HomeMy WebLinkAboutFollow-up on IT- Staffing reportFollow-up report on Information Technology Department - Staffing #12/13-6 January 2013
FOLLOW-UP REPORT
Information Technology Department - Staffing
(Internal audit report #11/12-4 issued March 2012)
To request this information in an alternate format, please call (541) 330-4674 or send email to David.Givans@Deschutes.org
Deschutes County,
Oregon
David Givans, CPA, CIA, CITP, CGMA
Deschutes County Internal Auditor
1300 NW Wall St
PO Box 6005
Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 330-4674
David.Givans@deschutes.og
Audit committee:
Gayle McConnell, Chair - Public member
Chris Earnest - Public member
Jean Pedelty - Public member
Greg Quesnel - Public member
Michael Shadrach - Public member
Jennifer Welander - Public member
Anthony DeBone, County Commissioner
Dan Despotopulos, Fair & Expo Director
Scot Langton, County Assessor
Follow-up report on Information Technology Department - Staffing #12/13-8 January 2013
TABLE OF
CONTENTS:
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background ………………………………………...………………................................... 1
1.2. Objectives & Scope ……………………………………..………………………….…….… 1
1.3. Methodology ……………………………………………………..…………………….……. 1
2. FOLLOW-UP RESULTS ……………….…...………………………….............................. 2
3. APPENDIX I – Internal Audit Recommendations - Updated Workplan for
Report #11/12-4 (Status updated as of January 2013) ………….………....................... 3
Follow-up report on Information Technology Department - Staffing #12/13-6 January 2013
Page 1
1.
Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND
Audit Authority:
The Deschutes County Audit Committee has suggested that follow-ups occur from nine months to one
year after the original report issuance. The Audit Committee’s would like to make sure departments
satisfactorily address recommendations.
1.2 OBJECTIVES and SCOPE
Objectives:
The objective was to follow-up on the outstanding audit recommendations.
Scope:
The follow-up included six (6) recommendations from the internal audit report on Information Technology
Department - Staffing (#11/12-4) (issued March 2012).
The follow-up reflects the status as of January 2013. The original internal audit report should be referenced
for the full text of recommendations and discussion.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
The follow-up report was developed from information provided by Joe Sadony, Director of Deschutes
County Information Technology. In cases where recommendations have not been implemented, comments
were sought for the reasons why and the timing for addressing these. The follow-up is, by nature,
subjective. In determining the status of recommendations that were followed up, we relied on assertions
provided by those involved and did not attempt to independently verify those assertions.
The IT Department should be acknowledged for their work in addressing these recommendations. Many of
these recommendations have been noted with an on-going commitment to address.
Since no substantive audit work was performed, Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States were not followed.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
Follow-up report on Information Technology Department - Staffing #12/13-8 January 2013
Page 2
2.
Follow -up
Results
Figure I -
How were
recommenda-
tions
implemented?
The follow-up included six (6) recommendations. Management agreed with all of the recommendations.
Figure I provides an overview of the implementation status of the recommendations. The details of the updated
workplan are provided in Appendix I.
With this follow-up, all recommendations (100%) have been noted as completed or on-going. For follow-up
purposes, recommendations noted with an on-going designation will be treated as completed.
Follow-up report on Information Technology Department - Staffing #12/13-8 January 2013
Page 3
3. Appendix Appendix I –Updated Workplan for Report #11/12-4 (Status as of January 2013)
Rec# Recommendation Agreement Completion
Status
Estimated
completion
date
Updated Department comments
1 It is recommended for the
department to establish
anticipated staffing levels based
upon the information from the
survey as well as the gap
analyses. This kind of analyses
should be periodically refreshed.
Agree On-going Estimated
date of
corrective
action is on-
going starting
with audit.
Refresh
annually
In fiscal 12/13, the IT Department has
taken advantage to recent retirements to
produce a net reduction in FTE count
and personnel costs. The department
anticipates future opportunities for
further adjustments by the middle to end
of fiscal 14/15. But not before.
2 It is recommended for the IT
department to establish a training
program for IT employees that is
tied to their support goals for
County departments. This may
require tracking the current skills,
training received and new skills
needed.
Agree On-going We have recently made an investment in
several training resources. A few staff
with necessary skill requisites have been
given projects that include the necessity
to learn new products and acquire new
skills. The IT Department anticipates
leveraging these experiences by
requiring these employees to assist
others in learning these skills and
adapting them to future projects.
3 It is recommend for the IT
department to establish a time
tracking system that will meet
their needs for project and time
management. The department
should establish expectations for
usage of the time tracking
system, expectations for
Agree Completed Estimated
date of
corrective
action: April
2, 2012.
The work management system has been
in use for nine months. A recent
analysis of the data collected indicates
there is some fine tuning required,
however the data collected should allow
the department to establish some
measureable work goals.
Follow-up report on Information Technology Department - Staffing #12/13-8 January 2013
Page 4
Rec# Recommendation Agreement Completion
Status
Estimated
completion
date
Updated Department comments
productive time, communicate
expectations to staff and monitor
the system for compliance.
4 It is recommended the IT
department establish some
practices to add new projects and
areas when those are anticipated
in being greater than a certain
threshold.
Agree On-going Estimated
date of
corrective
action:
Completed as
a work in
progress.
Practices are being tested currently on
conjunction with the work management
system. The quantity of net new projects
that can be well defined and executed is
slim. However, this will change as some
long-term project wind down and fallout
work form these projects materialize
along with regular work.
5 It is recommended for the IT
Department to assess, develop
and publish performance
measures that are a better
representation of the quality of
the services they provide to
County departments and the
direction they are taking.
Agree On-going 12-18 months More data needs to accumulate in the
work order systems to determine a valid
baseline of work volume and
performance. Formulas and measures
are being determined, however the data
does not yes support any valid historical
comparisons. We anticipate being able
to publish meaningful benchmarks no
later than the 14/15 budget.
Follow-up report on Information Technology Department - Staffing #12/13-8 January 2013
Page 5
Rec# Recommendation Agreement Completion
Status
Estimated
completion
date
Updated Department comments
6 It is recommended for the IT
department to develop and
monitor benchmarks with other
like jurisdictions.
Agree On-going Estimated
date of
corrective:
This budget
year and
annually from
there on.
After serious consideration and
discussions with peers I have concluded
that measured comparisons across
jurisdictions are highly subjective and
are rarely if ever useful. For example,
Budget/FTE is a common measure but
cannot be compared without a thorough
analysis of the programs and activities
that can easily skew these numbers.
Therefore, measured value-based
comparisons across jurisdictions should
be discounted, unless the measure
programs are fully documented.
Comparisons of activities across certain
like activities/services could be
evaluated and compared but only if there
is a need to find examples for
improvement. I.E. answer the question
what activities are being performed
successfully by another jurisdiction and
why are we not successful?
{END OF REPORT}