Succession Planning
November 11, 2010
Office of Internal Audit
Succession Planning
• Office of Internal Audit Background
– 12-14 professional staff
– 3-4 managers
– 2 career ladders
• Generalist
• Information Technology
– 3 positions on each ladder
• Auditor
• Senior Auditor
• Principal Auditor
Succession Planning
• Multi-faceted process
–
–
–
–
–
Well defined and differentiated job descriptions
Well communicated performance expectations
Set of performance metrics
Performance appraisal process
Annual ranking of staff
Succession Planning
• What has worked well
– Performance Requirement Matrix
Succession Planning
Position Requirement
Performance
Requirement
Matrix
AUDIT SKILLS
Audit principles, skills, techniques
Knowledge of U activities, processes, procedures
Risk identification/assessment
Control identification/evaluation
Assessment of findings/results
Workpaper documentation
Recommendation development
Presentation/Communication of results (written and
verbal)
Professional development
Organizational behavior
Partnership relations
Return on audit investment (risk/reward, efficiency)
Multi-task (assignments/priorities)
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
Planning/establishing scope
Audit program/procedure development
Job administration
Staff supervision
Coaching/staff evaluation
Report compilation/editing
Manage productivity and time budgets
Auditor
IS
Auditor
Senior
Auditor
Senior IS Principal
Auditor
Auditor
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
R
R
R
R
K
K
R
R
R
R
R
K
K
R
D
D
R
R
R
R
D
R
R
R
R
D
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
D
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
D
D
D
D
D
D
R
D
D
D
D
D
D
R
D
R
R
R
K
R
K
R
Senior
Auditor
K
K
K
K
K
R
R
Principal
IS
Audit
IS Audit
Auditor Manager Manager
K
K
K
K
K
R
R
R
R
K
K
K
R
R
R
R
K
K
K
R
R
K
K
R
R
R
R
R
K
K
R
R
R
K
K
R
R
K
K
K
R
R
K
K
K
R
R
R
K
R
K
R
R
R
R
R
R
K
R
R
R
R
R
R
K
R
Auditor
MANAGEMENT SKILLS
Performance management
Creation of positive work environment
Managing business plan
Client relationship building
Quality of work
Strategic planning
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
K
K
K
K
K
D
K
K
K
K
K
D
AUDIT SERVICES
Consulting/advisory
Internal investigations
Systems development reviews
Innovation/creativity
D
D
n/a
R
D
D
D
R
D
D
D
R
D
D
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
K
R
K
K
R
R
K
K
K
R
Position Requirement
D = develop in position
R = required
K = key to success in the position
Senior IS Principal
Auditor
Auditor
Principal
IS
Audit
IS Audit
Auditor Manager Manager
IS
Auditor
Succession Planning
• What has worked well
– Performance Requirement Matrix
– Annual staff ranking
Succession Planning
• Identifying high potential staff
– Those that think strategically
– Those that keep abreast of changes in our
profession – or the University – and translate that
to what we need to change to adapt
– Those that are innovatively and creatively
productive
Succession Planning
• What has worked well
– Performance Requirement Matrix
– Annual staff ranking
• Work in Process
– Performance Metric Measurements
Succession Planning
University of Minnesota - Office of Internal Audit
Auditor Performance Measures for the Annual Evaluation Process
Effective 7/1/2008
Measure #
1
Applicability
Leads & Staff
Measurement
Achievement of a
Specified Billable Hours
Percentage for the Year
Measured Annually
2
Performance
Metric
Measurements
Leads & Staff
Completion of Assigned
Audit Areas Within the
Budgeted Hours
Measured per project
Averaged per project
3
Leads & Staff
Achievement of
Acceptable Auditee
Evaluations
Measured Annually
Definition, Source, & Calculation
Actual billable hours is a measure of audit productivity, and is expressed as
a percentage. The numerator is the total hours of Scheduled, NonScheduled/Special Project, Follow-up, Investigation and special
departmental tasks (i.e., trending, process improvement, self-assessment,
etc) per Timeslips. The denominator is 2080 hours (prorated based upon %
appointment) reduced by vacation and sick leave used, training hours taken,
holiday hours, and break hours charged to Timeslips. Monthly & YTD
statistics will be available at G:\10 - Admin\40 TimeSlips Reports directory.
The annual audit plan is built using a 85% billable hours rate.
Using the actual time spent per Timeslips for those areas of the audit(s)
assigned to each auditor as the numerator, and the post-audit planning
budget amounts for all corresponding area(s) as the denominator, calculate
the percentage. Lead auditors must use the staff budgets approved for the
project, including any approved adjustments (see G:\30 - Master for budget
templates). Time spent on investigations and follow-up activities will not be
included in the calculation unless a formal time budget had been
established.
Note: Budgets for shared modules should be split and agreed upon.
Using the auditee survey results from each audit the auditor worked more
than 80 hours on, develop an overall average score for those audits for the
year. Note: the auditee survey questions utilize a ranking scale of 1 (poor)
to 4 (excellent). All auditors on the respective project team start with the
common score for that audit, but negative or positive comments from the
auditee pertaining to a specific auditor can be used to adjust the auditor's
score on that audit.
Scale & Value
<72% = 1
72% - 82% = 2
83% - 87% = 3
88% - 92% = 4
>92% = 5
>120%
120%-111%
110%-101%
100%-90%
<90%
=
=
=
=
=
1
2
3
4
5
<3.00 =
3.00 - 3.24 =
3.25 - 3.49 =
3.50 - 3.74 =
≥3.75 =
1
2
3
4
5
4
Leads Only
Completion of the Draft
Audit Report and
Forwarding it to the
Director by the Target
Date Specified on the
Audit Checklist & Tracking
Form
Upon completion of the audit planning phase, target dates are developed for
various project milestones by using the Audit Checklist & Tracking Form.
Completion of the draft report and forwarding it to Gail by the corresponding
target date will be used as a tool to measure overall project management.
Appropriate adjustments will need to be made for unplanned time away from
the project that impact the draft report delivery date (e.g. being pulled from a
project to work on an investigation). The number of working days less than
or greater than the target will be determined and ranked (1-5) per project.
The cumulative project rankings will be averaged over the annual
performance period.
Note: Leads should document uplanned time away in comment section
of tracking form. Rule-of-thumb average to use when projecting
target dates is 75% or 30 hours time allocable to the project per week.
≥ 16
15 to 11
10 to 6
5 to -5
< -5
=
=
=
=
=
1
2
3
4
5
5
Leads Only
Completion of the Audit
Project Within the Post
Audit Planning Time
Budget
Using the total actual hours charged to each audit project that had a budget
during the year as the numerator, and the final time budget established for
those projects upon completion of the audit planning as the denominator,
calculate the percentage. This will measure overall project management by
the leads. Post audit planning budget adjustments will need to be factored
into the final budget number, but only those documented and approved by
the Director via the Budget Adjustment Contract form. Time spent on
investigations and follow-up activities is not included unless the project had a
specified budget.
Note: Module budgets should be updated on single budget form and in
TimeSlips for all approved post audit planning budget adjustments.
>120%
120%-111%
110%-101%
100%-90%
<90%
=
=
=
=
=
1
2
3
4
5
Succession Planning
• Why they have worked well
– Given each staff member a road map for their
continued professional advancement
– Provided a template to identify training/
development needs
– Prompts us to look for experiential learning
opportunities
– Been able to consistently promote from within
– Been able to move people out who don’t meet our
performance expectations
Succession Planning
• What would help more
– University training programs – current ones don’t
fit our needs well
– 360 assessment focusing on changes between
positions and what is important
Succession Planning
Challenges
• Succession planning is not part of the
University’s culture
Succession Planning
Things I’ve learned:
– Having a successor and having a back up are two
different things.
– Successors aren’t necessarily just the next people
in line.
– Long term succession planning often involves
looking down two or three layers.
– Current performance is an indicator of succession
potential but not a determinant.