How to develop an
internal audit checklist vis a vis 584 business activities in Building Design functions- (57 checklist
points illustrated )
In a typical, mid-size
construction organisation, Architects, Interior & MEP designers perform at
least 584 activities
which are a combination of hardcore designing and +statutory +techno-
commercial activities.
The number of
activities can grow considerably as the number of design packages increases based
on the complexity of the project and the features of the building to be
designed.
The narration of 584 business activities (for developing internal audit checklists)
can be seen by visiting https://www.ethicalprocesses.com: and
clicking, on the landing page -Book-Business Activities-Index- annexure number
and then download the same.
The landing page leads the readers to various annexures
which have 818 business activities out of which 584 are
unique to design functions and another 234 are common to all functions and summarised below paragraph.
The checklists of 584 activities include 225 core design and
+56 statutory
activities vis a vis the below design packages
· Structure
design
· Building
Architecture
· Façade
· External
development areas
· Landscape-softscape
· Interior
designing
· External
and internal electricals
· HVAC
Further, the checklists of 584 ,(in
addition to 225 core+56 statutory )include 303 activities related to the following:
· developing
configuration tables + master data
tables (21+15)
· Carrying
out risk assessment vis a vis core &
statutory activities +Configuration tables & master data tables (123)
· Assigning
access rights to core, statutory activities,and fields in configuration tables
and master data tables (60)
· Budgeting, MIS/dashboard, and developing KPI for design functions(27+24+33)
A
ready reckoner of internal audit checklists
In the table below,
a checklist of 57 internal audit activities (10% of 584) has been illustrated and balance
checklists can be directly developed by
Internal audit teams directly based on the approach mentioned below.
Considering the
technical character of Design functions, it is proposed that the internal audit
team should pursue secondment ie. temporarily taking on loan an Independent
Architect or interior designer, or MEP designer (from any project different
from the one being audited) to support internal audit team to perform the
internal audit for best results. Alternatively, the technical part of checklists
can also be outsourced to professional design firms.
The 584 activities are captured
in a Table enclosed at the end of this article.
Internal auditors
can get further inputs for enhancing checklists by reading blogs that have
already been published on my website https://www.ethicalprocesses.com or listening to videos published on my YouTube
channel reference given below. :https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCYQxIjcMIlQmpRrnRNi54CQ
Customisation
of checklists
Further, the
customisation of checklists of 584
activities mentioned in the handbook can be done based on the likely
impact of each design/business activity vis a vis 10 aspects listed below
(similar to those highlighted in blue color in 57 checklists)
·
Profitability/Revenue
·
Accuracy
·
Existence/inclusion
·
Completeness
·
Statutory
compliance
·
Validity/validation
·
Measurement
·
Occurrence
·
Timeliness
·
Rights and
obligations
Therefore,
internal auditors can add or delete the checklist of 584 activities applicable to the respective
Architect or Interior or MEP design functions.
Approach
for developing Internal Audit checklists
·
Forming a
cross-functional team (CFT) comprising of conventional internal auditor+
experienced but independent professionals from each of the Architect, interior
designing, and MEP functions, (preferably from different project teams which
are to be audited)
·
Alternately
hiring these temporarily from 3rd independent design firms to ensure
objectivity
·
Referring to
the above proposed 57 checklists as ready reckoner or an SOP of 3 design
functions and developing checklists to evolve the scope of design activities to
be audited.
·
From the
“Risk Register” maintained, identifying the risk level of each design activity
as High, Medium, or Low risks, and accordingly
planning frequency (Yearly, monthly, etc) and allocating internal audit
resources to conduct internal audits.
·
In case
organisations have not developed the risk registers, CFT can take guidance from
Risk templates given in annex 13E,14D,15D, and 16D in the book
·
These 584 numbers include only
Electricals & HVAC packages and will certainly increase based on the
additional number of MEP / other packages.
· 234 activities related to
developing SOP(36),
designing coding schemes(27),
configuring user traceability (33)+ audit trail (39)+document management system(36 hard documents+36 soft documents)+ financial
authority norms (27) are additional and not included in the above 584 internal audit checklists as such activities are common to other functions
. Thus total activities performed
are 818(584+234) as analysed above .
The
Way forward for performing the internal audit once Checklists are ready and
internal auditors /resources identified
The methodology
to perform business activities can vary considerably from one organisation to
another depending on the types of design software and ERP being used, size
& complexity of construction processes, organisation structure/hierarchy,
and degree of computerisation or digitalisation.
Once the internal
audit scope/checklists have been developed, the Internal audit team can develop
an audit calendar and carry out the internal audit as per the usual methodology
in their respective organisations such as submitting draft reports, discussing
findings with auditees, and obtaining feedback from designers regarding
countermeasures, and circulating the final report to all concerned including
HOD and top management/board sub-committee for reviewing internal audit
findings.
You
can read more about the 584 activities that can become part of the Internal audit
scope from my handbook ETHICS in the real estate and
hospitality industry, Volume 1- Architectural, Interior design, and MEP
services “and refer to the website.
Proposed
ready reckoner table -57 internal audit checklists
Sn |
Function wise -narration of Internal
audit checklist-57 illustrations |
The proposed internal auditor/s |
Source -for developing checklist-i.e. Book chapter no/Website |
1 |
Designing of Architecture of buildings Whether
there is evidence that Concept designs and schemes are based on design
calculations of PCC/Reinforcements requirements based on a factor of
safety/Earthquake zone etc. and using software like STADD or ETAB.? |
Independent Architect |
Chapter 1, website Annex 21A(2) |
2 |
Designing of Interiors of buildings Whether
strategic plans for interior design are drawn comprehensively? |
Independent Interior designer |
Chapter 2, Website Annex 21A(3) |
3 |
Designing of MEP services for buildings Whether
Strategic plans for design aligned with the company’s vision of profitability? |
Independent MEP designer |
Chapter 3, Website Annex 21A (4) |
|
And so on a checklist of a total of 225 core activities (118+37+70 vis a vis design of architect,
interior, and MEP respectively) to be prepared in continuation to serial no
1,2, & 3 above, directly by the Internal audit team members based on
inputs from the website |
As above |
As above |
4 |
Internal audit of statutory activities- Statutory Process: Meeting RERA Compliances whether the builder obtained sanctioned plans/statutory approvals
before commencing construction & did the builder regularly/timely upload the
prescribed approvals on the company’s website? |
Internal Auditor +Legal person |
Chapter:1,2,3 &4 +Annex 2.14,20B & 21B in handbook |
5 |
Statutory Process: Complying with The
RERA-Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act 2016 Whether
evidence exists that the
builder published on web site of RERA authority, Project wise details w.r.t
projects registered, units booked, units under construction, list of
approvals taken & pending vis a vis below aspects? Frequency = Q (Quarterly)and A (annually). Reporting Periods: Q3, Q4, Q1, Q2, F.Y. Target date:
form & dates as announced/amended by statutory authority |
As above |
As above |
|
And so on a checklist of 65 statutory activities (46+9+10 vis a
vis design of architect, interior, and MEP respectively) to be prepared (in
continuation to serial no 4 & 5 above) directly by the Internal audit
team members based on likely adverse impact due to statutory non-conformances
and inputs from the handbook. |
As above |
As above |
6 |
Internal audit of activities for developing configuration
tables-All 3 design functions. Whether
each of the 3 design teams Identified the key “Configuration Tables” given
correctly? |
Internal Auditor + Independent Architect or interior designer or MEP designer |
Chapter 5 Annex 21C(website) |
7 |
Whether
each of the 3 design teams has Identified the “fields” for each configuration
table appropriately and completely
not skipped any? |
As above |
Chapter 5 Annex 1A,1F,1G (in the handbook) |
|
And so on, a checklist of 21 activities @7/ each design function
to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 6 &7 above) directly by the
Internal audit team members based on inputs from the handbook. |
As above |
As above |
8 |
Internal audit of activities for developing Master data tables-All 3
design functions. Whether
each of the 3 design teams has Identified the key “Master data Tables” correctly? |
Internal Auditor + Independent Architect or interior designer or MEP designer |
Chapter 6 Annex 21D(website) |
9 |
Whether
each of the 3 design teams has Identified the “fields” for each “Master
data table” accurately/appropriately and not skipped any important field? |
As above |
Chapter 6 Annex 1A,1F,1G in handbook |
|
And so on, a checklist of 15 activities @5/ each design function
to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 8,9 above) directly by the
Internal audit team members based on inputs from the handbook. |
As above |
As above |
10 |
Internal audit of activities for carrying out risk assessment
at the ”Organisation level and core
Process and core activity” levels Whether
Cross-cross-functional (CFT) have been formed/exist for developing a risk management
framework and are appropriate in terms of representation, levels/positions of
members vis a vis each design function? |
Internal Auditor + Independent Architect or interior designer or MEP designer |
Chapters 10, & 1,2,3 and Annex 13B on the website |
11 |
Whether
aspects (such as competition, economy, political, social, building design
substitutes, Govt policies customer demands, business associates, and
Outages) considered for carrying out “a risk assessment at the “organisation level” comprehensive? |
As above |
As above |
12 |
Whether
the Template -design for classifying risks (at the Organisation level) as
High, medium, or low, robust/comprehensive
enough? |
As above |
Chapters 10 Annex 13C in handbook |
|
And so on, a checklist of 42 activities @14/ each design
function to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 10,11,12 above)
directly by the Internal audit team members based on inputs from the
handbook. |
As above |
As above |
13 |
Internal audit of activities for carrying out risk assessment
at the ”Statutory Process and
statutory activity” levels Whether
parameters, such as those below, for identifying risk at statutory
process/activity levels are Comprehensive
and appropriate? · Organisation
level risk assessed in annex 13B · Likely
adverse impact due to non-compliance on Corporate Governance &
organisation reputation
|
Internal auditor+ legal professional |
10 & 1,2,3,4 Annex 14B on the website |
14 |
Whether
the Template -design for classifying risks (at the statutory level) as High,
medium, or low, robust/comprehensive
enough? |
As above |
10 & 1,2,3,4 Annex 14C in the handbook |
|
And so on, a checklist of 27 activities @9/ each design function
to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 13,14, above) directly by the
Internal audit team members based on inputs from the handbook. |
As above |
As above |
15 |
Internal audit of activities for carrying out risk assessment
at the ”Configuration table level and field choice levels” Whether
parameters, such as those below, for identifying risk at the Configuration
table level level-comprehensive
and appropriate?
· Likely
adverse impact on cycle time /throughput time of process execution for which
configuration table is relevant · Process
(using specifically identified configuration table) not getting executed
completely
|
Internal Auditor + Independent Architect or interior designer or MEP designer |
10 & 1,2,3,5 Annex 15B on the website |
16 |
Whether
the Template -design for classifying risks at the Configuration table level
(as High, medium, or low) robust/comprehensive
enough? |
As above |
10 & 1,2,3,5 Annex 15C is in the handbook |
17 |
Whether
aspects, such as those below, for identifying risk at the “field choice
level” of the Configuration table comprehensive and appropriate? · Field choice pertains to /and is relevant to
business areas that can impact Project sales revenue or project costs or
statutory conformance or project design or project quality or financial
reporting · Implication
of unauthorised accessing of “Field choice” or carrying out unauthorised
amendment in “Field choice.” A few
examples of field choices are as below: · Configuration/specifications
of construction area or unit or building · Consultation
consultant’s fee rate computation · Contractor’s
rate computation · Payment
terms with the consultants · Payment
terms with the contractors and so on
|
As above |
10 & 1,2,3,5 Annex 15B on the website |
18 |
Whether
the Template -design for classifying risks at the Field choice level (as
High, medium, or low) robust/comprehensive
enough? |
As above |
10 & 1,2,3,5 Annex 15D and 1A,1F,1G in the handbook |
|
And so on, a checklist of 27 activities @9/ each design function
to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 1516,17,18 above) directly by
the Internal audit team members based on inputs from the handbook. |
As above |
As above |
19 |
Internal audit of activities for carrying out risk assessment
at the ”Master data table level and field
levels” Whether
aspects, such as those below, for identifying risk at Master table levels Comprehensive and
appropriate? a)
Likely adverse impact on Sales revenue vis a
vis field accessed from Master data table during any activity execution b)
Likely adverse impact on Project costs vis a
vis field accessed from Master data table during any activity execution c)
Likely adverse impact on Package
specifications or Project package design vis a vis field accessed from Master
data table during any activity execution d)
Likely adverse impact on BOQ quality or
construction quality vis a vis field accessed from Master data table during
any activity execution e) Likely adverse impact on Statutory
conformance vis a vis field accessed from Master data table during any
activity execution |
Internal Auditor + Independent Architect or interior designer or MEP designer |
10 & 1,2,3,6 Annex 16B on the website |
20 |
Whether
the Template -design for classifying risks at the Master data table level (as
High, medium, or low) robust/comprehensive
enough? |
As above |
10 & 1,2,3,6 Annex 16C in the handbook |
21 |
Whether
aspects, such as those below, for identifying risk at the “field level” of
the Master data table comprehensive
and appropriate? · Purpose
or ingredients of the field in business activity in which the intended “Field
“is used. · Consequences
of populating field inaccurately vis a vis revenue or project costs or
statutory conformance or project design or project Quality or financial reporting
· Design
-Robustness & safety, non-robust design vis a vis statutory sanctioned
drawing or & safety, not meeting customer requirement & saleability · Fee or
rate -Paying higher amounts to the consultant · Scope of
work - Reduction of the scope of work & consequent incomplete work or
& higher costs due to reduction of the agreement amount
And so on Some
examples of Ingredients of Field that can influence the classification of
risks in “Field” as “Medium”
are as below in the case of · Terms in
agreement- non-robust or & unfavorable own company · Scope of
works- Compromising resulting in higher project costs · Approved
Consultant or Service provider name -Deliberate change, in collusion or
otherwise to unapproved name, thus compromising on the quality of BOQ or
quality of construction or & speed of construction And so on Ingredients
of Field that can influence the classification of risks in “Field” as Low are as below in the case
of · Address · City · PIN code
And so
on
|
As above |
10 & 1,2,3,6 Annex 16D in the handbook |
22 |
Whether
the Template -design for classifying risks at the Field level (as High,
medium, or low) robust/comprehensive
enough? |
As above |
As above |
|
And so on, a checklist of 27 activities @9/ each design function
to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 19,20,21,22 above) directly by
the Internal audit team members based on inputs from the handbook. |
As above |
As above |
23 |
Internal audit of activities for assigning access rights to
Core activities -(@5 nos/each design function)
Whether parameters for developing segregation of duties (S-O-D)
been identified completely
such as below as necessary for assigning access rights? 1.
Function: 2.
Process Code for assigning access rights (from Annex 26A on the website): 3. Name
of the Core process for SOD development: 4. Code
for the core process (from Annex 20A on the website): 5. Core
Activity Code (from Annex 21A (2),21A (3),21A (4) as relevant on website: 6.
Activity Description: Risk
Classification at Core activity level (from Annex 13E) in the handbook: Provision
for capturing of following in columns: 7)Profile
numbers for accessing this core Activity 8)
Access rights for Creating/initiating, Editing/modifying, Deleting, Viewing,
Approving 9)
Function number & name (from annex 12 in the handbook) 10)Team
Number & name (from annex 12 in the handbook) 11)Employee
Level 12)
Positions within each level · Lower
level-workmen, staff, Junior/Assistant manager & so on · Middle level-Manager,
Senior Manager-Sr. Mgr. & so on ·
Higher level-General managers-GM, Directors- |
Internal auditor +IT/ERP professional |
11 & 1,2,3 And Annex 26B on the website |
24 |
Whether the Template -design for S-O-D comprehensive to capture
all parameters?
|
As above |
11 & 1,2,3 And Annex 26C in the handbook |
25 |
Whether
software programming to populate the S-O-D template at annex 26C
user-friendly, accurate /bug-free
and robust, and scalable? |
As above |
As above |
26 |
Whether
S-O-D template at annex 26C populated objectively, correctly, and without any bias and not
skewed in favor of some select position/ level only? |
As above |
As above |
27 |
Whether
periodic changes like employee transfers. Elevations, and new levels
incorporated timely/promptly
in the S-O-D before determining access rights? |
As above |
As above |
|
And so on, a checklist of 15 activities @5/ each design function
to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 23,24,25,26 27 above) directly
by the Internal audit team members based on inputs from the handbook |
As above |
As above |
28 |
Internal audit of activities for assigning access rights to
Statutory activities -(@5 nos/each design function) Whether parameters for developing segregation of duties (S-O-D) have
been identified completely
(parameters identical/similar to those listed at serial no 23 above and hence
not repeated) necessary for assigning access rights to statutory activities? |
Internal auditor +IT/ERP professional |
11 & 1,2,3 And Annex 27B on the website |
29 |
Whether
the Template -design for S-O-D comprehensive to capture all parameters?
|
As above |
11 & 1,2,3 And Annex 27C in the handbook |
30 |
Whether
software programming to populate the S-O-D template at annex 27C
user-friendly, bugs-free /accurate,
and scalable? |
As above |
As above |
31 |
Whether
S-O-D template at annex 27C populated objectively, correctly, and without any bias and not
skewed in favor of some select position/ level only? |
As above |
As above |
32 |
Whether
periodic changes like employee transfers. Elevations, and new levels
incorporated timely and
promptly in the S-O-D before determining access rights? |
As above |
As above |
|
And so on, a checklist of 15 activities @5/ each design function
to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 28,29,30,31,32 above) directly
by the Internal audit team members based on inputs from the handbook |
As above |
As above |
33 |
Internal audit of activities for assigning access rights to
Configuration tables and field choices -(@5 nos/each design function) Whether parameters for developing segregation of duties (S-O-D)
have been identified completely
(parameters identical/similar to those listed at serial no 23 above and hence
not repeated) necessary for assigning access rights to configuration tables
and field choices?
|
Internal auditor +IT/ERP professional |
11 & 1,2,3 And Annex 28B on the website |
34 |
Whether
the Template -design for S-O-D comprehensive to capture all parameters?
|
As above |
11 & 1,2,3 And Annex 28C in the handbook |
35 |
Whether
software programming to populate the S-O-D template at annex 28C
user-friendly, accurate,
bug-free and robust, and scalable? |
As above |
As above |
36 |
Whether
S-O-D template at annex 28C populated objectively, correctly, and without any
bias? |
As above |
As above |
37 |
Whether
periodic changes like employee transfers. Elevations and new levels are
incorporated timely/promptly
in the S-O-D before determining access rights? |
As above |
As above |
|
And so on, a checklist of 15 activities @5/ each design function
to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 33,34,35,36,37 above) directly
by the Internal audit team members based on inputs from the handbook |
As above |
As above |
38 |
Internal
audit of activities for assigning access rights
to Configuration tables and field choices -(@5 nos/each design
function) Whether parameters for developing segregation of duties (S-O-D)
have been identified completely
(parameters identical/similar to those listed at serial no 23 above and hence
not repeated) necessary for assigning access rights to master data tables and
fields? |
Internal auditor +IT/ERP professional |
11 & 1,2,3 And Annex 29B on the website |
39 |
Whether
the Template -design for S-O-D comprehensive to capture all parameters?
|
As above |
11 & 1,2,3 And Annex 29C in the handbook |
40 |
Whether
software programming to populate the S-O-D template at annex 29C
user-friendly and accurate/bugs-free
and scalable? |
As above |
As above |
41 |
Whether
S-O-D template at annex 29C populated objectively, correctly, and without any bias? |
As above |
As above |
42 |
Whether
periodic changes like employee transfers. Elevations, and new levels
incorporated timely/promptly
in the S-O-D before determining access rights? |
As above |
As above |
|
And so on, a checklist of 15 activities @5/ each design function
to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 38,39,40,41,42 above) directly
by the Internal audit team members based on inputs from the handbook |
As above |
As above |
43 |
Internal
audit of activities for developing budgets --(@9
nos/each design function) Whether
Cross-cross-functional (CFT) formed for developing Budgets appropriate /correct in
terms of representation, levels/positions of members vis a vis each design
function to decide the following aspects? ·
Designing structure/contents of Budget at
Organisation level/Business unit level · Designing
structure/contents of Budget at the Functional level · Deciding
the frequency (like annual) at which the Budget must be prepared &
reviewed, and released to identified users · Planning
timelines by which the Budget must be released in advance of the budgeting
period · Identifying
Functional coordinators for making and releasing Budget · Determining
recipients of Budget documents ·
Deciding periodicity for reviewing Budget And so on |
Internal Auditor + Independent Architect or interior designer or MEP designer |
Chapter 13 @ 1,2,3 Annex 35B on the website |
44 |
Whether
key assumptions, vis a vis below, for developing a budget appropriately, comprehensively and well
supported with logic? · Competition
· Economy · Political
· Social · Building (Saleable area) substitute · Government policies · Customer demands · Investments
· Market
size Any
other relevant to each function |
As above
|
As above |
45 |
Whether
key budget parameters, as relevant, such as below being incorporated /included in the respective
budgets of Design of Architects, Interior designing, and MEP functions? · Sales
Revenue Targets · Project
costs · Profitability
in local currency & foreign currency terms Targets vis a vis i)
Ongoing projects ii)
New projects during the budget period |
As above
|
As above |
46 |
Whether
common key budget parameters such as those below have been comprehensively included in the functional
budgets? · HR
organisation structure/manpower numbers & value -subfunction wise · Completion
Timelines vis a vis each design package- based on design stages in each
project · Technology
up-gradation/Skill acquisition--subfunction wise · Investments
to be made/Assets to be acquired -names, quantity, values, and timelines · Expenses
- local currency & foreign currency other than direct BOQ/Contract
costs/consultancy fees ·
Reimbursements in local currency &
foreign currency
|
As above
|
As above |
47 |
Whether
Budgeting is done fairly, accurately,
and objectively, keeping aside vested aspects? |
As above
|
As above |
|
And so on, a checklist of 27 activities @9/ each design function
to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 43,44,45,46,47) directly by the
Internal audit team members based on inputs from the handbook |
As above
|
As above |
48 |
Internal
audit of activities for developing MIS/Dashboard
-DB --(@8 nos/each design function)
Whether
Cross-cross-functional (CFT)
is formed /exists for developing MIS/Dashboard and is appropriate in
terms of representation, levels/positions of members vis a vis each design
function to decide the following aspects?
·
Designing structure/contents of MIS or DB at
the Organisation level/Business unit level · Designing
structure/contents of MIS or DB at the Functional level · Provision
for incorporating Budgeted or targeted KPI (key performance indicator) values
based on Annex 35B · Frequency
(like monthly) for which MIS or DB must be prepared and released to
identified users · Timelines
by which MIS or DB must be released · Functional
coordinators for making and releasing MIS or DB Recipients or persons who are
to be given access to MIS or DB ·
Periodicity for reviewing MIS or DB |
Internal Auditor + Independent Architect or interior designer or MEP designer |
Chapter 14 & 1,2,3 annex 36B at website |
49 |
As above |
As above |
|
50 |
Whether
MIS actual values computed and captured accurately based on accessing business transactions through key
processes/activities, Documents, Configuration tables, Master data tables, and
Data tables by functional teams?
|
As above |
As above |
51 |
Whether
MIS/Dashboard values are reviewed monthly/periodically/timely vis a vis Budgets/KPI by HOD
/CEO/MD? |
As above |
As above |
|
And so on, a checklist of 24 activities @8/ each design function
to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 48,49,50,51) directly by the
Internal audit team members based on inputs from the handbook |
As above |
As above |
52 |
Internal
audit of activities for developing KPI/Key
performance indicators --(@11 nos/each design function) Whether the
design/structure of the KPI documents is based on input from the CEO/MD and includes important aspects
such as below preferably in a tabular format. ii)Measure
of accomplishment iii)UOM iv)%
weightage v) Target vi) Actual vii)
any other aspects
|
Internal Auditor + Independent Architect or interior designer or MEP designer |
Chapter 18& 1,2,3 Annex 42B, Website |
53 |
Whether for each design function, important KPIs such as those below,
that can influence organisation level performance/profitability have been captured in
the KPI document? ·
No projects to be designed ·
Timeliness of design activities ·
Meeting statutory compliances ·
Comprehensiveness & accuracy of
design ·
Quality of design ·
Technical support to various project
teams & contractors ·
Cost reduction
|
As above |
Chapter 18& 1,2,3 Annex at Website vis a
vis each function such as: 43A-For Architects 43B-For int. design 43C-For MEP |
54 |
Whether KPIs have been appropriately & accurately converted into KRA Targets -Key
result areas of functional team members separately and well documented? ·
Higher
level- Directors-Dir, General managers-GM & so on as applicable ·
Middle
level- Senior Manager-Sr. Mgr., Manager, & so on as applicable ·
Lower level-, Assist. manager/Junior
Mgr., staff & workmen so on as applicable |
As above |
As above |
55 |
Whether
measurement and actual capturing of actuals against the KRA target accurate? |
As above |
As above |
56 |
Whether a robust mechanism exists to review KRA target vs Actual
accomplishments? |
As above |
As above |
57 |
Whether Performance appraisal at different hierarchical levels done
based on the occurrence
of actual accomplishment
of KRA? |
As above |
As above |
|
And so on, a checklist of 33 activities @11/ each design
function to be prepared (in continuation to serial no 52,53,54,55,56,57)
directly by the Internal audit team members based on inputs from the handbook |
As above |
As above |