Audit Recommendation Follow-Up: Department of Administrative Services Should Enhance Succession Planning to Address Workforce Risks and Challenges


Recommendation Follow-Up Results

The Department of Administrative Services (DAS) agreed with the original audit, which identified eight recommendations for implementing a succession planning framework. Our follow-up work shows DAS has fully implemented six of those recommendations since the initial report. This significant progress still requires a little more work to implement the remaining two recommendations.

Highlights from the Original Audit

The Secretary of State’s Audits Division found that DAS should play a stronger leadership role in addressing key workforce risks and challenges within the state executive branch through enhanced workforce succession planning.  Multiple factors indicate these risks and challenges are important including changing workforce demographics, and citizens’ needs for essential services that require skilled and experienced staff.

Background

Our original audit reviewed succession planning within Oregon’s executive branch. Succession planning is an ongoing management process used to ensure workforce continuity and effectiveness, particularly in key leadership and technical functions.

Purpose

The purpose of the audit was to determine if and how the State of Oregon could better plan for future key workforce needs, including preparing state employees to fill key roles.  The purpose of this follow-up report is to provide a status on the auditee’s efforts to implement our recommendations.

Key Findings

Within the context that effective succession planning is difficult, complex, and is frequently not a priority within the public sector, we found:

  1. DAS has not developed or implemented a state-level succession planning framework, despite recognizing the importance of succession planning.
  2. The lack of a succession planning framework increases workforce risks, such as not developing or retaining knowledgeable and skilled employees to perform critical functions.
  3. These risks are exacerbated by demographic and economic trends, including increasing retirement rates, and a lack of formal succession planning processes within state agencies.
  4. State agencies also report challenges, including inaccessible workforce information that may hinder strategic human capital management practices and should be addressed at a state level.

Read the full report here.

Audit Recommendation Follow-Up Featured New Audit Release

Internal Auditor ReBlog: The root of the matter

Complex, serious, or pervasive problems are rarely the result of a singular event or failure. Frequently, a “perfect storm” of several causes forms to create an ideal environment for the failure to occur. Moreover, simply getting to the root cause to prevent it from happening again may not be enough — the consequences have to ​be addressed.

To better understand root cause analysis, two general myths need to be dispelled — the myth of the single root cause, and the myth that fixing the root cause alone fixes the problem. Upon recognizing these false notions, internal auditors can use several methods to perform root cause analysis more effectively on their engagements.

Jimmy Parker, a senior manager for internal audits at Verizon, shares his take on how auditors can perform multiple root cause analyses on agency problems. Identification of the problem, measurement, prioritization, and developing audit recommendations that address both conditions and cause are covered. He also recommends considering how the effects of root problems drive how they should be addressed.

Internal auditors should consider that the level of the effect will drive the nature of the root cause analysis and the type of recommendation and action plan:

  • Direct, one-time effect on the process (condition-based recommendation and action plan).
  • Cumulative effect on the process (cause-based recommendation and action plan).
  • Cumulative effect on the organization (recovery-focused recommendation and action plan).
  • High-level, systemic effect (recovery-focused recommendation and action plan).

Read more here.

Accountability and Media Featured

How becoming an amateur baker taught me to be a better auditor

This past spring I took on a new hobby: baking homemade bread. I have long been a home cook, but I had never baked a loaf of bread.  One of the key differences between cooking and baking is the balance between art and science.  Cooking is much more art than science.  In cooking, there are underlying techniques and key steps that must take place, but a cook has tremendous flexibility in how they make a dish, just as an artist has tremendously flexibility in how they paint a picture (Think Van Gogh vs. Picasso vs. Manet).  As a cook, you can deviate quite significantly from a standard recipe and get a great result.  In baking, the key to success is being precise and scientific.  Deviation can bring failure.

Where a cook might take a pinch of salt, a baker measures out an exact ratio of salt to flour. This is known as a baker’s percentage (it really should be called a baker’s ratio IMO, but we will leave that for another blog post).  Deviating from a recipe will have tremendous consequences in bread making that are not typically seen in cooking.  Add a percent too much salt or too little yeast and your bread will not rise.  A bit too much water and the bread will lose structure and be flat (and the dough will be super sticky).  Too little water and it will be dense like a bagel.  Bake it until it reaches 150 degrees and it will be gummy and undercooked inside despite looking golden brown and delicious on the outside.  However, bake it past 160 degrees and it will have that beautiful crumb inside we all know.  The reason behind this? Chemistry. Gluten gelatinizes around 160 degrees.

The crumb structure inside bread is due to fermentation and gelatinized gluten

I am not trying to say there is not an art to bread making, there certainly is, but in general, it is a more scientific pursuit than cooking. Just like auditing, is a more science than art in my opinion.

So what does this have to do with being a better auditor? Well actually a lot when you start thinking about it. Results in both bread making and auditing come from good planning and implementation of your plan.  If we invest the right time into planning and implementing our plan, we will get a good audit.

What else has it taught me? Patience.  Bread making is a long ordeal (well not as long as auditing, but do not expect to get something on the table in 10 minutes).  Most artisan breads require a long fermentation.  From start to finish, a nice flavorful loaf takes 3 to 4 days to make.  Over time, the dough develops and builds flavor if the right ingredients are mixed together.  Just like our findings are slowly developed over time using the right mix of condition, criteria, cause, and effect. In the end, we strive for ‘flavorful’ findings. One of the important stages of bread making is “proofing” or proving the bread is alive and rising. Proofing is the last step before baking. With proofing I see some similarities to our quality assurance processes. QA is the stage of an audit where the findings are proved out.

This ciabatta was well proved, with a nice rise and airy texture

Lastly, control is critical. Bread making is all about controlling ingredients, temperature, and time.  With good controls in place, you can achieve the same results every time.  Every professional baker knows this and that is how they churn out delicious bread every day.  Bakers control ingredients by precisely weighing them.  Good bread makers never measure by volume, as no two cups of flour are the same and by weight can vary by 25% or more.  Auditors should do the same and measure using precise tools. Bakers also control for time and do not try to rush or delay.  A baker aims to get the dough into the oven at the right moment. If it is put in the over too early flavor development through fermentation and rising has not occurred. If put in too late after fermentation has ended the bread will lose all the air that was made and the bread will be flat and dense.

This ciabatta did not go into the oven at the right time and came out flat because it was overproved

We should strive to do the same thing and get our reports into the ‘oven’ at the right time by auditing what is relevant now and issuing our reports timely.  Lastly, bakers control for temperature to produce a bread with the right characteristics (baguettes only get crispy and crunchy in a hot and steam filled oven). We should consider our tone (e.g. temperature) that we use when ‘baking’ our reports.  Sometimes we need a hotter oven and other times we can cool it down.

Peter Reinhart has been a valuable resource for me as I learn about bread making. You can listen to his TED talk or get any of his great books on baking if you are interested. He likes to give what he calls his bakers blessing “May your crust be crisp and your bread always rise”. In his honor, I am ending with an auditors blessing: May your findings be impactful and your recommendations always implemented.

First attempt at a Miche, a whole-wheat sourdough loaf

 

Ian Green, CGAP and OAD Principal Auditor

 

Accountability and Media Featured How To

GAO Reblog: Getting Closure on Our Recommendations

“As of November 12, 2015, there were about 4,800 open recommendations and matters for congressional consideration for the 24 largest federal departments and agencies. If implemented, they could result in significant benefits across the federal government.”

When federal agencies implement the recommendations put forward by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), they can increase their savings and revenue, enhance services to the public, and improve federal programming overall.

Read more about the work of our federal counterparts at the GAO blog.

Source: Getting Closure on Our Recommendations

Accountability and Media Featured