PennDOT – District 10-0



PENNDOT – Engineering District 10-0ISO 9001 Internal Audit Report(02/06)Audit ProcessDepartmentDate & Time of AuditProcedure #C2Construction3-16-2011 / 10:00amAudit Objectives:Auditor(s)To review the Employee review Process and it’s effectiveness of Procedure C2Jeff JordanJoe PainterADE Construction SecretarySharon WoodsItem(s) or areas auditedName of Auditee(s)Auditee(s) job FunctionProcedure #C2 (Employee Performance Review Processing)Auditee Comments:Plan approved by: (Management Representative)Tab BoyerPENNDOT – Engineering District 10-0ISO 9001 Internal Audit ReportAudit CriteriaExternal requirements (questions)Has it ever been tracked as to how much time it takes to complete the entire process?In the past there has been talk of an electronic EPR. What is the status of this?How long are the EPR files kept?Internal requirements (questions)Do you see a pattern from the completed EPR’s? Are most reviews just giving an average answer for everything just to get the paperwork completed?With TCI’s working for different Supervisors frokm season to season, do you see people completing the evaluations other than the actual supervisor for that time period?Is there a resolution process to handle disputes between union employees and management regarding differences of opinion of a completed EPR?How are changes to employee position known and implemented into the EPR?How are the goals for the employee to achieve/implement through the EPR process conveyed? External requirements (answers)Sharon keeps tracking sheet on when EPR is submitted to ACE/ACM and when it is given back to her, also keeps a spread sheet on quarterly EPR tracking.The position description is the only one in electronic form at this time.3 Years, then purged/shredded.Internal requirements (questions)Internal requirements (answers)Yes, Appears that the raters comments are repeated from previous years EPR’s.Yes, EPR’s are supposed to go to the most qualified manager/supv. For the allotted time period of the EPR evaluation, however this does not seem to happen consistently, winter maintenance assignments are an example, the quarterly EPR’s are not getting to maintenance for proper evaluations etc…Yes, A process is in place but does not seem to change anything, if employee does not agree (does not sign) EPR still get processed noting no signature by employee.A promotion or change in duties should be relayed to Sharon by the reviewing manager/supv. Sharon will then generate new EPR and close-out the old one.Employee is to complete the Action plan for professional development form attached to the EPR.PENNDOT – Engineering District 10-0ISO 9001 Internal Audit ReportOverall Statement of Effectiveness of the Quality Management SystemAreas of strength regarding ability to meet requirements- including observed BEST PracticesAuditee has developed and maintains applicable tracking spread sheets to help monitor this process.Areas to consider for improvement:Employee needs copy of current (PAWS) to better decide his/her action plan for professional development.. Most are unclear what to input and/or what training/mentoring is available.Specific observed nonconformities (Findings): If Applicable, Follow-up Scheduled:All processes are working effectively.Observations and auditor comments:The system appears to be working effectively, auditee is very knowledgeable in the C2 process.Quarterly employee evaluations seem repetitive and do not appear to be performed as intended (comments seem to be repeated for sake of time). Quarterly Performance Evaluations could be reduced to annually or bi-annually evaluations when no changes have been made to job descriptions etc… Statement of overall effectiveness of the system:System is working effectively as implementedUnit Manager Comments Including Follow-Up Action: (if any)Distribution of Audit Report:Manager of area auditedA.D.E. ConstructionISO Management Representative ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download