12 April 2004	Monday	21 Safar 1425

The performance of technical departments- specially 'utilities' have always been under the spot light- more so because of the heightened expectations of the customers of these departments and organizations have to serve.

This is all the more so when we see ramshackle public transport stalled on the roads, water supply systems unable to provide, electricity transformers burning (whatever the reason be) and the resultant disruptions, emergency equipment failing when the need is urgently there and tragically ventilators stopping dead in the best of government hospitals.

Besides these tangibles, the tragic condition of civil works like governmental buildings, roads and highways, airports, communication setups, canals and allied irrigation systems, bridges. etc, are all there for us to see. We also see huge projects going down the drain just because imperative equipment just does not come up to its own specifications.

An apt example would be the last purchase of locomotives which thereafter has proved to be a fiasco. Whatever the reason be, the fact remain that all this continues to happen when it should not. As the world harps on the need for good governance- both in the public and the private domains- and after placement of a strong emphasis on accountability etc, there indeed is a need to give the issue due importance.

Also whatever is being propagated, the fact remains that we are just paying lip service and nothing else and that the auditory spirit is missing altogether and a far cry from the actual requirements.

The reasons for this are manifold and deeply entrenched in our way of doing things. It all starts from lack of understanding of the needs of the public; bad and flawed planning and a lack-lustre implementation in the end. And in the process the end-user or the tax payer is also side-lined.

Similarly, he is also not allowed to ever question the need for a particular project or the non-availability of any imperative requirement. As there are very slim chances of a cogent public scrutiny at least in the foreseeable future, the job of scrutiny at present rests with the statutory auditory bodies in the public domain and none but through the vested interest in the private sector-where corporate good governance and the needed level of audit is at the best perfunctory and remains at the whims of the higher management, which in-turn comprises of the owners themselves.

Statutory audit has its limits and at best can come to the rescue of the people once the tragedy has already taken place and except for punitive action or crying over the loss, nothing else can then happen. Similarly, all this is also different from the Financial Reporting and Audit (PIFRA) project underway with the Auditor General (AG) of Pakistan.

Actually the AG understands that his organization would need to exert otherwise the losses would not be able to be controlled- however, the effort at his end cannot control all. On the other hand, pre-audit thought to pre-empt all wrong doings is again of no use in case of continued less usefulness of equipment and allied systems.

Similarly, organizations as the anti-corruption establishment at the provisional level, the FIA at the federal level and aberrations such as the NAB - note the sadism in the acronym and the requirement that the author of this most disgusting name should be flogged in public, are also set ups looking after the problems after the occurrences.

As civil societies demand implementation of civil procedures and none else, and that policing is not the answer, besides arranging the best of appreciation of the requirements or understanding of the needs of the public and an apt planning, the primary need is for full and complete implementation of the projects/ schemes etc. in the truest of the spirits.

How can it be ensured that full and complete implementation would take place. Whatever one may say, only one thing can ensure this. Besides project management and monitoring techniques, this would be the follow-up after implementation.

This follow-up would first of all tell us whether the project has been fully completed or not, secondly whether it fulfilled the basics laid-down for it, thirdly its operations are correct or not and lastly whether its utilization is in the right direction. And lastly this follow up (or whatever one calls this activity) would ensure full utilization.

The last of this activity is very important as most of the projects are lost in this stage. Primarily, the loss is due to lesser rate of return on the initial investment on account of stunted life of the project.

What exactly would have to be done in order to take up the needed follow-up billed technical audit by the experts. Relevant experts from within the organization running various projects/ schemes would have to be pinpointed and then trained to conduct audit of the project under scrutiny.

These persons would, however, be other than the persons running or heading the project at any given time. The technical auditors would then study the project papers like PC-I and the implementation papers, then arrive at the true performance level of the same and lastly calculate the optimum life spans of the equipments used in the project.

As besides equipment and tangible machinery, HR too remains a big block of any project, auditors here would also list the optimum level of this resource. Once all the required parameters are available at hand, the actual audit would start and so on.

It needs to be understood that all this is inherently different from the normal audit conducted by the federal and provincial auditors and thus the technical auditors would not check or scrutinize the financial doings of the project authorities.

Secondly these technical people, unlike the normal auditors, would not belong to a specific or special cadre and can be at the receiving end by other similar people in case they are running or heading a project.

Out of this activity, as such would emerge another corollary viz. that concurrently during technical audit, the auditors would also be learning and improving upon their skills- surely an added advantage.

Once the technical audit gets way, the performance of any project would be the first to be checked and as a consequence we would, at a glance, comprehend whether the same is under-utilized, fully utilized or is simply redundant- whether its performance is below-par or correct and lastly we would be able to understand the reasons for the loss.

So, in a way, the process of technical audit would be a multi-faceted activity concurrently becoming a vehicle for on-job training, for improvements in the delivery systems and for strengthening of the accountability processes.

And also an activity for which no special group or cadre would be needed. The last of the returns, besides adding on to the technical resource, would also contribute towards the thought process that individuals possessing technical expertise can take up many jobs at the same time and thus can be the planner, the processor, the implementer and the operator thereafter. The same individual can also be the auditor and a person who ensures that the things move on in the right direction.

All this may not be needed in the developed world but remains a necessity with us. On the other hand, if in the course of technical audit the auditors come up with the conclusion that the project in itself was ill-suited for the needs it was planned to serve, then a further important step would be achieved and the initial planners would come to be blamed and as a necessary and logical step also taken to task.

Dilating on the issue a little further we see that the technical audit for various departments and organizations would be different in nature for each case, but having the same basic structure and with similar goals in mind.

As such technical auditors of one organization would also be able to take up audit in other departments, that is, if some need arises. As such this novel, but inexpensive way of audit can lead to vastly improved performance of the technical departments of the country.