The question embodied in the above statement is as old as the concept of performance audit itself. In fact it has been at the root of many misgivings about performance audit. Though the auditor tries to disavow any intentions of dabbling with the technical aspects of a project, his work often leads him to situations involving technical controversies. Where lies the problem ? The present paper seeks to explore this question and identify, if possible, certain core issues related to it.
A technocrat is a public manager having expert qualification, knowledge and experience in a particular field. The chief trait of his personality is a peculiar type of imagination, such as the ability of an engineer to see things in a three dimensional manner. In the present age of specialization, every discipline has its own jargon, standards and experts. One requires a lifetime to master a single subject or even a tiny branch of it. Thus there is no scope for a "know all" person in the medieval sense today. The prevalent intellectual norms also bind us not to indulge in another person's domain.
However this is also the age of information. The proliferation of know-how on divergent subjects places the common man in an unprecedentedly advantageous position vis-a-vis the expert. The relationship between the two has undergone a radical transformation. Today's client submits to the authority of the expert on his own conditions. A patient claims his right to learn about the nature of his illness before taking the doctor's prescription. He also checks the expiry date as well as the chemical constituents of the medicine he is going to take. Similarly a consumer enters into lengthy arguments with the distribution agency when he receives an inflated bill and in the process makes discerning disclosures about the fuel adjustment charges and line losses and even the overall tariff structure of that agency.
Above all this is a democratic age. The tax payer claims a right to ask questions about everything where his money is being spent and he makes no discrimination between technical and non-technical areas.
In a nutshell, the technocrat enjoys exclusive rights to give an authorized opinion on matters pertaining to his area of specialization, but he is not immune to checks nor he can shun questions, queries and cross examination from individual tax payers or an institution acting on his behalf. Therefore in all democratic societies, audit, judicial bodies, legislative committees and the media cross-examine the technocrats' decision and their impact on the common man.
Performance auditing is an assessment of the activities of an organization to see if resources are being managed with due regard to economy, efficiency; and effectiveness and that the accountability requirements are being met adequately. This assessment is carried out by applying generally accepted auditing procedures against performance standards formulated by an organization. In doing so, the auditor examines all the management functions, including planning, organizing, resourcing, directing and controlling, with a view to forming an opinion on the performance of an organization.
At the moment most of the performance auditing activity in Pakistan is concentrated on development projects and programmes. These projects are planned, appraised, approved and executed by experts. There are sectoral standards and specifications which serve as the basis for the decision maker. The performance auditor lays down his criteria on the basis of these standards, generally accepted management practices, government rules and regulations and the objectives of the project. On the basis of these criteria, he identifies areas of deficiency and weakness and reasons back to trace their causes.
The following examples of performance audit findings, one each from the road and water sectors, illustrate how a performance auditor tackles technical issues.
(Improvement and Widening of Peshawar Michni Abazai Road)
Reliable traffic count data was not collected at the time of design. The data was collected at only one point, which could not be considered a representative sample of the entire length. Thus formation width, pavement width and pavement thickness were designed much below the standards prescribed by the National Highway Board. The records showed that the traffic count data at another point was much higher. On the basis of average density of traffic at this point and assuming an annual growth rate of 8 per cent, the standard design was calculated by the Research Officer, Field Testing Laboratory at the request of the auditors. The new design worked out at the request of the auditors, represented an improved and different design from what the Department had originally used.
(Replacement of 650 Damaged and Deteriorated Tubewells)
Pumps and motors were purchased on the express condition that overall efficiency at rated capacity should not be less than 62.5 per cent but this had never been checked in the field after the installation of the equipment and/or upon completion of the maintenance period. By virtue of their inherent characteristics, the pumps were capable of pumping far in excess of the designed capacity when the pumping level in the well was less than the rated head of the pump. Project authorities had no records to show the designed capacity of the pumps on the known pumping level and the actual discharge at the time of the final pumping test.
This could not even be calculated subsequently, as in most cases true record without sluicing was not recorded in the construction records. The response from the executive that the equipment was checked and the overall efficiency at the rated total head and capacity was more than 62.5 per cent, was not verifiable, in the absence of maintenance / production of the relevant records
As evident from both the above findings, the auditor has tried to analyze the facts in the light of the methodology and standards followed by the executive in project planning and execution. This is the normal auditing practice. The question of interference therefore does not arise as such and any complaints or reservations in this regard should be traced back to psychological rather than physical factors.
The performance auditor is trying to squeeze into a corner where the technical consultant, evaluator, and financial auditor are already huddled tightly. His role is neither backed by convention nor credentials. Being a new comer, he is likely to have an inhospitable reception. In order to sustain himself amidst these uncertainties and realise his true potential, he needs to put in extra efforts to find out the truth. In developed countries like the Netherlands and Canada, the performance audit teams are manned by technical experts, and also have the benefit of guidance from an advisory committee on formulation of issues and audit procedures. In our case, the performance auditor is basically a generalist, and the only possible way out for a generalist in such a situation is to plunge himself into the job, undeterred by taboos, and make extra efforts to compensate for his lack of technical qualifications.
There is a large tract of no man's land between an auditor's and technocrat's jurisdiction which can be monopolised by either of the two possessing more courage and initiative. The auditor on his part should not hesitate to peep and if possible go beyond the barbed wires marking technical boundaries; he should however be clear on where to stop and seek the assistance of technical experts before proceeding further.