HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS-13-018 - Multi-Year Service Review PrioritizationREPORT TO:
Staff Report
Finance and Corporate Services Department
DATE OF MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
PREPARED BY:
WARD(S) INVOLVED:
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORT NO.:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
BACKGROUND:
wvmkitrhener ra
AUDIT COMMITTEE
March 4, 2013
Corina Tasker, Internal Auditor, 519 - 741 -2200 Ext 7361
Corina Tasker, Internal Auditor, 519 - 741 -2200 Ext 7361
All
February 26, 2013
FCS -13 -018
MULTI -YEAR SERVICE REVIEW PRIORITIZATION
Under the Audit Committee terms of reference it is the Audit Committee's responsibility to
provide recommendations for areas of focus and types of audits as well as approve the annual
internal audit work plan.
At the September 17, 2012 Audit Committee meeting Council directed staff to develop a long -
range service review work plan based on the service review prioritization framework detailed in
report FCS -12 -151 for approval at the December 3, 2012 Audit Committee meeting. Due to
time constraints only the work plan for 2013 was brought forward at that meeting. This report
completes the prioritization and provides the multi -year work plan.
The completion of the service review prioritization exercise shows that the service review work
covering all 95 service areas will span over an estimated period of 6 years, from 2013 through
to the end of 2018 using the current resourcing. The multi -year work plan should give Council
assurance that all services across the City have been considered and will be reviewed over
time.
The model aims to prioritize the order in which services are reviewed based on inherent risk,
expense budget and date of last review. The integrated work plan encompasses not only the
work of Internal Audit but also that of other staff across the corporation with responsibility for
service review work. By planning service review work corporately it ensures that there is no
duplication of effort and that work is integrated across departments where required.
These service reviews provide a systematic approach for improvement and efficiency efforts
outside of the annual budget process. The overarching goal of service reviews is to protect the
City's assets and interests. This includes, but is not limited to, protecting the long term health of
the organization, its financial and physical assets, its reputation, its ability to perform critical
services and the safety and well -being of employees and citizens. It is about more than just
decreasing costs and the tax levy. It is about taking a critical look at all of our operations and
3-1
doing what is right for the corporation and by extension the citizens of Kitchener. The work plan
provides a vehicle through which Council can advance their shared priorities and influence the
prioritization of service reviews.
REPORT:
Service Review Goal
The Effective and Efficient Government strategic foundation of the City's Strategic Plan places a
priority on sound financial management, asset management and organizational governance,
among other themes. The overarching goal of service reviews is to protect the City's assets
and interests, which supports these Strategic Plan themes. This includes, but is not limited to,
protecting the long term health of the organization, its financial and physical assets, its
reputation, its ability to perform critical services and the safety and well -being of employees and
citizens.
The way that staff achieve this goal is through three main categories of review work:
1. Ensuring operations are efficient and effective as possible, to answer the following
questions:
• Are we doing the right things?
• Are we doing things in the right way?
• Are we making the best use of our limited resources?
2. Ensuring controls are adequate to protect assets from loss, to answer the following
questions:
• Have risks been adequately identified and mitigated?
• Are there structures and processes in place to prevent or detect loss, theft,
fraud?
3. Monitoring compliance with policy, procedures and legislation, to answer the following
questions:
• Have staff been adequately trained on what is expected of them?
• Are staff following the rules to ensure work is accurate, reliable, timely, efficient,
effective, safe, and legal?
• Are staff putting the corporation at risk in any way through their actions or
inactions?
This review work is carried out by internal audit, along with staff in the City's various
departments, to review both internal and customer facing services using a variety of tools.
These may include:
• Service delivery reviews
• Process mapping, including assessing adequacy of controls
• Time studies
3-2
• Value for money analysis
• Organizational structure review
• Review of workplace culture
• Risk assessments
• Policy review
• Compliance audits; and
• Physical inventory and cash counts
The identified risks and opportunities associated with a particular service determine which type,
or combination of types, of review is most appropriate for that service. This will also determine
who is best equipped to perform the review. Sometimes this will be internal audit and other
times it will be staff within the departments.
Prioritization Process and Results
The work of the City has been categorized into 95 core service areas based on the groupings
laid out in the Financial Information Return (FIR). Data has been gathered for each of the 95
services including the total risk score, gross expense budget, and date of last review. A score
of 1 to 5 was assigned to each of these factors for each service based on the following matrix:
Factor
2
3
4 -
5
Inherent Risk
31 -37
38-44
45-51
52-58
59-65
Score*
Gross
$0 — 50K
$50K —250K
$250K— 500K
$500K — 1 M
$1M+
expense
budget
Date of last
< 1 year
1 -3 years
3 -5 years
5+ years
Never
review
* See below for an explanation of how the inherent risk score is calculated.
The resulting scores were then weighted, where the inherent risk score accounted for 60% of
the total score, gross expense budget 30% and date of last review 10 %. The total score for
each service was calculated by adding the weighted scores for each of the 3 factors. The
services were ranked from highest to lowest total score, with ties being broken by raw risk
score, expense budget and years since the last review. The ranked list can be found in
Appendix A.
Inherent Risk Score Calculation
In order to calculate the inherent risk score, directors responsible for each service were asked to
fill out a 20- question multiple- choice survey. For each question respondents were asked to
select the statement which best describes the current state of the service from the 5 choices
3-3
available. The 5 choices represent scenarios ranging from low risk (equating to a score of 1) to
high risk (equating to a score of 5). The total score for any particular service could then range
from 20 (if all questions were answered as low risk) to 100 (if all questions were answered as
high risk). The actual results ended up ranging from 31 to 65, hence the distribution shown in
the chart above. A chart showing the 20 questions and the 5 choices for each answer can be
found in Appendix B.
Staff Capacity and Work Planning
The prioritized list of services found in Appendix A was analyzed to determine the best type of
review to perform given the specific risks affecting each service. The type of review then
determined the estimated duration of the review and which resource to assign to it.
The services were mapped onto a Gantt chart against each resource to determine in what
month and year the review would be conducted, starting with the highest priority services and
continuing until all services were addressed. Special care was taken to ensure availability and
integration of resources for reviews which required more than one resource.
It has been assumed that not more than one review will be undertaken at a time by a single
resource, in most cases. This is because staff also have other responsibilities associated with
their job roles which must be undertaken at the same time. In some cases it was determined
that no review is warranted at this time based on the risk profile of that service.
The resulting multi -year work plan underwent an internal review to re- prioritize some of the
reviews based on known factors outside of the prioritization framework.
The results of this exercise show that the work will span over an estimated period of 6
years, from 2013 through to the end of 2018, which is a reasonable duration for such a
comprehensive program of work.
The completed chart showing the scheduled reviews for each year is included in Appendix C.
This is only the estimated order of reviews based on the analysis at this point in time. This
should be considered a fluid process which is subject to change, with the approval of the
annual work plan. Appendix C also contains definitions of each of the types of reviews.
Update Process
From time to time unique circumstances may make it necessary to add service reviews into the
schedule. Given that the current schedule has been set with staff capacity in mind, decisions will
need to be made regarding whether the new work can be accommodated or whether something
else will need to be deferred to future years.
There are three forums that changes to the schedule and ranked order can be brought to. First,
staff involved in conducting the service reviews meet on a monthly basis to share information
including any new work suggested by themselves, staff or Council. Resourcing impacts can be
discussed through this group first to see if the work can be accommodated.
Second, any mid -year conflicts or resourcing issues can be brought to the Corporate Leadership
Team (CLT) for their direction.
And finally, the entire ranked list will be re- evaluated each year and brought forward to Audit
Committee with the internal audit work plan. Changes to inherent risks, budget or review status
will be updated in the model and the list re- sorted by total score. At this time Council will have
3-4
the ability to make suggestions for changes to the ranked order based on Council's shared
priorities.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Work falls within the Efficient and Effective Government plan foundation area of the Strategic
Plan. The goal of service reviews is to protect the City's interests and assets through
— ensuring operations are as efficient and effective as possible
— ensuring adequate controls are in place to protect assets
— ensuring compliance with policy, procedures and legislation
This supports the financial goal of long term financial stability and fiscal accountability to
taxpayers.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Not applicable
CONCLUSION:
The service review prioritization framework outlined above will provide for a robust and thorough
vetting of the order in which services are reviewed. It reduces the risk of personal biases and
provides a rational approach to priority setting. It enables resources to be focused on assessing
those services which have the potential to yield the most benefit through review to the
corporation and ultimately to tax and rate payers.
These service reviews provide an avenue for improvement and efficiency efforts superior to
what can be addressed through the annual budget process. It is about more than just
decreasing costs and the tax levy. It is about taking a critical look at all of our operations and
doing what is right for the corporation and by extension the citizens of Kitchener.
The work plan provides a vehicle through which Council can advance their shared priorities and
influence the prioritization of service reviews.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Dan Chapman, Deputy CAO, Finance and Corporate Services
3-5
Appendix A - Ranked List of Services
Legend
Factor
1
2
3
4
5
Risk Score
31 -37
138-44
145-51
152-58
159-65
Gross expense budget
$0 -50K
$50K -250K
$250K -500K
$500K -1M
$1M+
Date of last review
< 1 year
1 -3 years
3 -5 years
5+ years
lNever
Rank
Dept
Core Service Name
Risk Score 60%
Budget Score
30%
Date of last
review 10%
Total Weighted
Score (out of 5)
1
CSD
Community Resource Centres
5
5
3
4.8
2
CSD
Aquatics
5
5
3
4.8
3
CSD
Aud
5
5
2
4.7
4
INS
Parking Enterprise
5
5
2
4.7
5
CAO
Kitchener Market
5
4
5
4.7
6
CAO
Corporate Communications and Marketing
5
5
2
4.7
7
CSD
Golf
5
5
1
4.6
8
INS
Storm Water Utility- Operations
4
5
5
4.4
9
CSD
By -law Enforcement
4
5
5
4.4
10
INS
Sanitary Sewer Utility - Operations
4
5
5
4.4
11
INS
Gas Distribution
4
5
4
4.3
12
INS
Fleet Repair and Maintenance
4
5
4
4.3
13
FCS
Revenue
4
5
4
4.3
14
INS
Facilities Management
4
5
3
4.2
15
INS
Appliance Service
4
4
5
4.1
16
INS
Gas Delivery
4
5
2
4.1
17
INS
Development Engineering
4
4
5
4.1
18
INS
Winter Maintenance
4
5
1
4
19
CSD
Building
4
5
1
4
20
INS
Sports fields, trails, parks and sites
3
5
5
3.8
21
INS
Road Maintenance
3
5
5
3.8
22
INS
Environmental Services
3
5
5
3.8
23
CSD
Program and Resource Services
3
5
5
3.8
24
INS
Stormwater Utility - Engineering
4
4
1
3.7
25
INS
Water Distribution
3
5
4
3.7
26
FCS
Investment Income
3
5
4
3.7
27
CSD
KFD - Prevention/ Public Education
3
5
4
3.7
28
INS
jEngineering Admin (Gas & Water)
3
5
4
3.7
29
CSD
Arenas
3
5
3
3.6
30
INS
Gas Supply & transportation
3
5
2
3.5
31
CSD
Fire Suppression
3
5
2
3.5
32
CSD
Cemeteries
3
5
2
3.5
33
CSD
Fire Administration
3
5
2
3.5
34
INS
Concrete Repairs
3
4
5
3.5
35
INS
Fleet Procurement /Disposal
3
5
2
3.5
36
INS
Minor Improvements /repairs
3
4
5
3.5
37
CAO
CAO Administration
3
4
5
3.5
38
INS
Fleet Administration
3
5
2
3.5
39
INS
Sanitation
3
4
5
3.5
40
CSD
Planning
3
5
1
3.4
41
INS
Retal Water Heater
3
5
1
3.4
42
CAO
Office of the Mayor and Council
2
5
5
3.2
43
FCS
Legal
3
4
2
3.2
44
FCS
Businss Systems Support (Accounting Division)
3
3
5
3.2
45
INS
Traffic
3
3
5
3.2
46
CAO
Business Development
3
3
5
3.2
47
CSD
Fire Training
3
4
2
3.2
48
INS
Crossing Guards
3
4
2
3.2
49
FCS
Elections
3
3
5
3.2
50
FCS
Legislated Services
3
4
1
3.1
51
CSD
Tier 1 and 2 Grants
2
5
3
3
52
INS
Gas Meter and Utilization
3
2
5
2.9
53
INS
Transportation Planning
2
5
2
2.9
3-6
54
NS
Engineering Construction
2
4
5
2.9
55
INS
Engineering Design & Approvals
2
4
5
2.9
56
FCS
Business Systems & Database Administration
2
5
2
2.9
57
INS
Engineering Infrastructure Asset Planning
2
4
5
2.9
58
FCS
Client Services
2
5
2
2.9
59
INS
Downtown Maintenance
2
4
5
2.9
60
CSD
KFD - Direct Detect
3
3
1
2.8
61
FCS
lGapping
2
5
1
2.8
62
FCS
Human Resources
2
5
1
2.8
63
CSD
KFD - Apparatus and Equipment
2
4
4
2.8
64
FCS
Financial Planning
2
4
3
2.7
65
FCS
General Accounting /AP (Accounting Division)
2
4
3
2.7
66
INS
INS Support Services /Business Systems
1
5
5
2.6
67
CAO
Downtown
1
5
5
2.6
68
CSD
Volunteer Resources
3
2
2
2.6
69
CAO
Print Shop
3
2
2
2.6
70
FCS
IT Projects & Planning
2
4
2
2.6
71
CAO
Arts and Culture
2
3
5
2.6
72
FCS
GIS
2
4
2
2.6
73
INS
KU Dispatch
2
4
1
2.5
74
CSD
KFD - Communications
2
4
1
2.5
75
CSD
CSD Administration
2
4
1
2.5
76
INS
Asset Management
2
2
5
2.3
77
CSD
Athletics
2
2
5
2.3
78
CAO
Economic Development Administration
1
4
5
2.3
79
INS
KU Admin
1
5
2
2.3
80
INS
Corporate Contact Centre
1
4
5
2.3
81
FCS
Financial Reporting, Asset Accounting (Accounting
Division)
2
3
1
2.2
82
INS
Water Meter Shop
2
2
4
2.2
83
FCS
Corporate Records & Archives
2
3
1
2.2
84
FCS
Licensing
2
3
1
2.2
85
FCS
Istores
1
5
1
2.2
86
CAO
Special Events
1
4
3
2.1
87
FCS
Payroll (Accounting Division)
1
3
5
2
88
INS
Gas appliance Financing
2
2
1
1.9
89
FCS
Internal Audit
1
2
5
1.7
90
CAO
Small Business Centre
1
2
5
1.7
91
INS
Welcome Centre
1
2
5
1.7
92
INS
Direct Purchase
2
1
2
1.7
93
FCS
FCS Administration (excluding internal audit)
1
3
2
1.7
94
FCS
Purchasing
1
3
1
1.6
95
FCS
Mailroom
1
3
1
1.6
3-7
9
J
Q
m
Y
O
Q
E
m
O
m
m
O
E
m
m
S C
O. O
m N
VI J
� � 6
VI w N
d – Q
3 vi N
N O
E
i N O
(A N N
N O >
� C O
m N
m Q m
J U
x ° L
3-8
m m L
Q x
C
O
.0
L
U
9
Y N
m
C
� °
C
p
�
N
C
0
0 w
O
„ ° p N m uo m
O E
^ U
L m
'� "
O O
E
:
Q
O
0 Y
+E
C
M
U
° E
U
J
Y ` E
m
C Y
C
o N C
�' U C m O.
m
N ate+
'3 '3
E
o
v
U
m
o
�, a? v 9
O.
° 3
9 0
"' -°p E
E o
C
M
o
'^
_ m
E oD
y0
O
O
N m
Y Q u
m oD
O C
-O a+
m � Um
-p
> m '^
m am+ u '^
� U E
— C s
O O m m
N-
°
-O
O
O
9 u
O
O
N
'C Y
J O J -O
C C N
a+ 'w^
m
p =�
vmi m O
C
>,
U N O +'
m O
';
m a+ E
O. m
O
yi
_ O
J
m
N
NO
�fl
-O
C J
N
N O.
L N N C
O O
m 9
J
S 12 J
s Q
m
O. 0 N
ON Q
C
LL
Q
N
A
N
A
� 9
n
_
F � O J
Z Q
m
vi Q
� U 9
N U
N J E a .– C
A m
N
� lD
N
YO N
N
am+
m
C
O
C
m
C L N
3
J m
N Y '^
NC
w
C
C
9 O
-"
Y
W
oD N
N
N
oD
C
O"
0
N
3>
O
O" E E C
E m O'
m E
O
O
O
C O
N
-O
m p
O
m m O\ Y u
C 0
C O 9 N
> j
0 O N
> 0 a
L Q
m
C
O
-O J °
0
O
3 D'
3
0 oD
Cp O .a+
p 9
N O w yi C
E
L O
a
E
m o
U
m
°
9\
N
v z
J 9 a
_
, a
°>
o:
o
m
U
E
N
E m
O -O vi
o
o
m Y N y?
m
o v
O C
m oD J
°-
U E a
-O O
m v v
C J oD .� O
-O
m JO
m
O
N
C
+.
m 9 v
O
N
` O
a ._
YO
9 — E
.� �'
N E
w N
O oD -O
N 0
m
O
,^
m
0O
N
N
O oD U
'a+
O
°
" Y m m
C Q J
�
J O Y C m
m m U
E J m
'C
ow Q
.
p- U N
N- ate+
C
m J
'a+
u
V > oD Y
.> 0 N O `
U
0 N N
O 3
m m
O
I�
O o_
—
a O � 0
� C
9 � O
vi C
'` m p
N Q m °' N
_
O °C
N
vmi w
N
F O N m E
�
E a+
U O. E C
.–
F U
Vl J E O_ C C
M O Y
`
O
C
–
C
m
j E
C N N m
C
— O
m y�
C m
m
C
._
N
o
m N
U
O
yi m
O
Q
O m
C
m
N
O
O
'`
U
N
L
-O J .–
o
v m
–
O
3 C
m>
O
O
N
N
Y
O
O
N _O
N N C m
a`+
yi oD .i+
m N N
-O >
E '^ N ,�
9
L Q
M,
C
m
C–
o
-p
C
m
-O
O
O
p' O>
Q
Y\
C .� —
0 9 O.
Q
C L
O 0 m J
Y yi C
LL'
O N
mu
_
3 U
U
Y E
O
E -O
Q
J J >
O
"
_
N U
O
T
> N m
-O
E-
�o
E
° 9
N
O
—
m
m« s s
E
J
o> E
'o O m
fl
O C
9 a v v
O
E 3 y
Z,-.
m
Cp
C
�Il
N
N
C
v Y
m0
O
L C, u
O oD
\ m
N
.– C �'
>
m E E
°
Y
N °
p
m
m
o
C J O
J .–
m '^
Y>
N 'm y
C
O
_
0
u
v o
0
m
3
v 2-
o
`\
o_ O L
v w
U
u E°
wo m
�+ U '«
C
O O
-O
O O
�-
m
..
UO
O
N
N
9
Q u
N
––
F O Q 3
Q
U 'O
F u OU
to E E m E
- m .-
N
° L
7 n
n
C
° N
N
C
O
m
C
2
N
O
N Q
>
m
N
3
wN
D
>
O
O
Y
m
m C
6 .
U
C
O
m C
O
p 'E
N
U
m
J
WD :12
m
C
'E
C
N
E
C
C Y
N
Ul
O
N U
3 3
9 Q
m
°
�n
O m
_ m
O
C
O oD
O
> -O Y
m m
oD
-O C
.�
N U
a+ m .'''
O O J
Y E
N
3 Q
oD
"
E
Y -p
m
E p
E
o
N
2
m °- -
Y
E a,
J
E
o -o
-
m yi
°1 0�
°
E
v
o
f
O
C
o
'^ �' j
N
O O C
E
C
O
9 p_ 9
J
a
m=
Nj
ds
O
O
'E 0
v
0U
n
j
° O
6
U
U
` C
N 6
N
vi
O
L O Ul
m
O
L m
N
O
C D7
u E
in a
7
C
O
O
ow
C
m
m
v°
u
3 o E
c
N
n
>
O
>
N\
O N
CO
j m
m
O
U
_
y'
0
C O
.–
C
= 3
N
C0 9
vYi
S
y
M
O
v
O
O C
oD
0
m E
o
w
m
am+ m y
m
U
0 m u
p
O
O
O O
Q
N m
U
o
°
°
E J
m
O
u
w
U
°
N
N
Y
N
N
L C C
m
–
OO
E
V
V
J
V
S E Y
F E E
in ° o
v
ou
J
O
C
9
C
0
a
m
m
N C
O U w
N
J
C
pD
-O
J
C
N
Q
Y O
J
Y
OJ
\
p
O
J
Y
E
c
v
C
O
�,
?
O N
O a+ m
v Y
0 Z,
U
U
E
N
y„
d
°
O. C
C `
O
9 Y
°
J
OD
m 'Z, E
°
J
m
J O_
`p
m a N
O
N
N
C
0
N
C
C
S
F
Z m m,
E O _
,
LL O
W W
V1
J
M
V1
V1 E
V1
Q
L
2
N CO
N
>
w
0
N
N
m
i
Q C
N
O
Y
C
>
v
O.
E
1'
Vl
W
3-8
3-9
O
O
Y
al
al
O
O
L Y 'E
al
W
al
O Y N J
C OD
al vi
L `
O
9
O al
C O
O N ate+
E 0. o
3 -o 0
> C
C
O
O
C
C
,�
J J pD
-O — O m -O
w
O
Y Y
Y C
Y 3 al
— o- vii
S E
OU >
al
Y E
O
,C -O Y
C
pD '^ a s a
al O E YO
=>
O
O al
L a
Q
V
7 J
E
O
a
m
N
L C
E
>
C L
C
E V
S O
o a
v
Y
s 3 0
�' o
o
w 0 9
al
0
o
v
in
o -a'o
Qo
N
9 0
v o
�\o
3 o
Y
O
o
> O
al L O J
> 9
w N °
al > C
a
o al >
o I al
N
N 9 O
O
al al
O al
O.
Y
a0+
> al
N y
OD
Y
.0 E a E
J
O a
C L N
O O
w
o
_O N
7
_
x
E
o
O o
—
O +' C
N a
ate+
o
v N u
a
Y -O -p
J C
`
9
OD O J
al > CO
-O al
W
C O m
0 E
E
C a
9 9
-o
o
'"
o
o v
o
m s
a 3
a,
v o
o m 0
3
Y
E C
O
O 'j .J Y O
>
U al w
al >
>
w
'O^ N C
E N N y
0 O C
= a0+ al
om C
N Y YO
v
m
O ,v,
-O .y `
mw
O>
O
Ul —-
Y
.- J -0 Q
C a>
s a
a
o
v o m axi �n
Y o
O
w S
O
p a
N
v
v 9 s
o o
E C U
o
v
U
ate+ O o
O E
> +' 9
al > o
C �
�
`o v
o
'o_ v`
o
Y
C
O
v v
O� J N>
U 9
O CO
o
E
IT
m
o
j o s a
o v>
E`
E o >
F U
N
W
7 3 o .s.
O
7 0 uo >
voi E -o vvi
j
-
O N
m
a
DC ate+
O
o
?
a,
3
-00 O
v u
u
O
Y>
C vvi
C Y
O
JO
a C
al
v
E U ate+
_
-O 9 O
o
C
o
>
0 w L
v>
o
O J
Y
J -O C
3: o
a
_ v
a v 3
a
2 v o
v
o°
E
0
o
-
E v
s v v u
v v
a
'�
... 3
O u
.. on 9
DC
N m
DC
Q O
(n
L OD
C a
a
(�
o o
N
o
O
_
Vl
o
C
o
-
E u,
al
E
al
s
v
>
o
Y
N
N
U
0
O
6
a
>
. `1
C
o
�
O E
°
Y
J y
C W N
E
a s
j
U
S
o
J E
v
o
in
O
C7
E o
u
a
a
E
oo
�.
>
O
OD
a,
9
J
2
C
O
fl-
E
3-9
Appendix C - Prioritized List of Service Reviews By Year
Rank
Service
Type
Resource
3 & 29
Aud & Arenas
comprehensive
Audit, CSD
5
Market
capacity
Risk
8
Storm Water Utility - Operations
compliance
Audit, Risk, INS
9
By -law Enforcement
service delivery
CSD
10
Sanitary Sewer Utility - Operations
compliance
Audit, Risk, INS
14
Facilities Management
impact assessment / process / risk assessment
INS
49
Elections
functional
Audit, FCS
62
Human Resources
process / service delivery
FCS
70
1 IT Projects & Planning (support)
iservice delivery
FCS
Rank
Service
Type
Resource
1
Community Resource Centres
comprehensive
Audit, Risk, CSD
4
Parking Enterprise
service delivery
Audit, INS
23
Program & Resource Services
value for money, customer satisfaction
CSD
25
Kitchener Utilities
follow up risk assessment
Risk
36
Minor improvements/ repairs
(playgrounds, parks, trails)
risk assessment
Risk
37
CAO Admin / Integrated Planning Centre of
Excellence
capacity/ post mortem of 3 year secondment
Audit
42
Office of the Mayor & Council
organizational
Risk
50, 83, 84, 95
Legislated Services
follow up audit/ capacity
Audit
80
Corporate Contact Centre
follow up audit/ capacity
Audit, INS
94
Purchasing
comprehensive
Audit, FCS
Rank
Service
Type Resource
9
By -law enforcement
compliance
Audit
17
Development Engineering
impact assessment/ process
INS
19
Building
controls / compliance
Audit
20
Sports fields, trails, parks and sites
service delivery/ process
INS
22
Environmental services
service delivery
INS
26
Investment income
compliance
Audit
28
Engineering Admin (Gas & Water)
functional / controls
INS
32
Cemeteries
compliance / service delivery
Audit, CSD
44
Business Systems Support (SAP)
follow up risk assessment
Risk
44, 65, 81, 87
Accounting
comprehensive
Audit, FCS
56
Business Systems & Database Admin (IT)
risk assessment
Risk
60
Direct Detect
follow up risk assessment
IRisk
72
GIS
risk assessment
IRisk
Rank
Service
Type
Resource
12, 35, 38
Fleet
process
INS
13
Revenue
comprehensive
Audit, FCS
28
Engineering Admin (Gas & Water)
functional / controls
INS
51
Tier 1 /2 Grants
compliance
Audit
66
INS Support Systems / Business Systems
process
INS
76
jAsset Management
risk assessment
IRisk
77
lAthletics
I risk assessment
IRisk
3-10
78
Economic Development
risk assessment
Risk
86
Special Events
service delivery
64
91
Welcome Centre
process
INS
Rank
Service
Type Resource
55
Engineering Design / Approvals
follow up controls
Audit
64
Financial Planning
comprehensive
Audit, FCS
90
Small Business Centre
comprehensive
Risk
Rank
Service
Type
Resource
61
Gapping
follow up on policy
Audit
68
Volunteer Resources
comprehensive
Audit, CSD
69
Print shop
cost analysis follow up
Audit
3-11
Rank
Service
Reason
2
Aquatics
Controls covered under annual cash audits; may do a process review for
swipe cards / biometrics if put in the business plan
6
Communications & Marketing
2 previous comprehensive reviews done; none required at this time
7
jGolf
Recent consultant review; none required at this time
11
Gas Distribution
Internal review in progress
15
Appliance Service
Process review in progress
18
Winter Maintenance
Recent reviews done regarding optimizing resources; out of scope for
Operations review for that reason; no other reviews planned at this time
21
Road Maintenance
Included in Operations review in progress
24
Stormwater Utility - Engineering
No risks or threats identified which would benefit from a review; none at
this time
27, 31, 33, 47,
63,74
Fire - all sections
Fire is creating a master plan; potential follow up to implementation of
master plan (effectiveness);
30
Gas Supply & Transportation
Compliance review in progress
34
Concrete Repairs
Included in Operations review in progress
39
Sanitation
Included in Operations review in progress
40
Planning
No risks or threats identified which would benefit from a review; none at
this time
41
Rental Water Heater
Process review in progress
43
Legal
Follow up comprehensive review in progress
45
Traffic
Included in Operations review in progress
46
Business Development
No risks or threats identified which would benefit from a review; none at
this time
48
Crossing Guards
No risks or threats identified which would benefit from a review; none at
this time
52
Gas Meter and Utilitization
Process review in progress
53
Transportation Planning
Recent review done regarding resourcing; no risks or threats identified
which would benefit from a review; none at this time
54
1 Engineering Construction
No risks or threats identified which would benefit from a review; none at
this time
57
Engineering Infrastructure Asset Planning
No risks or threats identified which would benefit from a review; none at
this time
58
Client Services
Potential follow up on IT Strategic Plan implementation - no time line set
59
Downtown Maintenance
Included in Operations review in progress
67
Downtown
No risks or threats identified which would benefit from a review; none at
this time
71
Arts & Culture
Culture Plan 3 to be developed in 2015; no risks or threats identified which
would benefit from a review; none at this time
73
KU Dispatch
Review just completed
75
CSD Administration
Review just completed
79
KU Administration
Process review in progress
82
Water Meter Shop
Process review in progress
85
Stores
3 previous audits; part of annual physical inventory count; none at this time
87
Gas Appliance Financing
Process review in progress
89
Internal Audit
Possible peer review / process review; none at this time
92
Direct Purchase
Process review in progress
93
FCS Administration
included in other divisional audits related to process; none at this time
3-12
Definitions
3-13
A review of the actual transaction or work volume, the average time to complete each
capacity
transaction and the estimated required resourcing compared to the actual resourcing.
A test to determine if staff are following all rules, regulations and policies associated with
compliance
the service.
An all encompassing review of the division or service including things like process and
functional analysis, organization structure review, controls, compliance, risk assessment,
service delivery, customer satisfaction, value for money, capacity, benchmarking and any
comprehensive
other analysis required.
A detailed analysis of direct and overhead costs of a service and analysis of charge out rates
cost analysis
if applicable.
customer satsifaction
A review of customer satisfaction with a service and where improvements could be made.
An additional review of any type, not sooner than 1 year after the original review in order to
assess the impact of the original recommendations and proactively identify any new /
follow up "
emerging risks.
An analysis of specifically how a process is done and where efficiency and effectiveness
functional
improvements could be made.
A review to determine all of the up- stream and down - stream touch points, information
impact assessment
flows and dependencies in a process.
An analysis of what is done in delivering a particular service and where efficiency and
effectiveness could be improved. (Not to be confused with a functional review which takes
process
it one step lower into how the work is done)
An identification of all of the possible risks that could affect a service including rating the
risk assessment
probability and impact of the risk using the corporate risk matrix.
Clarification, documentation, and communication of roles and responsibilities of similar
role clarification
roles to ensure there is no overlap in duties.
A review to determine the optimal method of delivering a service including exploring
service delivery
loptions of contracting out or not delivering the service at all.
A comparison of the fully burdened cost of providing a service (including all direct costs plus
value for money
overhead) compared to the cost of obtaining the service from a 3rd party.
3-13