Para 3.8.9 — MSO (Audit)
Original Rule Text
3.8.9 As the first criterion, it is necessary to see whether the goals and results were defined in concrete terms and whether reliable methodology and data were used for determining how the goals would be achieved. It is a common fact that the more general the goals, the weaker are the control functions since vague or uninformative goals cannot be assessed, achieved or audited. This criterion would prompt audit staff to seek answers to questions whether impractical or unattainable goals were projected. Alternatively it is also possible that benefits were under projected and thus the scheme was cost inefficient from the beginning. Another criterion would be the linkage of the individual components of the programme to the desired goals. Where no agreement is reached between Audit and the Heads of Government Departments regarding the criteria evolved by Audit and the evaluation is taken up nevertheless, Audit should clearly mention this fact. Similarly, as many criteria as possible should be developed for each component of Audit.
# Selection of Subjects
What This Means
The first step in criteria-based audit is checking whether the scheme's goals were clearly defined and whether a reliable methodology was used to plan how to achieve them. Vague or overly general goals are problematic because they cannot be properly assessed or audited. Auditors should also examine whether goals were unrealistically ambitious or, conversely, whether benefits were under-projected making the scheme appear cost-inefficient from the start. Where the department disagrees with audit's evaluation criteria, this disagreement must be disclosed in the report.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Goals must be defined in concrete, measurable terms for effective audit
- 2Vague goals weaken control functions and cannot be properly assessed
- 3Check whether goals were unrealistically high or benefits were under-projected
- 4Each programme component should be linked to desired goals with clear criteria
- 5If the department disagrees with audit criteria, this must be stated in the report
Practical Example
A state government's skill development scheme states its goal as 'improving employability of youth.' The auditor notes this is too vague to audit. However, the scheme document also mentions training 50,000 youth and achieving 70% placement rate. The auditor adopts these as measurable criteria and finds that while 48,000 were trained, only 15,000 (31%) got placed -- far short of the 70% target. The auditor develops criteria for each component: training quality, placement support, and follow-up tracking.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens when audit criteria are not agreed upon with the department?▼
Why is under-projection of benefits also a problem?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.