外文翻譯--蘇格蘭的績效管理與最優(yōu)價值審計理論與實踐研究報告

1、<p>　　2166單詞，12500英文字符，3500漢字</p><p>　　出處：? A M. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND BEST VALUE AUDIT IN SCOTLAND: A RESEARCH NOTE ON THEORY AND PRACTICE[J]. Financial Accountability & Management, 2008, 24(4

2、):439–453.</p><p><b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯 </b></p><p><b>　　原文: </b></p><p>　　Performance Management And Best Value Audit In Scotland:A Research Note On Theory And Practi

3、ce</p><p>　　Audit Scotland highlights West Lothian’s approach in its 2005 overview report as a model of good practice. It states: Priorities should flow from the overarching Community Plan, through the Corpo

4、rate Plan to individual Service Plans. This does not in fact show priorities at all it assumes these flow downwards from the plans, but produce no evidence linking priorities and budgets. What it does not do, as the Audi

5、t Commission in England observed, is identify a few clear priorities which provide wi</p><p>　　The problem for evaluation research is that the Commission simply asserts that its comprehensive planning, budge

6、ting and performance management model is best practice, it does not validate this with empirical research evidence to support this judgement. In most councils, however, there is only limited evidence of progress in integ

7、rating planning, budgeting and performance management. Only three councils were regarded as developing ‘policy-led budgeting’. The need to better link budgets with plan</p><p>　　Although the Commission infer

8、s these developments are ‘best practice’, there is little evidence of such models actually operating successfully in practice. Budgetary studies consistently show that budgetary systems are variants of incrementalism, di

9、ffering in the extent to which they review budgetary baselines, set priorities and consider options. In practice, budgetary systems in local government are incremental in the sense of focusing on marginal changes to base

10、lines, because statutory, polic</p><p>　　This lack of progress comes as little surprise, given the extensive research literature showing limited interest by politicians in linking resources to outcomes. A re

11、cent European study concluded that the increasing rhetoric of a ‘performance orientation’ in government is difficult to square with continuing problems of integrating performance data in budgets. Another review of Europe

12、an practice reported similar findings, with no clear evidence of budgeting by programmes with measurable targets. </p><p>　　This makes the concept of authorities being held to account for delivering outcomes

13、 difficult to take seriously. Comparative studies consistently show linking resources to results is problematic in practice. Indeed, Audit Scotland recognises this problem in its report on Community Planning. It observes

14、 that: it may also be difficult to attribute improvement in a desired outcome to a particular initiative or change in service delivery, and outcomes may be influenced by factors out with the Commun</p><p>　　

15、However, rather than acknowledging the implications of this weakness for the realism of its approach, Audit Scotland responds as the Accounts Commission did over the limits to PIs under VFM Audit by simply asserting inco

16、nsistently that: despite these challenges, it is important for CPPs to track changes in their priority policy areas in order to demonstrate direction of travel and build an understanding of how outcomes may be affected b

17、y partnership activity. </p><p>　　This conclusion is difficult to accept given the accumulating weight of evidence that ? however theoretically attractive linking resources with results through outcome-based

18、 budgeting is ? it remains a highly impractical model in practice, and criticising authorities for failing to organise in this way is clearly unfair. </p><p>　　Progress and performance </p><p>　

19、　The links between planning, budgeting and performance are not examined systematically in the Best Value Audits. With few locally driven targets, the Commission’s approach to auditing performance relies mainly on The Acc

20、ounts Commission Statutory Performance Indicators, inspector’s reports, and residential surveys. The use of SPIs also reflects the gap between theory and practice.The auditors state their intention is to measure local pr

21、ogress over time, but despite not using comprehensive league </p><p>　　Assessmen </p><p>　　In a recent paper, the Auditor General for Scotland concluded that the new Best Value regime is placing

22、 performance at the centre of the local government agenda, through an integrated overview of what a council is trying to achieve, how it is organised to improve, and how well it is performing. He sees the demonstration o

23、f continuous improvement as a central requirement of Best Value. </p><p>　　This review of practice, however, highlights a number of problems of methodology and measurement in the assessment of continuous imp

24、rovement in the audit process. The legislation provides authorities with a statutory duty to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in performance, and the statutory guidance sets out what ministers regard as

25、 proper arrangements, which include: ? </p><p>　　a framework for planning and budgeting that includes detailed and realistic plans linked to available resources, to achieve the authority’s goals as service d

26、elivery level; </p><p>　　effective performance management systems, which can include the use of external comparison, through performance issues which can be identified,monitored and addressed. </p>&l

27、t;p>　　The model which is assumed to give effect to these conditions is set out in Appendix B. It shows that the guidance has formalised the conventional audit theory as to how authorities should organise their plannin

28、g, budgeting and performance systems, and the model retains concepts and methods first set out under Value for Money Audit, and therefore is having little impact on practice. </p><p>　　Several authorities ar

29、e reported as having clear visions and strategic objectives for their areas, but as was demonstrated earlier, these are very broad and of questionable relevance for providing a realistic basis for setting priorities in t

30、he budget process. For the development of a strategic approach which guides resource allocation and performance management, a more focused approach with a few core corporate priorities is required. </p><p>　

31、　This was also the conclusion of a recent report by HM Treasury. It noted: -the Audit Commission found that these local service providers that have identified a small number of core goals have been most successful in ach

32、ieving large and sustained improvements in performance. </p><p>　　Authorities’ failure to meet the aspirations of the model is more a reflection of the impracticality of the model than the competence of loca

33、l authorities. Although the audits are consistently critical of ‘traditional budgeting’ i.e. incrementalism and favour ‘policy-led’ budgeting which redistributes resources between departments, no convincing critique of i

34、ncrementalism is provided, nor is policy-led budgeting defined and described. In practice, stable allocations at departmental level can con</p><p>　　Assessments of performance in service delivery were proble

35、matic in the absence of local indicators, as the current batch of SPIs are inadequate to capture real improvement in service provision, and require careful consideration of external factors in drawing comparison. If comp

36、arisons are to be used, and there is a strong case in principle for this, it would be better within tightly drawn family groups, and also through comparative costs as performance cannot be assessed sensibly without a res

37、ou</p><p>　　The Commission’s Audit Guide to authorities states that ‘performance information should be credible and balanced, reflecting the realities of finite resources and competing priorities’ and focuse

38、d on core services, not simply improvements. There is an inherent contradiction between the Commission’s wish to see comprehensive service plans with objectives and targets for all activities, and the necessity to priori

39、tise budget allocations. This requires an incremental approach which shows what outpu</p><p>　　The lack of progress in developing arrangements for Best Value is consistent with past experience of VFM audit.

40、Linking financial and performance information is easier to advocate than achieve. One recent review of practice concluded that attempts to link budgetary allocations to outcomes is fraught with problems, and it is common

41、 to find separate financial and performance systems. </p><p>　　A major gap between theory and evidence is the assumption that the sound governance model is a prerequisite to continuous improvement. Authoriti

42、es which are reported as ‘lacking sound management structures’ or ‘effective corporate leadership’ are also reported as performing well on service delivery. </p><p>　　Planning, budgeting and performance mana

43、gement systems are regarded as the ‘building blocks’ for delivering continuous improvement, but development is limited. The result is that, with an inadequate framework for auditing improvement, the assessment of Best Va

44、lue is left to ‘the fallible judgements of inspectors and assessors’, resulting in the contradictory position that councils deemed by auditors to have ‘a(chǎn)rrangements to deliver Best Value’ may well not deliver continuous

45、improvement and vice</p><p>　　Conclusions </p><p>　　The practice of Best Value Audit exhibits important gaps between the theory and practice of sound governance and its impact on performance. Un

46、der Best Value, the audit function spends a significant proportion of its time monitoring process rather than performance. There is considerable scope to rationalise the demands of the audit process and reduce the bureau

47、cratic overload in Best Value. </p><p>　　Firstly, authorities’ approaches to planning and management should revert to being matters for authorities, not auditors. Authorities need to be free to organize thei

48、r affairs in a way which is compatible with their political and organizational needs, not audit theory. </p><p>　　Secondly, the audit process should be focused on performance rather than governance. That req

49、uires baseline information for activities on current costs and outputs, not micromanagement with objectives and targets which is the current focus of Guidance, so that improvement can be monitored and measured, and key p

50、erformance indicators for a few clear strategic priorities for assessing overall impact. </p><p>　　Thirdly, the audit process needs to recognise that prioritisation means that not all services will be improv

51、ed, and indeed some must be reduced as a manifestation of political choice. </p><p>　　The Auditor General recently argued that Best Value requires a performance management framework that establishes clear st

52、andards and targets for all activities. This will simply add to bureaucratic overload. Performance reporting would be better focused on the delivery of the outputs arising from budgetary changes. If the current emphasis

53、in Best Value on continuous improvement on all activities continues, then the need for effective prioritisation in a period of budgetary restraint will not be </p><p>　　If the current model is retained, it i

54、s not difficult to envisage councils increasingly challenging audit findings, as the lack of rigour in their evidence base is recognised and members become aware of the limited impact the process has on performance relat

55、ive to the intensity of the resource commitment required of their staff in the process. </p><p>　　In practice, there is little evidence of such control, as authorities have not implemented ‘the proper arrang

56、ements for Best Value’ ? yet are consistently reported as performing well in delivering services to the satisfaction of their communities. Best Value needs to move from a theoretical model to an evidence-based model of g

57、ood practice if real progress is to be made. </p><p>　　資料來源: 亞瑟隆冬. 蘇格蘭的績效管理與最優(yōu)價值審計: 理論與實踐研究報告[J]. 財務(wù)責(zé)任與管理，2008，24(4): 439-453.</p><p><b>　　譯文: </b></p><p>　　蘇格

58、蘭的績效管理與最優(yōu)價值審計:理論與實踐研究報告 </p><p>　　2005年蘇格蘭審計署提交了一份以優(yōu)先事項實踐模式為亮點的概述報告給西洛錫安。報告指出:優(yōu)先事項應(yīng)來自于總體的社區(qū)發(fā)展規(guī)劃,并通過企業(yè)個別服務(wù)計劃付諸實施。英國審計委員會指出,這份報告并沒有實際意義,只是確定一些重要的部門所提供的更廣泛的開支建議和明確的可評估優(yōu)先事項。相比之下,英國審計委員會收到的一份最佳價值審計報告,是到目前為止,其收到過的

59、最有建設(shè)性的報告,最佳審計報告的核心觀點是績效審計,它突出指出了績效審計的優(yōu)勢以及傳統(tǒng)審計的不足之處。 </p><p>　　英國審計委員會認(rèn)為實行績效審計是全面規(guī)劃預(yù)算和績效管理模式最好的做法,并且用實證研究的數(shù)據(jù)來驗證此結(jié)論。然而在英國,大多數(shù)議會只有少量的決策是關(guān)于整合規(guī)劃預(yù)算和績效管理,用于績效審計的資金嚴(yán)重不足,而且從計劃預(yù)算到做出決策需要需要一個漫長的過程。議會將配置資源,選擇優(yōu)先事項,再進(jìn)行重新分配

60、資金這三個視為最佳實踐過程,而不是遵循歷史趨勢。大多數(shù)當(dāng)局者傾向于用傳統(tǒng)的審計方法來反映上一年的財政情況并計算預(yù)算,很少對薄弱環(huán)節(jié)的服務(wù)計劃重新分配資源,并且對做出財務(wù)規(guī)劃的具體情況沒有形成相應(yīng)的的報告。英國審計委員會主張的以政策為主導(dǎo)方向的預(yù)算規(guī)劃,沒有具體應(yīng)用于實踐中。在這份最佳價值審計報告中提到,把以政策中的預(yù)算規(guī)劃項目優(yōu)先提供資金,以確保其資金的使用效益,使撥款與政策計劃相一致。 </p><p>　　英

61、國審計委員會認(rèn)為對政府資金的使用情況進(jìn)行績效審計是最佳審計模式,績效審計模式在實踐中也獲得了成功。預(yù)算研究一致表明,預(yù)算制度的制定是一種漸進(jìn)的過程,先審查預(yù)算的基準(zhǔn),再設(shè)定不同的優(yōu)先事項和可供考慮的選擇。實際上,當(dāng)?shù)卣A(yù)算制度的制定是由邊際變化與基準(zhǔn)增量為重點進(jìn)行的。預(yù)算基本上是政治決定,因為沒有比較不同方案的選擇和確定目標(biāo)的方法。政府采取的戰(zhàn)略方針?biāo)贫ǖ恼呖梢宰鳛楦鼜V泛的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來評估各建議之間的利弊,例如,如何在廣泛的政策建議中制

62、定目標(biāo)與戰(zhàn)略方針。從最佳價值審計報告中,英國審計署認(rèn)為,蘇格蘭的優(yōu)先事項應(yīng)來自社區(qū)的總體規(guī)劃,通過企業(yè)服務(wù)計劃與員工個人發(fā)展計劃做出一個層次清晰的規(guī)劃。然而,他們的結(jié)論是要在確定編制預(yù)算的基礎(chǔ)上優(yōu)先使用他們的企業(yè)計劃。 </p><p>　　這種缺乏進(jìn)展的出現(xiàn)并不令人意外,因為大量研究文獻(xiàn)顯示,理論與實踐存在著差距。最近的一項研究結(jié)論認(rèn)為,英國政府增加財政支出的數(shù)據(jù)與預(yù)算執(zhí)行的數(shù)據(jù)一直不能平衡。英國審計委員會的另

63、一份檢討報告也反映了此類情況,對預(yù)算編制方案的制定沒有明確的目標(biāo)與可衡量的依據(jù)。最后,“結(jié)果”的測量甚至還沒有開始,就要回到克服“歸屬”的問題上,即結(jié)果已經(jīng)被通過該程序有關(guān)的外部因素扭曲。</p><p>　　這使得政府因沒有認(rèn)真對待難以交付成果而被追究責(zé)任,比較研究結(jié)論一致顯示資源與成果掛鉤的做法是存在問題的。事實上,蘇格蘭審計署已經(jīng)認(rèn)識到這一點在其社區(qū)規(guī)劃報告中存在問題,它指出:很難期望結(jié)果會因為一個特定的改

64、變或服務(wù)提供而有所變化,結(jié)果可能會因社區(qū)規(guī)劃控制因素受到影響。</p><p>　　然而,蘇格蘭審計署并不承認(rèn)這種做法對現(xiàn)實的影響,由于賬目委員會根據(jù)衡量審計的效益,主張通過績效審計的方式進(jìn)行評價。績效審計的應(yīng)用是著眼于跟蹤優(yōu)先事項的變化以確認(rèn)審計的方向,并建立有效地評價體系,以保障資金使用的經(jīng)濟(jì)性、效率性與效益性。 </p><p>　　這個結(jié)論沒有用大量的證據(jù)來驗證其正確性,只是理論上

65、有吸引力,其沒有形成以實踐為基礎(chǔ)的預(yù)算編制成果,所以仍然是一個高度不切實際的實踐模式,用此結(jié)論來評判政府的經(jīng)濟(jì)決策顯然是不公平。 </p><p><b>　　進(jìn)度和表現(xiàn) </b></p><p>　　規(guī)劃,預(yù)算和績效這三者之間的聯(lián)系沒有被應(yīng)用于系統(tǒng)中的最佳價值審計中。除了少數(shù)地方已制定的目標(biāo),英國審計委員會的表現(xiàn)方式主要是依靠審計賬目委員會的績效指標(biāo),檢查員的調(diào)查及

66、報告。對審計結(jié)果的使用也體現(xiàn)了理論與實踐之間的差距。審計人員指出他們的目的是衡量一段時間的局部進(jìn)展,只用于評估比較績效審計與傳統(tǒng)財務(wù)收支審計的區(qū)別。 </p><p><b>　　評價 </b></p><p>　　在最近的一篇文章中對蘇格蘭審計署實行最佳審計報告的觀點是,新的制度是把最佳價值放在當(dāng)?shù)卣淖h事日程中心,這將會通過一個什么樣的形式來實現(xiàn),它是如何組織改

67、進(jìn)綜合概述,如何完善執(zhí)行績效審計。文章認(rèn)為,持續(xù)改進(jìn)是作為最佳價值審計的核心要求。 </p><p>　　這種做法的審查突出了審計方法,要在審計過程中不斷完善評估數(shù)。根據(jù)法定責(zé)任作出安排,確保其在性能不斷提高的前提下制定長遠(yuǎn)目標(biāo),其中包括以下兩方面: </p><p>　　第一:要依據(jù)現(xiàn)有的資源詳細(xì)規(guī)劃和編制預(yù)算制定具體的的計劃,構(gòu)建和服務(wù)水平相一致的目標(biāo)框架; </p>&

68、lt;p>　　第二:構(gòu)建有效的績效管理系統(tǒng),系統(tǒng)包括使用外部比較,通過性能測試,實現(xiàn)識別、監(jiān)測和處理與一體的目的。 </p><p>　　上述假設(shè)在落實最佳價值審計模型時,政府已經(jīng)落實好了規(guī)劃、預(yù)算和績效審計制度的理論和方法將其應(yīng)用于最佳價值審計。 </p><p>　　幾個權(quán)威機(jī)構(gòu)的報告明確表明過其有明確的意愿并在戰(zhàn)略領(lǐng)域有相同的目標(biāo),這些問題的相關(guān)性和廣泛性是在預(yù)算過程中評斷優(yōu)先

69、事項的基礎(chǔ)。對于一個戰(zhàn)略方針是資源的再分配和績效管理的企業(yè),其重點應(yīng)集中于可持續(xù)發(fā)展。 </p><p>　　蘇格蘭財政部最近發(fā)布的一份報告顯示:審計署發(fā)現(xiàn)有些地方的服務(wù)是以供應(yīng)商為目標(biāo),確定了服務(wù)的核心目標(biāo)才能實現(xiàn)高質(zhì)量的服務(wù)與實現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展。 </p><p>　　蘇格蘭政府不滿足于該模型的意愿反映了地方當(dāng)局對其勝任力的不了解,傳統(tǒng)審計是由一貫的預(yù)算編制和政策制定為主導(dǎo),部門之間資源的

70、重新分配是預(yù)算編制的關(guān)鍵。在實際中,各部門間的資源分配是促進(jìn)企業(yè)發(fā)展的優(yōu)先事項。這不是再分配事項的程度與層次,而是在利潤優(yōu)先的選擇上更具針對性。 </p><p>　　評估服務(wù)業(yè)績的指標(biāo)存在問題,目前在提供服務(wù)業(yè)績評估方面并無實質(zhì)性的改善,因此在制定指標(biāo)時要慎重考慮外部因素。如果要用于特殊的案件,將要求制定更加嚴(yán)格的指標(biāo),并通過更好的性能比較成本評估資源的利用率。 </p><p>　　英

71、國審計委員會在審核指南中指出,資料應(yīng)當(dāng)是可信和真實的,其反映的有限資源和競爭優(yōu)先的項目應(yīng)專注于核心服務(wù),而不是簡單地改善。委員會之間的所有活動目標(biāo)和指標(biāo)的綜合服務(wù)計劃與優(yōu)先預(yù)算撥款存在矛盾。 </p><p>　　最佳價值審計在開發(fā)過程中缺乏統(tǒng)一的進(jìn)度安排的缺陷,其主張讓財務(wù)和績效掛鉤容易讓人接納。最近的一項實踐審查結(jié)論顯示,對預(yù)算撥款進(jìn)行績效審計,會發(fā)現(xiàn)其使用的效率與效果不高,這就是財務(wù)收支審計和績效審計的不同

72、。 </p><p>　　理論與實際之間的主要差距先假設(shè)不存在或很小,這有利于進(jìn)一步進(jìn)行研究,良好的治理模式是不斷改進(jìn)與完善的先決條件。這是為缺乏健全的管理機(jī)構(gòu)和有效的企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)所提供的最佳服務(wù)方針。 </p><p>　　規(guī)劃,預(yù)算和績效管理制度被認(rèn)為是管理制度層次的不斷提高,最佳價值評估是對審計人員做出的審計結(jié)論的驗證。在不同的立場做出的審計結(jié)論,所提供的最佳價值審計結(jié)論很可能不同。在獲

73、得充分合理的審計證據(jù),并獨(dú)立性不受干擾的情況下做出的審計結(jié)論是可信的。但也有發(fā)生過由于高級審計官員受到職位的威脅,從而形成錯誤的審計報告的事例,這是不允許的。 </p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　最佳價值審計的實踐結(jié)果與理論存在著差距。 在審計最佳值時要對審計過程進(jìn)行實時監(jiān)控，這花費(fèi)了大量的人力物力資源，但得出的結(jié)論卻利用率不高。

74、根據(jù)審計過程合理化的要求，在最佳值應(yīng)減少審計工作人員的配備。 </p><p>　　首先，政府所做出的規(guī)劃和管理辦法，應(yīng)由政府人員來承擔(dān)，這并不是被審計人員應(yīng)注意的事項。政府可根據(jù)自身政治和組織上的需要自由組織自己的事務(wù)，做到績效審計理論與實踐兼容。</p><p>　　其次，審計過程應(yīng)側(cè)重于績效，而不是治理。這就要求不是將現(xiàn)行成本和產(chǎn)出作為指導(dǎo)的重點，而是微觀管理的目標(biāo)和指標(biāo)是審計的重點

75、。</p><p>　　最后，在審計過程中必須認(rèn)識到不是全部的優(yōu)先事項都要進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步審計程序，只是有些特殊事項要重點進(jìn)行審計。 </p><p>　　英國審計署最近指出，實行最佳價值審計需要建立績效管理框架，對所有活動和目標(biāo)建立明確的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)?？冃徲嫷膶徲嫿Y(jié)論會因為預(yù)算的變化而發(fā)生變化。如果在最佳值對所有活動不改變先前的計劃繼續(xù)持續(xù)做下去， 那么對于在預(yù)算約束內(nèi)實行優(yōu)先次序的需求將無法實現(xiàn)。

76、最佳價值審計的實施大大增加了審計過程的成本，雖然還沒有在實施該進(jìn)程過程中對成本進(jìn)行可靠地評估。最佳價值審計的戰(zhàn)略重點在于預(yù)算編制，成本和產(chǎn)出的執(zhí)行情況是審計報告的重點，這將大大提高對資金使用率的要求。 </p><p>　　如果目前的最佳價值審計模式對審計結(jié)果還是有所保留的，那不難設(shè)想在今后越來越具有挑戰(zhàn)性的審計結(jié)果，將會使審計證據(jù)的要求越來越高。政府也越來越意識到審計人員的素質(zhì)對審計結(jié)果有很大的聯(lián)系，應(yīng)進(jìn)一步加