Every year, the Auditor-General's reports point to the same problem in many departments, municipalities and public entities: performance indicators that cannot be measured reliably, targets that are not specific, and reported achievements that are not supported by evidence. These findings damage credibility even when the work itself was done well.
The good news is that most of the problems are in how indicators are written, and that can be fixed at the planning stage.
What auditors look for
When auditing performance information, auditors broadly test two things:
- Usefulness. Is the indicator relevant to the institution's mandate, well defined, verifiable and measurable, and is the target specific and time-bound? Is the information consistently presented?
- Reliability. Can the reported achievement be traced to accurate and complete source evidence?
An indicator can fail the first test before a single activity is carried out.
From vague to SMART
Take a typical weak indicator: "Improved support to small businesses."
It is not specific (what support?), not measurable (improved compared with what?), and has no time frame. A SMART version might be:
Number of small businesses that received business development support through the enterprise development programme in the financial year. Target: 400.
Better still, pair an output indicator like this with an outcome indicator, such as the percentage of supported businesses still trading after 12 months.
The technical indicator description is where audits are won
For each indicator, a technical indicator description (TID) should define:
| Element | What to write |
|---|---|
| Definition | Exactly what is counted, with key terms explained |
| Source of data | Where the evidence comes from |
| Method of calculation | A formula or counting rule, including what is excluded |
| Means of verification | The documents that prove each unit counted |
| Assumptions and limitations | Anything that could affect the data |
| Calculation type | Cumulative or non-cumulative for the year |
| Reporting cycle and owner | Who reports, and when |
If two people could read your TID and count the achievement differently, it needs more work.
Evidence habits that prevent findings
- Collect evidence as you go. A register with names, dates and signatures beats a folder assembled at year-end.
- Avoid double counting. Decide whether one business receiving three services counts once or three times, and write the rule down.
- Reconcile quarterly. Compare reported figures with source registers every quarter, not only in the annual report.
- Keep the indicator and the TID aligned. If you change one, update the other.
Use results to manage, not just to report
Indicators exist to help managers steer. Review them in quarterly performance meetings, ask why targets were missed and adjust plans. An institution that uses its performance information is far less likely to report information that is wrong.
Training that helps
Results-Based Management and Reporting covers results chains, indicators, TIDs and reporting in depth. Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Projects is ideal for donor-funded programmes, and Government Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation focuses on strategic and annual performance plans.