QUESTIONNAIRE ON
MANAGERIAL
ASSESSMENT
OF PERFORMANCE
This questionnaire is designed as
a checklist for
auditors to assist them in assessing performance management arrangements in place. It can however be
used by managers as a self assessment document if they so wish. The questions should be self explanatory
although the risks numbered relate to the document PERFORMANCE – RISKS IF LACK OF MANAGEMENT CONTROLS.
A copy of this can be obtained from the Audit Manager if required
- Have
all staff /contractors clear documentation of what the performance (output/product) levels expected
from them (or their team) are for a set period of time? (Risk 1)
- If
not are the general areas of performance output set down for staff/contractors or input levels known?
(Risk 1)
- Within the different performance requirements
are key priorities
areas set out? Have these been communicated to staff. (Risk 2)
- Are
there arrangements to amend the key priorities. If so do the arrangements allow enough time to change
staff/contractors’ work requirement? (Risk 2)
- Is work
undertaken
recorded in such a way that time (or resources) allocated to areas not covered by performance requirements
is known? (Risk 3)
- Down to what level are the costs
of the different
performance requirements known to managers? From these can an assessment of cost per main performance
area be made? (Risk 4)
- What controls on quality of output/product
have been put in place by managers. Are these systematically carried out and the results recorded? (Risk
4)
- Where performance levels for a time period have
been set by immediate
managers have the key ones (at least 5 per section) been endorsed by the departmental management team
or an individual management team member (senior management)? (Risk 5)
- Does
the endorsement include an acknowledgement that the performance requirements link to higher level management
aims? (Risk 6)
- If not what evidence can the immediate
manager produce
to confirm this is the case? (Risk 6)
- What evidence
is there to show
that performance requirements have been tested against users’ views of the service to be provided? Are
users’ views reported to senior management? (Risk 7)
- Have
key performance
requirements been set targets? Have these been endorsed by senior management? (Risk 8)
- If
all or some key performance requirements have not been set targets have the reasons for this been submitted
to senior management? (Risk 8)
- Is the quality of key
performance
areas subject to independent assessment? Is this undertaken by one or more of independent check of quality
control records, independent physical inspection user surveys or some other method (state methods and
regularity)? (Risk 9)
- How regularly are key performance
targets measured
against actual performance? (Risk 10)
- To who are the
results reported?
Where reports go to senior management is there any instruction on what constitutes a material variance
where an explanation would be required? (Risk 10)
- Are
checks undertaken
of the compilation of the performance results by anyone other than the compiler prior to reporting?
(Risk 10)
- Are reasons for material variations set down
by the immediate
manager? Too whom are these reasons given? (Risk 11)
- Are
relative
performances, as defined by set indicators, compared to previous periods performances by the immediate
manager? Are reasons for material variations set down and to whom are these reasons given? (Risk 12)
- Is
current and/or expected performance, as defined by set indicators, compared with appropriate comparative
sources (either internal or external) by the immediate manager (state comparisons undertaken)? Are reasons
for material variations sought and set down and to whom are these reasons given? (Risk 13)
- Where
comparative performances on key indicators are known are these sent to senior management in a comprehensive
format especially where material adverse variances are shown? If not is some other form of communication
used by the immediate manager? (Risk 14)
- Is an independent
check
carried out on reported figures? If so by whom, what is checked and what qualification/experience does
the independent checker have that makes them suitable for this task? (Risk 15)
- What
plans exist to raise performances or cope with (external) change that may impact on performance? Have
these received senior management endorsement? (Risk 16)
- Where
comparative
analysis has taken place either between actual performance and targets, relative performance over time
or comparative performance against other sources what methods are used to monitor performance in the
light of changes particularly if put in place to combat perceived poor performance? (Risk 17)
- What
action is taken to check whether proposed work to improve an aspect of performance has a knock-on cost
for the County Council as a whole? Have these knock-on costs been highlighted to senior management if
shown to be material? (Risk 18)
- Where desired outcomes
from improved
performance are known and can be measured or assessed, do the outcome measurements confirm that improved
performance has actually had the desired outcomes? (Risk 19)
- Where
outcomes can be measured or assessed, but have not been, what steps are in place to do this? Where outcomes
cannot be measured or assessed, have best alternative measures been sought and evaluated (possibly drawing
on the experience of others)? (Risk 20)
e-mail page to a friend