited
entity.
• Unsatisfactory Internal controls, governance and risk management processes were either not established or not functioning well. The
issues were such that the achievement of the overall objectives of the audited entity could be seriously compromised.
B. CATEGORIES OF ROOT CAUSES OF AUDIT ISSUES
• Guidelines: absence of written procedures to guide staff in performing their functions;
o Lack of or inadequate corporate policies or procedures
o Lack of or inadequate RO/OC/PC (specify) policies or procedures
o Inadequate planning
o Inadequate risk management processes
o Inadequate management structure
• Guidance: inadequate or lack of supervision by supervisors;
o Lack of or inadequate guidance or supervision at the RO/OC/PC (specify) level
o Inadequate oversight by Headquarters
• Resources: insufficient resources (funds, skill, staff) to carry out an activity or function.
o Lack of or insufficient resources (specify: financial, human, or technical resources)
o Inadequate training
• Human error: Unintentional mistakes committed by staff entrusted to perform assigned functions;
• Intentional: intentional overriding of internal controls
• Other: Factors beyond the control of UNOPS
C. PRIORITIES OF AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS
The audit recommendations are categorized according to priority, as a further guide to management in addressing the issues in a timely manner.
The following categories of priorities are used:
• High: Prompt action is considered imperative to ensure that UNOPS is not exposed to high risks (that is, where failure to take action
could result in critical or major consequences for the organization).
• Medium: Action is considered necessary to avoid exposure to significant risks (that is, where failure to take action could result in
significant consequences);
• Low: Action is desirable and should result in enhanced control or better value for money.
Low priority recommendations, if any, are dealt with by the audit team directly with the management of the entity under review, either during the
exit meeting or through a separate memo subsequent to the fieldwork. Therefore, low priority recommendations are not included in this Report.
D. CATEGORIES OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
These categories are based on the COSO framework and derived from the INTOSAI GOV-9100 Guide for Internal Control Framework in the Public
Sector and INTOSAI GOV-9130 ERM in the Public Sector.
• Strategic: High level goals, aligned with and supporting the entity’s mission
• Operational: Executing orderly, ethical, economical, efficient and effective operations; and safeguarding resources against loss, misuse
and damage
• Reporting: Reliability of reporting including fulfilling accountability obligations
• Compliance: Compliance with prescribed UNOPS regulations, rules and procedures, including acting in accordance with Government
Body decisions, as well as agreement specific provisions

ANNEX 2. Definitions Glossary
ACRONYM DEFINITION
Atlas The Enterprise Resource Planning system used by UNOPS along with other UN agencies
COP Certification of Payment
CPMG Corporate Performance Management Group, UNOPS
ECPO Executive Chief Procurement Officer
DED Deputy Executive Director
DOA Delegation of Authority
ED Executive Director, UNOPS
EO Executive Office
FRR UNOPS Financial Regulations and Rules
HQ Headquarters
HQCPC Headquarters Contracts and Property Committee
HR Human Resources
HRNW HR Network
HRPG Human Resources Practices Group, HQ
IAIG Internal Audit and Investigations Group
ICA Individual Contractor Agreement
ICT Information and Communication Technology
ITB Invitation to Bid
IPSAS International Public Sector Accounting Standards
LTA Long Term Agreement
MTR Mid Term Review
MWS Management Work Space.
OC Operation Centre
OD Organizational Directive
PO Purchase Order
PRA Performance and Results Assessment
RD Regional Director
RFA Request for Award
RFMO Regional Financial Management Officer
RFP Request for Proposal
RFQ Request for Quotation
SMART Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic and Time bound.
UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services
WMP Workforce Management portal

performance management Audit report

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie performance management Audit report

Ähnlich wie performance management Audit report (20)

Mehr von Preeti Bhaskar

Mehr von Preeti Bhaskar (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

performance management Audit report