Has Public Administration Used All Opportunities for Efficient Management of ICT Infrastructure?
Efficient Management of ICT Infrastructure Centralised management of ICT services and infrastructure would allow the institutions to optimise in long run their resources – financial, human, material and technical. However, we observed during the audit that the move towards ICT centralisation and single data centres has ceased. The different ministries and even the institutions subordinated to the same ministry do not cooperate sufficiently with each other regarding the ICT management, maintenance, and infrastructure placement. They rather choose to maintain their own, sometimes even several, data centres.
Full description

The effectiveness of Official Development Assistance expenditure
Need of more coordination and transparency The audit of the UK's Official Development Assistance revealed among others: fragmented responsibilities and difficulties in review and reporting. These led to difficulties in assessment of effectiveness of the assistance and of progress in implementing the UK Aid Strategy.
Full description

Does the state administration effectively use the stored information?
State administration could use the accumulated information more effectively Latvian auditors found that government institutions have a good cooperation in the area of data use, but there are still several areas wherein a person still has to perform the function of a 'courier'. Many channels of data exchange and distribution used in state administration create a fragmented and complicated environment for maintenance of ICT, while responsible ministry does not become actively involved and does not coordinate cooperation of institutions.
Full description

The Shared Services Centre
The necessary environment for the efficient management of the Shared Service Center is lacking The department's administration of the Shared Services Centre (SSC) has been effective for sharing resources between the departments and delivering selected back-office services to a small client base. However, the governance arrangements established to oversight the SSC have not positioned it well for the future and the departments have not yet determined if the arrangement is efficient and resulting in savings. ANAO found instances where the advisory board of SSC was not consulted or involved in decisions relating to the strategic direction, financial arrangements and expenditure priorities. Information reported to the board did not focus on areas of strategic importance and the quality and completeness of this information could be improved. The mechanisms established for setting out responsibilities and obligations and ensuring transparency for services delivered by the SSC was weak. Service standards and levels were not fixed and can change. The delineation of responsibilities between the SSC and its clients was not clear and there was no commitment by the SSC to certify the quality of its control framework.
Full description