Audit and Evaluation Plan 2007-08 to 2009-10

Previous page | ToC | Next page

Annex A: Risk Assessment Rating Scale

RISK CRITERIA RISK RATING SCALE
High Medium Low
Materiality
  • Financial resources
  • Program expenditures
  • The OPG ranking, defined by its respective resource allocation as a percentage of EC's total budget, falls within the upper quartile of the OPG data set.
  • The OPG ranking, defined by its respective resource allocation as a percentage of EC's total budget, falls between the median and the third quartile, inclusive, of the OPG data set.
  • The OPG ranking, defined by its respective resource allocation as a percentage of EC's total budget, is lower than the median of the OPG data set.
Profile/ Visibility/ Reputational
  • Public/media interest or expectations
  • Corporate reputation
  • Domestic, international reputation
  • Political factors
  • Outside parties (news media, citizen groups, general public) have shown a major interest in the area
  • Significant loss of client group trust
  • Public or media outcry for removal of Minister and/or departmental official
  • Criticism by agencies (e.g., OAG, CESD, TBS, etc.)
  • Outside parties (news media, citizen groups, general public) have shown moderate interest in the area
  • Some loss of client group trust
  • Some unfavourable media attention
  • Some unfavourable observation by agencies (e.g., OAG, CESD, TBS, etc.)
  • Outside parties (news media, citizen groups, general public) have shown little interest in the area
  • No apparent problems (little to no criticism by media, OAG, CESD, TBS, etc.)
Complexity
  • Complexity of internal operations (e.g., interaction with other OPGs)
  • Multiple partners involved – interaction
  • Horizontal cooperation with OGDs or Agencies
  • Horizontal cooperation with Provinces/ Territories/NGOs
  • Shared accountabilities
  • Attribution
  • Decentralization/ Centralization (e.g., possibility of regional variation)
  • Difficult and complex operations involving multiple internal and external partners, mostly external (OGDs, Agencies, NGOs, etc.)
  • Operations mostly decentralized at more than 5 locations
  • Slightly complex operations involving mostly internal (EC) partners and few external partners
  • Operations decentralized at 2 to 5 locations
  • Simple and straight forward operations involving very little partners
  • Operations housed at 1 location
Threats to delivering on results
  • Capacity to deliver OPG results (e.g., HR, Tools, Technology, Science, Systems, Processes, Information)
  • Logical linkages between strategic outcomes, intermediate  outcomes, near-term results (indicators), activities and deliverables (logic model)
  • Low capacity for delivering OPG results
  • Linkages/ alignment are unclear
  • Moderate capacity to deliver OPG results
  • Linkages/alignment are somewhat clear – room for improvement
  • Sufficient capacity to deliver OPG results
  • Linkages/alignment are clear
Impacts of not delivering results
  • Impacts on human health and safety
  • Impacts on fauna, flora and ecosystems
  • Potential significant impacts on Canadians' health and well-being (e.g., security, weather predictions, potable/drinking water, etc.)
  • Potential significant impacts on fauna, flora and/or ecosystems
  • Potential moderate impacts on Canadians' health and well-being (e.g., security, weather predictions, potable/drinking water, etc.)
  • Potential moderate impacts on fauna, flora and/or ecosystems
  • Potential little to no impacts on Canadians' health and well-being (e.g., security, weather predictions, potable/drinking water, etc.)
  • Potential little to no impacts on fauna, flora and/or ecosystems

Previous page | ToC | Next page