The award-winning evaluation report of the city of Äänekoski is clear and focuses on the essentials
"With a successful evaluation report, we are able to produce added value for both the council and the municipal residents"
- The victory in the category of less than 20 inhabitants is a significant achievement for the joint work of the entire inspection board. Our team is a competent and functional entity, and as chairman I am very proud of that. Good we! Chairman of the Äänekoski inspection board Leila Lindell comment.
- The year of the Audit Board has been active and full of work again. Along with the evaluation work, the board has wanted to develop the city's inspection work during this council term in the direction in which we can help the city develop its management system and reach the goals of its city strategy.
In the nationwide Evaluation Report of the Year competition organized by KPMG, the evaluation report of the city of Äänekoski for the year 2022 was awarded as the best in Finland in the category of less than 20.000 inhabitants. In the justifications, e.g. that the weighting of the report has been successful, the subjects of the evaluation are essential and they are clearly defined, and the inspection board of the city of Äänekoski carries out its basic task in a credible manner.
The level of the best evaluation reports has increased
The task of inspection boards in municipalities is to assess the realization of the goals set by the council, as well as the effectiveness and appropriateness of the municipality's operations. The results of the evaluation are reported annually in the form of an evaluation report.
The evaluation report competition was implemented in cooperation with KPMG and the University of Tampere's Faculty of Management and Economics. An evaluation team made up of Tampere University students analyzes the supervising professor Lasse Oulasvirtan and HT Pekka Kettusen led the 2022 evaluation reports and presented the results of the analysis to the competition jury. The winners were chosen by an independent jury of experts, chaired by a professor Jarmo Vakkuri from the University of Tampere.
- This year's evaluation report competition for municipalities and municipal associations coincided with the change phase of public administration, when the welfare regions started their operations. The goal of the competition is to support the development of the quality of the assessment work of inspection boards, thus ensuring the effectiveness and effectiveness of public activities. The need for such information will become even more important in the future, Jarmo Vakkuri estimates.
- This year's competition shows a significant increase in the level of the best evaluation reports over the years. At the same time, the range of reports shows that, especially in smaller municipalities and municipal associations, there is still a lot to be developed in the evaluation work. We hope that the competition will provide refreshments and also inspire audit committees operating with fewer resources to find a new perspective on evaluation, says KPMG's director of public administration auditing and assurance services Juha Huuskonen.
Win with good cooperation
- We learned in the competition that it is good to focus on the essentials in the content of the evaluation report. It is good to focus on the choices made in the city strategy as well as on other processes and systems selected as evaluation targets by the inspection board, says Leila Lindell, chairwoman of the Äänekoski inspection board.
According to Lindell, the report's structure, emphases and analytical approach to the review is an advantage, and the recommendations should form an important part of the evaluation report.
- With a successful evaluation report, we are able to produce added value for both the council and the municipal residents.
The operation of the Äänekoski inspection board is participative in accordance with the strategy. All board members have a clear role in preparing the groundwork for the evaluation report and collecting data. This way of working activates a developing attitude and focus on things.
- I also see the activities of the chairman network of Central Finland's municipalities and the welfare area's inspection boards as a very important matter, which has brought attitude and a future-oriented and developing approach to joint work. Auditor of the city of Jyväskylä Tarja Saarelainen has commendably contributed to the development of joint evaluation targets and inspection activities with its excellence, says Lindell.
Efforts have been made to make the report readable, and this time the text of the Äänekoski evaluation report was folded into a visually clear form.
- Thanks also to the city's communication planner Summer for Kallioinen help with the skill of the evaluation report. It is very important that the report is easy to read and clear in its appearance and readability. Essential things should stand out clearly. We succeeded in this this time, says Lindell.
Competition evaluation criteria
In the evaluation report competition, the evaluation report itself is evaluated, not the audit committee or its evaluation work. A good report is not only of high quality in terms of content, but the information it contains must also be as usable as possible in terms of structure and presentation. The purpose of the competition is also to highlight new ways of making evaluation reports.
The jury evaluates the stories based on seven criteria, which are divided into two categories:
Contents:
- Reasoned targeting and materiality of the assessment
- Data base (data sources and reliability)
- Basing conclusions on evidence and observations
- Usability of recommendations in decision-making
Presentation:
- Structure, clarity and readability
- Separation of recommendations from observations
- Innovativeness and ingenuity
JUSTIFICATIONS FOR CHOICE OF VOTE
- The weighting of the evaluation report has been successful.
- The objects of the evaluation are essential and they are clearly defined.
- The Audit Board carries out its basic task in a credible manner.
- The review of the evaluation report is relatively analytical, and the recommendations stand out clearly from the findings.
- The story of the evaluation report is interestingly structured around the questions posed by the board.
- The report highlights positive, developable and risky recommendations, which directs the reader's attention.
- A special positive consideration is the joint evaluation target of the regional municipalities and the welfare area and its reporting. This emphasizes the audit board's way of directing the assessment to entities relevant for the future.
For more information:
Chair of the Äänekoski inspection board Leila Lindell, 040 356 5899, leila.lindell@aanekoski.fi
News published, modified 23.7.2024 at 09:55
