Canada Border Services Agency
Symbol of the Government of Canada

ARCHIVED - Audit of the National Targeting Implementation Project (NTIP)

Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Internal Audit Report
June 2012


Table of Contents


Return to Top of Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) identifies and targets suspected high-risk people, goods and conveyances using multiple steps (referred to as tiers) and different approaches in the marine, air, highway and rail modes of transportation. As a result of a CBSA Task Force on Targeting Service Delivery in the Future, a decision was made in January 2011 to centralize targeting services to make them more efficient, and to locate a National Targeting Centre in Ottawa. The charter for the National Targeting Implementation Project (referred to as NTIP or “the project" in this report) was approved on February 4, 2011.

The objective of the project was to put in place the people, facilities, and infrastructure required to centralize targeting services. The project will be implemented in two phases. Phase I (marine and air modes) is defined as a fully operational National Targeting Centre in Ottawa, with the transition of all regional targeting units to the National Targeting Centre. Phase I is scheduled to be fully operational by March 2013. Phase II (highway and rail modes) involves creating several Land Border Targeting Centres (the decision on the location is being re-examined), which are tentatively scheduled to be fully operational for January 2014.

This audit was included in the Risk-Based Audit Plan 2011-12 to 2013-14, approved by the CBSA Audit Committee at its meeting of July 13, 2011. The audit started in September 2011, and the fieldwork was completed on December 5, 2011.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS AUDIT

In 2009, the CBSA underwent a Strategic Review that identified the Targeting Program as one area in which efficiencies could be realized. Flowing from the Strategic Review was a decision to centralize and restructure the delivery of the Targeting Program. Management was also asked in January 2011 to manage this project through “a solid project management architecture, with clear milestones and supported by appropriate governance and internal oversight”. This audit is significant because it provides information on the extent to which the NTIP, which involves implementing a new model for delivering targeting services, has positioned the Agency to realize the planned savings. In addition, as the Agency moves forward with implementing the Beyond the Border Action Plan, it provides one perspective on internal oversight on Agency projects.

AUDIT OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

The objective of the audit was to assess the extent to which the NTIP is progressing on time, within budget and on scope in accordance with the approved plan.

The baseline NTIP plan and schedule developed in August 2011 formed the basis for assessing the project's progress. The audit reviewed the following processes for managing and reporting on NTIP's progress:

  • issue and risk management;
  • time management;
  • project change management and control;
  • cost management; and
  • status monitoring and reporting.

The audit team did not assess the effectiveness of the new Targeting Business Model.

The fieldwork for this audit concluded on December 5, 2011. This is important to recognize because management continued to work and make progress on this project subsequent to the conclusion of the audit fieldwork. As part of the Management Response, management was requested to provide an update on the project status as of April 2012.

AUDIT OPINION

The National Targeting Implementation Project is making satisfactory progress for Phase I (marine and air modes). At the time of the audit, some milestones had not met the original planned completion dates and reports to senior management did not provide an adequate overall picture of the status of the project. This translates into a medium low-risk exposure for the Agency, as management should have sufficient time to course correct.

With respect to Phase II of the project (highway and rail modes), the project plan will need a new baseline given that the decision regarding the location of the Land Border Targeting Centre is being re-examined.

KEY FINDINGS

  • At the time of the audit, the project scope for marine and air (Phase I of the project) was well defined and the NTIP team had developed a comprehensive work plan. For this phase of the project, it had made satisfactory progress in three areas: development of the business workflows, accommodation—specifically retrofitting work space for future targeting staff—and Information Technology equipment needed at the National Targeting Centre. There were issues in finalizing the job description for targeters. These issues were addressed during the course of the audit and classification of the job description was fast-tracked. The job description delays impacted the completion and approval of the policy and standard operating procedures that were required to design the training products. Management had indicated that sufficient time was available to complete the training products prior to the first training session. It also impacted on the finalization of the recruitment strategy, however, the NTIP team began visiting regional sites to discuss the transition and recruitment strategy with the regional directors general.
  • For Phase II (the highway and rail modes), the location of the targeting centre was being re-examined. Accordingly, at the time of the audit, the scope of this phase as a whole remained undefined and would need to be given a new baseline once a decision is taken by management. This re-examination also has an impact on the Business Continuity Plan. Originally, the Land Border Targeting Centre was planned to provide a recovery site. The project team had started to work on addressing issues relating to the Business Continuity Plan.
  • The project overall budget for fiscal year 2011-2012 was in line with the project plan and each project stream[ 1 ] was assigned an individual budget. The audit team noted that the overall NTIP financial information was incomplete. Specifically, the NTIP team had not identified all the costs incurred for the project as a whole because Operations Branch was not tracking the costs incurred by the Programs Branch. As a result, not all project expenses could be reconciled to the budget. In addition, Comptrollership Branch was not reviewing or challenging financial information presented to senior management in project dashboards.
  • The NTIP team had a good process for reporting on the project's status. However, it was not standard practice for the NTIP team to request or review documents related to the project's key milestones and deliverables to verify completeness.
  • The role of the Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO) is to review and analyze the dashboard reports to ensure accurate reporting on key metrics for the Agency, and to validate and challenge the information provided in submitted dashboard reports. In our review, we found that the EPMO had not been consistently doing this. This information is crucial to senior management to have a full understanding of project's status and to be able to take early action to address project issues.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The audit has made recommendations relating to:

  1. Reviewing and confirming the project timelines and critical path for the NTIP and validating the results with the NTIP Steering Committee.
  2. Tracking and reporting all relevant costs incurred by the NTIP against the budget.
  3. Implementing a process to review and challenge financial information presented to senior management in project dashboards.
  4. Developing a risk-based approach to validate and challenge the project dashboards and reporting results to the Comptrollership Standing Committee and the Vice-Presidents' Major Projects Steering Committee with the goal to strengthen the accuracy of project reporting.

STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE

This audit was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada that incorporate the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. Sufficient relevant evidence was examined and information obtained to provide a high level of assurance on the reported opinion.

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

The National Targeting Centre (NTC) Project team has reviewed the Audit of the National Targeting Implementation Project (NTIP) and has developed a management action plan to respond to each of the recommendations.

The audit report was helpful in identifying some issues associated with Phase I that needed to be addressed. The findings and recommendations made in the audit will guide the NTIP Steering Committee in ensuring that the implementation of Phase II proceeds smoothly.

The NTC Project team is committed to working with all relevant partners to ensure a smooth transition from regional targeting to national targeting.

Return to Top of Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Return to Top of Page

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) identifies and targets suspected high-risk people, goods and conveyances using multiple steps (referred to as tiers) and different approaches in the marine, air, highway and rail modes of transportation. In 2009, the CBSA completed a Strategic Review exercise that included a review of the targeting program. It found that there were efficiencies to be gained by removing redundancy and duplication of efforts within the current program. Subsequently, a CBSA Task Force on Targeting Service Delivery in the Future was formed and as a result, a decision was made in January 2011 to centralize targeting services to make them more efficient, and to locate a National Targeting Centre in Ottawa. The Charter for the National Targeting Implementation Project (referred to as NTIP or “the project” in this report) was approved on February 4, 2011.

The objective of the project is to put in place the people, facilities, and infrastructure required to centralize targeting services and is estimated in the Strategic Review to cost $8.275 million. The project will be implemented in two phases. Phase I (marine and air modes) is defined as a fully operational National Targeting Centre in Ottawa, with the transition of all regional targeting units to the National Targeting Centre. Phase I is scheduled to be fully operational by March 2013. Phase II (highway and rail modes) involves creating several Land Border Targeting Centres (the decision on the location is being re-examined), which are tentatively scheduled to be fully operational for January 2014.

At the beginning of the audit, NTIP was in the Analysis and Design Phase, which includes nine streams. They are:

  • human resources;
  • communication;
  • accommodation;
  • programs and policy;
  • procedures;
  • training;
  • transition;
  • IT infrastructure changes; and
  • business workflow model.

The next Phase (the Construction Phase) includes developing training modules, policies, human resources deliverables, information technology and security specifications, and communication products.

The NTIP team, which is part of Operations Branch, provides overall project planning, management and control services for the project. The Associate Vice-President of Operations Branch chairs the National Targeting Implementation Steering Committee. Responsibility for developing many of the project deliverables rests with Programs, Comptrollership, Information, Science and Technology and Human Resources branches and with the Communications Directorate. Their activities are integrated with the NTIP schedule.

This audit was included in the Risk-Based Audit Plan 2011-2012 to 2013-2014, approved by the CBSA Audit Committee at its meeting of July 13, 2011. The Internal Audit and Program Evaluation Directorate conducted the examination phase between September 2011 and December 2011.

Return to Top of Page

1.2 RISK ASSESSMENT

The Internal Audit and Program Evaluation Directorate carried out a risk assessment for the NTIP, which identified the following key risk areas:

Close collaboration between the NTIP team and other CBSA organizations involved in the project is required because responsibility for many of the project deliverables rests with these organizations. If their respective roles and responsibilities with respect to NTIP have not been clearly defined and communicated to all project members, the potential exists for missed milestones and delays in implementation.

When the audit team carried out its risk assessment, estimated costs for the project were still being reviewed as more detailed project information became available. If the project budget is not well defined, the Agency may not be able to demonstrate the savings gained as per the Strategic Review while implementing the project and all its deliverables as originally planned.

The Agency is implementing the new model for targeting that includes milestones for key components (such as policy and operating procedures, training and relocation of employees). Any delays in reaching these milestones translate to risks that could affect the Agency's ability to implement the new model as planned.

Return to Top of Page

1.3 AUDIT OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

The objective of the audit was to assess the extent to which the NTIP is progressing on time, within budget and on scope in accordance with the approved plan.

The audit examination covered the period from September 2011 to December 2011. The baseline NTIP plan and schedule developed in August 2011 formed the basis for assessing project progress. The audit reviewed the following processes for managing and reporting on NTIP's progress:

  • issue and risk management;
  • time management;
  • project change management and control;
  • cost management; and
  • status monitoring and reporting.

The audit team did not assess the effectiveness of the new Targeting Business Model.

The fieldwork for this audit concluded on December 5, 2011. This is important to recognize because management continued to work and make progress on this project subsequent to the conclusion of the audit fieldwork. As part of the Management Response, management was requested to provide an update on the project status as of April 2012.

Return to Top of Page

1.4 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The audit team gathered evidence through interviews and documentation review. Audit work was carried out at Headquarters[ 2 ] and included:

  • Verifying that project roles and responsibilities had been formally defined and clearly communicated;
  • Reviewing the NTIP work plan and schedule to determine whether project dependencies (i.e., the prerequisites or major tasks required to meet the project's objectives), project milestones, and work effort estimates had been documented;
  • Determining whether the work plans and schedules of supporting branches for the nine streams had been integrated with the overall project plan and schedule;
  • Reviewing the project and supporting branches' status reporting processes and reports (e.g., dashboards, status updates from branches) to determine the adequacy of status reporting and assess progress against the project plan; and
  • Reviewing the mechanisms for tracking progress.
Return to Top of Page

1.5 AUDIT CRITERIA

The audit criteria were based on the risk areas identified. Sources for the criteria were the Management Accountability Framework, the CBSA Project Governance Framework, the Project Management Institute's Project Management Body of Knowledge, and the Treasury Board Independent Third Party Review method. Please see Appendix A for a list of Audit Criteria.

Return to Top of Page

1.6 STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE

This audit was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada that incorporate the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. Sufficient relevant evidence was examined and information obtained to provide a high level of assurance on the reported opinion.

Return to Top of Page

2.0 AUDIT OPINION

The National Targeting Implementation Project is making satisfactory progress for Phase I (marine and air modes). At the time of the audit, some milestones had not met the original planned completion dates and reports to senior management did not provide an adequate overall picture of the status of the project. This translates into a medium low-risk exposure for the Agency, as management should have sufficient time to course correct.

With respect to Phase II of the project (highway and rail modes), the project plan will need a new baseline given that the decision regarding the location of the Land Border Targeting Centre is being re-examined.

Return to Top of Page

3.0 FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLANS

Return to Top of Page

3.1 Project Scope

Audit criterion:
The project work plan and schedule reflect the NTIP as a whole and clearly specify the project's key tasks, milestones, dependencies and deliverables.

As at December 5, 2011, the project scope for marine and air was well defined for full implementation by March 2013. The site for the Land Border Targeting Centres was being re-examined and as such, the project work plan and schedule had only been partially defined. A key decision by senior management was pending and project work plan and schedule would need a new baseline accordingly. As a result, this criterion was partially met.

Project management best practices and the CBSA Project Governance Framework require a project charter that clearly describes the project and its deliverables. The charter provides the basis for developing detailed deliverables and, subsequently, the project work plan and schedule. This work includes the assumptions, constraints and interdependencies among project activities and teams.

The audit team found that the NTIP team had developed a work plan for marine and air that included all the major deliverables for each of the nine project streams. In addition, each deliverable in the project plan had been further defined through a scope-definition document. These documents identified task dependencies which, in turn, were reflected in the NTIP work plan and schedule. The audit team examined a judgemental sample of these and found that they contained a scope and description.

With respect to highway and rail modes, only a partial work plan had been developed because management was re-examining the decision to implement multiple Land Border Targeting Centres. Management was considering one centralized targeting centre for all modes. At the time of the audit, a decision on the location of the Land Border Targeting Centre was expected from the Executive Committee in January 2012.

A complete consolidation of the targeting program represents a significant change to the scope of the NTIP. It would require changes to the Transition Plan, which details the transition schedule of the regional targeting units by mode. It would also require developing a full Business Continuity Plan, considering that the Land Border Targeting Centres would have provided backup in case the National Targeting Centre was unable to offer the service. In addition, Operations Branch would need to give a new baseline to the detailed plan and schedule once the location of the Land Border Targeting Centre site has been determined. At the time of completion of the audit, the project team had started to work on issues relating to the Business Continuity Plan.

Return to Top of Page

3.2 Project Timelines

Audit criterion:
The project is progressing and reaching its milestones as specified in the plan.

At the time of the audit, progress regarding business workflows, retrofit and procurement of IT equipment for the National Targeting Centre were on track. Completion of training products and the finalization of the recruitment strategy had not progressed as planned due to issues with the job description for targeters. These issues were addressed before the end of audit fieldwork and management was taking action to complete the training products and recruitment strategy. As a result, this criterion was partially met.

The transition of current regional targeting units to the National Targeting Centre will occur in phases, with targeting units gradually being centralized according to regions and modes. For air passenger targeting, the transition begins with a test phase from January to March 2012 and ends with the finalization of centralizing regional targeting units in August 2012. To meet this milestone, it will require training products, a revised policy, standard operating procedures, a plan for relocating employees and staffing the National Targeting Centre with air passenger targeters.

The audit found that the project had made satisfactory progress in three areas with respect to marine and air: development of the business workflows, accommodation—specifically retrofitting workspace for future targeting staff—and IT equipment needed for the National Targeting Centre. These areas were progressing on time as planned. The audit team noted that the CBSA had provided Public Works and Government Services Canada with the specifications and other information needed to proceed to the tendering stage. For IT, the Agency had provided its third-party service providers with adequate lead time for procuring hardware and software products.

The policy and standard operating procedures for the air passenger targeting were also on schedule. At the time of the audit, these had been provided in draft, and the National Targeting Centre was to test their effectiveness in January 2012.

With respect to other deliverables for marine and air, the audit found that the project had not reached certain training and recruitment milestones that could affect project timing. The main cause of this resulted from issues regarding the finalization of the job description for targeters. It should be noted that the job description was finalized and classified during the audit and management indicated sufficient time was available in the project to course correct.

Regarding recruitment of employees, which was due to begin November 1, 2011, the Agency had not determined how many experienced air passenger targeters were to be assigned to Ottawa. Our interviews indicated that attracting experienced regional staff to Ottawa would be challenging. Regional directors general (RDGs) will play a role in supporting the implementation of the new targeting business model. However, interviews revealed that RDGs had received limited information on the number of staff that would be affected. Without this information, it becomes difficult to plan the transfer of employees to Ottawa. This could delay efforts to properly staff the National Targeting Centre. At the end of the audit period, the NTIP team began visiting regional sites to discuss the transition and recruitment strategy with RDGs.

The development of training materials was contingent upon the finalization of the policy and the standard operating procedures, which were dependant of the final approval of the job description. In November 2011, Training and Learning Directorate who was originally responsible for training material development returned the funding they received from Programs Branch and with that, the responsibility for the design and delivery of the training course. This was done because the key source materials were not approved as required by Training and Learning Directorate.

As a result, Programs Branch took the lead in developing the training products. As at December 5, 2011, Programs Branch had developed four of seven modules on general foundational training. With respect to air passenger targeting, two of the seven modules were complete. Providing timely and effective training will be critical to ensuring that new targeting staff has the necessary knowledge and competencies. Management indicated there was sufficient time to finalize the remaining modules before the start of the training pilot in January 2012.

The common risk associated with the issues noted above is that the CBSA may encounter delays in centralizing air passenger targeters within the National Targeting Centre, and in staffing the Centre with trained and qualified people as planned.

Recommendation 1:

The Vice-President, Operations Branch should review and confirm the project timelines and critical path for the National Targeting Implementation Project and validate the results with the NTIP Steering Committee.

Management Action Plan Completion Date

The National Targeting Centre (NTC) Project Team, in conjunction with Programs Branch, will review and correct the project timelines and critical path for the project, and provide the results to the NTIP Steering Committee.

May 2012

The NTC Project Team, in conjunction with Programs Branch, will give a new baseline to Phase II of the project, to reflect the decision made regarding the location and scope of activities of the Land Border Targeting Centre.

June 2012

The NTC Project Team, in conjunction with Programs Branch, will develop a comprehensive work plan to achieve the deliverables relating to the Land Border Targeting Centre.

June 2012

The NTC Project Team, in conjunction with all project partners, will continue to report project progress to the Steering Committee.

Ongoing until completion of Phase II

Return to Top of Page

3.3 Project Budget

Audit criterion:
Expenditures are monitored and reported against the project's budget and progress.

While some costs are being tracked against the Agency's reserve fund for the NTIP, senior management does not have a complete picture of the full costs of the NTIP. As a result, this criterion was partially met.

The NTIP is an Agency-funded project to support its commitments on decisions emanating from the 2009 Strategic Review. The $8.275 million funding for this project came entirely from the Agency's reserve fund. The funds were available to managers to cover the following costs: accommodation, targeting systems, secure system, relocation of staff, a human resources consultant, training and travel. In order for monies to be released from the reserve fund, management was required to justify their requests to the Comptrollership Branch, who subsequently reimbursed branches for incurred costs based on invoices received.

The audit revealed that the project's overall budget for fiscal year 2011-2012 was in line with the project plan and that each project stream was aware of its individual budget. Each stream planned accordingly by providing estimates to the NTIP project manager.

It was noted that the NTIP financial information on full costs of the initiative was incomplete. Specifically, the financial information that the NTIP provided to Comptrollership Branch did not include all the costs that the nine project streams had incurred for the NTIP as a whole because Operations Branch was not tracking the costs incurred by the Programs Branch. As a result, not all project expenses could be reconciled to budget.

It is important to note that Comptrollership Branch is responsible for reviewing the financial information being presented to senior management in the dashboard to ensure that it is accurate and complete. At the time of the audit, Comptrollership Branch was not reviewing or challenging this information. Comptrollership Branch has advised that it will be doing this going forward.

Recommendation 2:

The Vice-President, Operations Branch should track and report all relevant costs incurred by the NTIP against the budget.

Management Action Plan Completion Date
The NTIP has corrected this oversight as of January 2012. All relevant costs for both the Operations and Programs Branches are being accounted for in the project budget. Completed on January 2012

Recommendation 3:

The Vice-President, Comptrollership Branch should implement a process to review and challenge financial information presented to senior management in project dashboards.

Management Action Plan Completion Date
Comptrollership, in collaboration with EPMO, will request/gather from project authorities the financial information from a month-to-month perspective and not mid-month to mid-month. Completed
Comptrollership, in collaboration with EPMO, will revise the Enterprise Project Management Dashboard Reporting process to include review and sign-off by Branch Comptrollership Financial Officers (BCFO). BCFOs would sign off on financial information reflected in the dashboards including any financial risks. Lack of sign-off will be duly noted. June 2012
Comptrollership will build on the practice of having dedicated financial officers for major projects to improve project reporting and better understanding of the overall financial situation. June 2012
Comptrollership will institute an Internal Order structure for new projects that will facilitate better project reporting. Where possible and practical Comptrollership will work with offices of primary interest (OPIs) to establish the same reporting structure for existing projects. August 2012 for new projects and ongoing
Working with EPMO, we will strengthen the governance, including the provision of project foundational elements to provide baseline (e.g. detailed project plans), to ensure the process includes adequate time for BCFO sign-off for both financial and related deliverables. This will include reviewing the roles and responsibilities as defined in the Enterprise Project Monthly dashboard (EPMD) Guide. September 2012
BCFOs will review the project information in the dashboards to ensure they provide a horizontal financial perspective. The reporting structure will be included in the dashboard. September 2012
Return to Top of Page

3.4 Project Reporting

This section does not include financial reporting, which was previously addressed in Section 3.3.

Audit criterion:
A schedule for reporting on the project's status is prepared and communicated; responsibility for reporting is clear and is applied accordingly.

This criterion was met.

The audit team found that the NTIP team had a process for managing project reporting. Project status reporting is conducted on a bi-weekly basis. The NTIP team contacts those branch/division leads that are identified as representing the office of primary interest (OPI) for activities that were scheduled to have been started or worked on in the previous two weeks. The project manager uses these bi-weekly status reports to update the Enterprise Project Monthly dashboard (EPMD) on a monthly basis. The EPMO provides monthly project overviews and a dashboard summary for presentation to senior management. The NTIP team also presents a condensed view of the project schedule and a List of Completed Project Items to Date to the National Targeting Model Project Steering Committee.

Audit criterion:
Status information is reviewed for completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness and appropriateness.

The audit team found that the NTIP team was neither requesting nor reviewing documents related to the project's key milestones and deliverables, while the EPMO was requesting but not reviewing documents to verify their completeness and accuracy.

As a result, this criterion was partially met.

This audit criterion relates to the processes for reviewing the quality of information on the project's status, and for tracking, reviewing and resolving issues and risks.

The NTIP team is responsible for ensuring that the project information received from each project stream is complete, accurate, relevant, timely and appropriate. In addition, the role of the EPMO, as per the EPMD Guide, is to review and analyze the dashboard reports to ensure accurate reporting on key metrics for the Agency, and to validate and challenge information provided in submitted dashboard reports.

With respect to quality review, the EPMO has been assessing information on the status of key project milestones and major deliverables such as the Project Charter and the Detailed Project Plan as required. The audit revealed that the EPMO had not been validating and challenging information that the NTIP  teams had been providing on project supporting deliverables listed on the dashboard. The audit team noted some discrepancies in dashboard reports between what was reported and the actual situation, for example, the completion of the IT and HR strategies. While we do not expect the EPMO to have the capacity to validate or challenge 100 percent of all information on all project dashboards, we would expect them to provide a reasonable challenge or quality assurance function that could be applied to the higher risk projects or on a cyclical basis for the lower risk projects. The accuracy of the information on the dashboard is crucial to senior management to have a full understanding of the project's status and to be able to take early action to address project issues. For example, during the course of the audit, senior management was made aware of the implications of delays in finalizing the job description on other elements of the project. Senior management took immediate action to finalize the job description and classification was fast-tracked by the Human Resources Branch.

Recommendation 4:

The Vice-President, Information, Science and Technology Branch, should develop a risk-based approach to validate and challenge the project dashboards and report results to the Comptrollership Standing Committee and the Vice-Presidents' Major Projects Steering Committee with the goal of strengthening the accuracy of project reporting.

Management Action Plan Completion Date

The EPMO will develop a risk-based approach to validate and challenge updates to the EPMO dashboard including reviewing project deliverables/milestones and comparing them against the approved plan/schedule, and will report the results to the governance committees.

November 2012

Return to Top of Page

APPENDIX A: AUDIT CRITERIA

Lines of Enquiry Audit Criteria
Project Scope

The project work plan and schedule is integrated, given a baseline and reflects the NTIP as a whole including key tasks, milestones, dependencies and deliverables:

  • The project deliverables required to deliver the project's objectives and scope are defined;
  • Assumptions, constraints and interdependencies between project activities and teams are defined;
  • A detailed and up-to-date project schedule with the associated effort and cost estimates appropriate for each project stage is maintained.
Project Timelines

Project scope is articulated as key project milestones and progress against milestones is proceeding as planned.

Project Budget

Budgets for NTIP investments are established and expenditures are monitored against the established budgets:

  • The activities, schedules and resources needed to achieve objectives have been integrated into the budget;
  • Reporting of actual results compared to budgeted amounts is available on a periodic basis;
  • Budget forecasts to meet remaining project objectives are prepared;
  • Actual expenditures are in line with project plans; any significant variances from budget are identified and approved by project authorities.
Project Reporting

A status reporting schedule is prepared and communicated; responsibility for reporting is clear and communicated and is applied accordingly.

Status information is reviewed for completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness and appropriateness.

Return to Top of Page

APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS

Acronyms Descriptions

BCFO

Branch Comptrollership Financial Officer

CBSA

Canada Border Services Agency

EPMD

Enterprise Project Management Dashboard

EPMO

Enterprise Project Management Office

IT

Information Technology

NTC

National Targeting Centre

NTIP

National Targeting Implementation Project

OPI

Office of Primary Interest

RDG

Regional Director General

 


Notes

  1. The term "project stream" refers to the key elements of the project, which are: human resources, communication, accommodation, programs and policy, procedures, training, transition, IT infrastructure changes and business workflow model. [Return to text]
  2. Interviews with the regional directors general (or their delegates) were conducted by teleconference. [Return to text]