外文翻譯--蘇格蘭的績(jī)效管理與最優(yōu)價(jià)值審計(jì)理論與實(shí)踐研究報(bào)告

1、<p>　　2166單詞，12500英文字符，3500漢字</p><p>　　出處：? A M. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND BEST VALUE AUDIT IN SCOTLAND: A RESEARCH NOTE ON THEORY AND PRACTICE[J]. Financial Accountability & Management, 2008, 24(4

2、):439–453.</p><p><b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯 </b></p><p><b>　　原文: </b></p><p>　　Performance Management And Best Value Audit In Scotland:A Research Note On Theory And Practi

3、ce</p><p>　　Audit Scotland highlights West Lothian’s approach in its 2005 overview report as a model of good practice. It states: Priorities should flow from the overarching Community Plan, through the Corpo

4、rate Plan to individual Service Plans. This does not in fact show priorities at all it assumes these flow downwards from the plans, but produce no evidence linking priorities and budgets. What it does not do, as the Audi

5、t Commission in England observed, is identify a few clear priorities which provide wi</p><p>　　The problem for evaluation research is that the Commission simply asserts that its comprehensive planning, budge

6、ting and performance management model is best practice, it does not validate this with empirical research evidence to support this judgement. In most councils, however, there is only limited evidence of progress in integ

7、rating planning, budgeting and performance management. Only three councils were regarded as developing ‘policy-led budgeting’. The need to better link budgets with plan</p><p>　　Although the Commission infer

8、s these developments are ‘best practice’, there is little evidence of such models actually operating successfully in practice. Budgetary studies consistently show that budgetary systems are variants of incrementalism, di

9、ffering in the extent to which they review budgetary baselines, set priorities and consider options. In practice, budgetary systems in local government are incremental in the sense of focusing on marginal changes to base

10、lines, because statutory, polic</p><p>　　This lack of progress comes as little surprise, given the extensive research literature showing limited interest by politicians in linking resources to outcomes. A re

11、cent European study concluded that the increasing rhetoric of a ‘performance orientation’ in government is difficult to square with continuing problems of integrating performance data in budgets. Another review of Europe

12、an practice reported similar findings, with no clear evidence of budgeting by programmes with measurable targets. </p><p>　　This makes the concept of authorities being held to account for delivering outcomes

13、 difficult to take seriously. Comparative studies consistently show linking resources to results is problematic in practice. Indeed, Audit Scotland recognises this problem in its report on Community Planning. It observes

14、 that: it may also be difficult to attribute improvement in a desired outcome to a particular initiative or change in service delivery, and outcomes may be influenced by factors out with the Commun</p><p>　　

15、However, rather than acknowledging the implications of this weakness for the realism of its approach, Audit Scotland responds as the Accounts Commission did over the limits to PIs under VFM Audit by simply asserting inco

16、nsistently that: despite these challenges, it is important for CPPs to track changes in their priority policy areas in order to demonstrate direction of travel and build an understanding of how outcomes may be affected b

17、y partnership activity. </p><p>　　This conclusion is difficult to accept given the accumulating weight of evidence that ? however theoretically attractive linking resources with results through outcome-based

18、 budgeting is ? it remains a highly impractical model in practice, and criticising authorities for failing to organise in this way is clearly unfair. </p><p>　　Progress and performance </p><p>　

19、　The links between planning, budgeting and performance are not examined systematically in the Best Value Audits. With few locally driven targets, the Commission’s approach to auditing performance relies mainly on The Acc

20、ounts Commission Statutory Performance Indicators, inspector’s reports, and residential surveys. The use of SPIs also reflects the gap between theory and practice.The auditors state their intention is to measure local pr

21、ogress over time, but despite not using comprehensive league </p><p>　　Assessmen </p><p>　　In a recent paper, the Auditor General for Scotland concluded that the new Best Value regime is placing

22、 performance at the centre of the local government agenda, through an integrated overview of what a council is trying to achieve, how it is organised to improve, and how well it is performing. He sees the demonstration o

23、f continuous improvement as a central requirement of Best Value. </p><p>　　This review of practice, however, highlights a number of problems of methodology and measurement in the assessment of continuous imp

24、rovement in the audit process. The legislation provides authorities with a statutory duty to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in performance, and the statutory guidance sets out what ministers regard as

25、 proper arrangements, which include: ? </p><p>　　a framework for planning and budgeting that includes detailed and realistic plans linked to available resources, to achieve the authority’s goals as service d

26、elivery level; </p><p>　　effective performance management systems, which can include the use of external comparison, through performance issues which can be identified,monitored and addressed. </p>&l

27、t;p>　　The model which is assumed to give effect to these conditions is set out in Appendix B. It shows that the guidance has formalised the conventional audit theory as to how authorities should organise their plannin

28、g, budgeting and performance systems, and the model retains concepts and methods first set out under Value for Money Audit, and therefore is having little impact on practice. </p><p>　　Several authorities ar

29、e reported as having clear visions and strategic objectives for their areas, but as was demonstrated earlier, these are very broad and of questionable relevance for providing a realistic basis for setting priorities in t

30、he budget process. For the development of a strategic approach which guides resource allocation and performance management, a more focused approach with a few core corporate priorities is required. </p><p>　

31、　This was also the conclusion of a recent report by HM Treasury. It noted: -the Audit Commission found that these local service providers that have identified a small number of core goals have been most successful in ach

32、ieving large and sustained improvements in performance. </p><p>　　Authorities’ failure to meet the aspirations of the model is more a reflection of the impracticality of the model than the competence of loca

33、l authorities. Although the audits are consistently critical of ‘traditional budgeting’ i.e. incrementalism and favour ‘policy-led’ budgeting which redistributes resources between departments, no convincing critique of i

34、ncrementalism is provided, nor is policy-led budgeting defined and described. In practice, stable allocations at departmental level can con</p><p>　　Assessments of performance in service delivery were proble

35、matic in the absence of local indicators, as the current batch of SPIs are inadequate to capture real improvement in service provision, and require careful consideration of external factors in drawing comparison. If comp

36、arisons are to be used, and there is a strong case in principle for this, it would be better within tightly drawn family groups, and also through comparative costs as performance cannot be assessed sensibly without a res

37、ou</p><p>　　The Commission’s Audit Guide to authorities states that ‘performance information should be credible and balanced, reflecting the realities of finite resources and competing priorities’ and focuse

38、d on core services, not simply improvements. There is an inherent contradiction between the Commission’s wish to see comprehensive service plans with objectives and targets for all activities, and the necessity to priori

39、tise budget allocations. This requires an incremental approach which shows what outpu</p><p>　　The lack of progress in developing arrangements for Best Value is consistent with past experience of VFM audit.

40、Linking financial and performance information is easier to advocate than achieve. One recent review of practice concluded that attempts to link budgetary allocations to outcomes is fraught with problems, and it is common

41、 to find separate financial and performance systems. </p><p>　　A major gap between theory and evidence is the assumption that the sound governance model is a prerequisite to continuous improvement. Authoriti

42、es which are reported as ‘lacking sound management structures’ or ‘effective corporate leadership’ are also reported as performing well on service delivery. </p><p>　　Planning, budgeting and performance mana

43、gement systems are regarded as the ‘building blocks’ for delivering continuous improvement, but development is limited. The result is that, with an inadequate framework for auditing improvement, the assessment of Best Va

44、lue is left to ‘the fallible judgements of inspectors and assessors’, resulting in the contradictory position that councils deemed by auditors to have ‘a(chǎn)rrangements to deliver Best Value’ may well not deliver continuous

45、improvement and vice</p><p>　　Conclusions </p><p>　　The practice of Best Value Audit exhibits important gaps between the theory and practice of sound governance and its impact on performance. Un

46、der Best Value, the audit function spends a significant proportion of its time monitoring process rather than performance. There is considerable scope to rationalise the demands of the audit process and reduce the bureau

47、cratic overload in Best Value. </p><p>　　Firstly, authorities’ approaches to planning and management should revert to being matters for authorities, not auditors. Authorities need to be free to organize thei

48、r affairs in a way which is compatible with their political and organizational needs, not audit theory. </p><p>　　Secondly, the audit process should be focused on performance rather than governance. That req

49、uires baseline information for activities on current costs and outputs, not micromanagement with objectives and targets which is the current focus of Guidance, so that improvement can be monitored and measured, and key p

50、erformance indicators for a few clear strategic priorities for assessing overall impact. </p><p>　　Thirdly, the audit process needs to recognise that prioritisation means that not all services will be improv

51、ed, and indeed some must be reduced as a manifestation of political choice. </p><p>　　The Auditor General recently argued that Best Value requires a performance management framework that establishes clear st

52、andards and targets for all activities. This will simply add to bureaucratic overload. Performance reporting would be better focused on the delivery of the outputs arising from budgetary changes. If the current emphasis

53、in Best Value on continuous improvement on all activities continues, then the need for effective prioritisation in a period of budgetary restraint will not be </p><p>　　If the current model is retained, it i

54、s not difficult to envisage councils increasingly challenging audit findings, as the lack of rigour in their evidence base is recognised and members become aware of the limited impact the process has on performance relat

55、ive to the intensity of the resource commitment required of their staff in the process. </p><p>　　In practice, there is little evidence of such control, as authorities have not implemented ‘the proper arrang

56、ements for Best Value’ ? yet are consistently reported as performing well in delivering services to the satisfaction of their communities. Best Value needs to move from a theoretical model to an evidence-based model of g

57、ood practice if real progress is to be made. </p><p>　　資料來(lái)源: 亞瑟隆冬. 蘇格蘭的績(jī)效管理與最優(yōu)價(jià)值審計(jì): 理論與實(shí)踐研究報(bào)告[J]. 財(cái)務(wù)責(zé)任與管理，2008，24(4): 439-453.</p><p><b>　　譯文: </b></p><p>　　蘇格

58、蘭的績(jī)效管理與最優(yōu)價(jià)值審計(jì):理論與實(shí)踐研究報(bào)告 </p><p>　　2005年蘇格蘭審計(jì)署提交了一份以優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)實(shí)踐模式為亮點(diǎn)的概述報(bào)告給西洛錫安。報(bào)告指出:優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)應(yīng)來(lái)自于總體的社區(qū)發(fā)展規(guī)劃,并通過企業(yè)個(gè)別服務(wù)計(jì)劃付諸實(shí)施。英國(guó)審計(jì)委員會(huì)指出,這份報(bào)告并沒有實(shí)際意義,只是確定一些重要的部門所提供的更廣泛的開支建議和明確的可評(píng)估優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)。相比之下,英國(guó)審計(jì)委員會(huì)收到的一份最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)報(bào)告,是到目前為止,其收到過的

59、最有建設(shè)性的報(bào)告,最佳審計(jì)報(bào)告的核心觀點(diǎn)是績(jī)效審計(jì),它突出指出了績(jī)效審計(jì)的優(yōu)勢(shì)以及傳統(tǒng)審計(jì)的不足之處。 </p><p>　　英國(guó)審計(jì)委員會(huì)認(rèn)為實(shí)行績(jī)效審計(jì)是全面規(guī)劃預(yù)算和績(jī)效管理模式最好的做法,并且用實(shí)證研究的數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)驗(yàn)證此結(jié)論。然而在英國(guó),大多數(shù)議會(huì)只有少量的決策是關(guān)于整合規(guī)劃預(yù)算和績(jī)效管理,用于績(jī)效審計(jì)的資金嚴(yán)重不足,而且從計(jì)劃預(yù)算到做出決策需要需要一個(gè)漫長(zhǎng)的過程。議會(huì)將配置資源,選擇優(yōu)先事項(xiàng),再進(jìn)行重新分配

60、資金這三個(gè)視為最佳實(shí)踐過程,而不是遵循歷史趨勢(shì)。大多數(shù)當(dāng)局者傾向于用傳統(tǒng)的審計(jì)方法來(lái)反映上一年的財(cái)政情況并計(jì)算預(yù)算,很少對(duì)薄弱環(huán)節(jié)的服務(wù)計(jì)劃重新分配資源,并且對(duì)做出財(cái)務(wù)規(guī)劃的具體情況沒有形成相應(yīng)的的報(bào)告。英國(guó)審計(jì)委員會(huì)主張的以政策為主導(dǎo)方向的預(yù)算規(guī)劃,沒有具體應(yīng)用于實(shí)踐中。在這份最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)報(bào)告中提到,把以政策中的預(yù)算規(guī)劃項(xiàng)目?jī)?yōu)先提供資金,以確保其資金的使用效益,使撥款與政策計(jì)劃相一致。 </p><p>　　英

61、國(guó)審計(jì)委員會(huì)認(rèn)為對(duì)政府資金的使用情況進(jìn)行績(jī)效審計(jì)是最佳審計(jì)模式,績(jī)效審計(jì)模式在實(shí)踐中也獲得了成功。預(yù)算研究一致表明,預(yù)算制度的制定是一種漸進(jìn)的過程,先審查預(yù)算的基準(zhǔn),再設(shè)定不同的優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)和可供考慮的選擇。實(shí)際上,當(dāng)?shù)卣A(yù)算制度的制定是由邊際變化與基準(zhǔn)增量為重點(diǎn)進(jìn)行的。預(yù)算基本上是政治決定,因?yàn)闆]有比較不同方案的選擇和確定目標(biāo)的方法。政府采取的戰(zhàn)略方針?biāo)贫ǖ恼呖梢宰鳛楦鼜V泛的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)評(píng)估各建議之間的利弊,例如,如何在廣泛的政策建議中制

62、定目標(biāo)與戰(zhàn)略方針。從最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)報(bào)告中,英國(guó)審計(jì)署認(rèn)為,蘇格蘭的優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)應(yīng)來(lái)自社區(qū)的總體規(guī)劃,通過企業(yè)服務(wù)計(jì)劃與員工個(gè)人發(fā)展計(jì)劃做出一個(gè)層次清晰的規(guī)劃。然而,他們的結(jié)論是要在確定編制預(yù)算的基礎(chǔ)上優(yōu)先使用他們的企業(yè)計(jì)劃。 </p><p>　　這種缺乏進(jìn)展的出現(xiàn)并不令人意外,因?yàn)榇罅垦芯课墨I(xiàn)顯示,理論與實(shí)踐存在著差距。最近的一項(xiàng)研究結(jié)論認(rèn)為,英國(guó)政府增加財(cái)政支出的數(shù)據(jù)與預(yù)算執(zhí)行的數(shù)據(jù)一直不能平衡。英國(guó)審計(jì)委員會(huì)的另

63、一份檢討報(bào)告也反映了此類情況,對(duì)預(yù)算編制方案的制定沒有明確的目標(biāo)與可衡量的依據(jù)。最后,“結(jié)果”的測(cè)量甚至還沒有開始,就要回到克服“歸屬”的問題上,即結(jié)果已經(jīng)被通過該程序有關(guān)的外部因素扭曲。</p><p>　　這使得政府因沒有認(rèn)真對(duì)待難以交付成果而被追究責(zé)任,比較研究結(jié)論一致顯示資源與成果掛鉤的做法是存在問題的。事實(shí)上,蘇格蘭審計(jì)署已經(jīng)認(rèn)識(shí)到這一點(diǎn)在其社區(qū)規(guī)劃報(bào)告中存在問題,它指出:很難期望結(jié)果會(huì)因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)特定的改

64、變或服務(wù)提供而有所變化,結(jié)果可能會(huì)因社區(qū)規(guī)劃控制因素受到影響。</p><p>　　然而,蘇格蘭審計(jì)署并不承認(rèn)這種做法對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的影響,由于賬目委員會(huì)根據(jù)衡量審計(jì)的效益,主張通過績(jī)效審計(jì)的方式進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià)?？?jī)效審計(jì)的應(yīng)用是著眼于跟蹤優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)的變化以確認(rèn)審計(jì)的方向,并建立有效地評(píng)價(jià)體系,以保障資金使用的經(jīng)濟(jì)性、效率性與效益性。 </p><p>　　這個(gè)結(jié)論沒有用大量的證據(jù)來(lái)驗(yàn)證其正確性,只是理論上

65、有吸引力,其沒有形成以實(shí)踐為基礎(chǔ)的預(yù)算編制成果,所以仍然是一個(gè)高度不切實(shí)際的實(shí)踐模式,用此結(jié)論來(lái)評(píng)判政府的經(jīng)濟(jì)決策顯然是不公平。 </p><p><b>　　進(jìn)度和表現(xiàn) </b></p><p>　　規(guī)劃,預(yù)算和績(jī)效這三者之間的聯(lián)系沒有被應(yīng)用于系統(tǒng)中的最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)中。除了少數(shù)地方已制定的目標(biāo),英國(guó)審計(jì)委員會(huì)的表現(xiàn)方式主要是依靠審計(jì)賬目委員會(huì)的績(jī)效指標(biāo),檢查員的調(diào)查及

66、報(bào)告。對(duì)審計(jì)結(jié)果的使用也體現(xiàn)了理論與實(shí)踐之間的差距。審計(jì)人員指出他們的目的是衡量一段時(shí)間的局部進(jìn)展,只用于評(píng)估比較績(jī)效審計(jì)與傳統(tǒng)財(cái)務(wù)收支審計(jì)的區(qū)別。 </p><p><b>　　評(píng)價(jià) </b></p><p>　　在最近的一篇文章中對(duì)蘇格蘭審計(jì)署實(shí)行最佳審計(jì)報(bào)告的觀點(diǎn)是,新的制度是把最佳價(jià)值放在當(dāng)?shù)卣淖h事日程中心,這將會(huì)通過一個(gè)什么樣的形式來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn),它是如何組織改

67、進(jìn)綜合概述,如何完善執(zhí)行績(jī)效審計(jì)。文章認(rèn)為,持續(xù)改進(jìn)是作為最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)的核心要求。 </p><p>　　這種做法的審查突出了審計(jì)方法,要在審計(jì)過程中不斷完善評(píng)估數(shù)。根據(jù)法定責(zé)任作出安排,確保其在性能不斷提高的前提下制定長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)目標(biāo),其中包括以下兩方面: </p><p>　　第一:要依據(jù)現(xiàn)有的資源詳細(xì)規(guī)劃和編制預(yù)算制定具體的的計(jì)劃,構(gòu)建和服務(wù)水平相一致的目標(biāo)框架; </p>&

68、lt;p>　　第二:構(gòu)建有效的績(jī)效管理系統(tǒng),系統(tǒng)包括使用外部比較,通過性能測(cè)試,實(shí)現(xiàn)識(shí)別、監(jiān)測(cè)和處理與一體的目的。 </p><p>　　上述假設(shè)在落實(shí)最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)模型時(shí),政府已經(jīng)落實(shí)好了規(guī)劃、預(yù)算和績(jī)效審計(jì)制度的理論和方法將其應(yīng)用于最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)。 </p><p>　　幾個(gè)權(quán)威機(jī)構(gòu)的報(bào)告明確表明過其有明確的意愿并在戰(zhàn)略領(lǐng)域有相同的目標(biāo),這些問題的相關(guān)性和廣泛性是在預(yù)算過程中評(píng)斷優(yōu)先

69、事項(xiàng)的基礎(chǔ)。對(duì)于一個(gè)戰(zhàn)略方針是資源的再分配和績(jī)效管理的企業(yè),其重點(diǎn)應(yīng)集中于可持續(xù)發(fā)展。 </p><p>　　蘇格蘭財(cái)政部最近發(fā)布的一份報(bào)告顯示:審計(jì)署發(fā)現(xiàn)有些地方的服務(wù)是以供應(yīng)商為目標(biāo),確定了服務(wù)的核心目標(biāo)才能實(shí)現(xiàn)高質(zhì)量的服務(wù)與實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展。 </p><p>　　蘇格蘭政府不滿足于該模型的意愿反映了地方當(dāng)局對(duì)其勝任力的不了解,傳統(tǒng)審計(jì)是由一貫的預(yù)算編制和政策制定為主導(dǎo),部門之間資源的

70、重新分配是預(yù)算編制的關(guān)鍵。在實(shí)際中,各部門間的資源分配是促進(jìn)企業(yè)發(fā)展的優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)。這不是再分配事項(xiàng)的程度與層次,而是在利潤(rùn)優(yōu)先的選擇上更具針對(duì)性。 </p><p>　　評(píng)估服務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)的指標(biāo)存在問題,目前在提供服務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)?cè)u(píng)估方面并無(wú)實(shí)質(zhì)性的改善,因此在制定指標(biāo)時(shí)要慎重考慮外部因素。如果要用于特殊的案件,將要求制定更加嚴(yán)格的指標(biāo),并通過更好的性能比較成本評(píng)估資源的利用率。 </p><p>　　英

71、國(guó)審計(jì)委員會(huì)在審核指南中指出,資料應(yīng)當(dāng)是可信和真實(shí)的,其反映的有限資源和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)先的項(xiàng)目應(yīng)專注于核心服務(wù),而不是簡(jiǎn)單地改善。委員會(huì)之間的所有活動(dòng)目標(biāo)和指標(biāo)的綜合服務(wù)計(jì)劃與優(yōu)先預(yù)算撥款存在矛盾。 </p><p>　　最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)在開發(fā)過程中缺乏統(tǒng)一的進(jìn)度安排的缺陷,其主張讓財(cái)務(wù)和績(jī)效掛鉤容易讓人接納。最近的一項(xiàng)實(shí)踐審查結(jié)論顯示,對(duì)預(yù)算撥款進(jìn)行績(jī)效審計(jì),會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)其使用的效率與效果不高,這就是財(cái)務(wù)收支審計(jì)和績(jī)效審計(jì)的不同

72、。 </p><p>　　理論與實(shí)際之間的主要差距先假設(shè)不存在或很小,這有利于進(jìn)一步進(jìn)行研究,良好的治理模式是不斷改進(jìn)與完善的先決條件。這是為缺乏健全的管理機(jī)構(gòu)和有效的企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)所提供的最佳服務(wù)方針。 </p><p>　　規(guī)劃,預(yù)算和績(jī)效管理制度被認(rèn)為是管理制度層次的不斷提高,最佳價(jià)值評(píng)估是對(duì)審計(jì)人員做出的審計(jì)結(jié)論的驗(yàn)證。在不同的立場(chǎng)做出的審計(jì)結(jié)論,所提供的最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)結(jié)論很可能不同。在獲

73、得充分合理的審計(jì)證據(jù),并獨(dú)立性不受干擾的情況下做出的審計(jì)結(jié)論是可信的。但也有發(fā)生過由于高級(jí)審計(jì)官員受到職位的威脅,從而形成錯(cuò)誤的審計(jì)報(bào)告的事例,這是不允許的。 </p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)的實(shí)踐結(jié)果與理論存在著差距。 在審計(jì)最佳值時(shí)要對(duì)審計(jì)過程進(jìn)行實(shí)時(shí)監(jiān)控，這花費(fèi)了大量的人力物力資源，但得出的結(jié)論卻利用率不高。

74、根據(jù)審計(jì)過程合理化的要求，在最佳值應(yīng)減少審計(jì)工作人員的配備。 </p><p>　　首先，政府所做出的規(guī)劃和管理辦法，應(yīng)由政府人員來(lái)承擔(dān)，這并不是被審計(jì)人員應(yīng)注意的事項(xiàng)。政府可根據(jù)自身政治和組織上的需要自由組織自己的事務(wù)，做到績(jī)效審計(jì)理論與實(shí)踐兼容。</p><p>　　其次，審計(jì)過程應(yīng)側(cè)重于績(jī)效，而不是治理。這就要求不是將現(xiàn)行成本和產(chǎn)出作為指導(dǎo)的重點(diǎn)，而是微觀管理的目標(biāo)和指標(biāo)是審計(jì)的重點(diǎn)

75、。</p><p>　　最后，在審計(jì)過程中必須認(rèn)識(shí)到不是全部的優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)都要進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步審計(jì)程序，只是有些特殊事項(xiàng)要重點(diǎn)進(jìn)行審計(jì)。 </p><p>　　英國(guó)審計(jì)署最近指出，實(shí)行最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)需要建立績(jī)效管理框架，對(duì)所有活動(dòng)和目標(biāo)建立明確的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。績(jī)效審計(jì)的審計(jì)結(jié)論會(huì)因?yàn)轭A(yù)算的變化而發(fā)生變化。如果在最佳值對(duì)所有活動(dòng)不改變先前的計(jì)劃繼續(xù)持續(xù)做下去， 那么對(duì)于在預(yù)算約束內(nèi)實(shí)行優(yōu)先次序的需求將無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)。

76、最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)的實(shí)施大大增加了審計(jì)過程的成本，雖然還沒有在實(shí)施該進(jìn)程過程中對(duì)成本進(jìn)行可靠地評(píng)估。最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)的戰(zhàn)略重點(diǎn)在于預(yù)算編制，成本和產(chǎn)出的執(zhí)行情況是審計(jì)報(bào)告的重點(diǎn)，這將大大提高對(duì)資金使用率的要求。 </p><p>　　如果目前的最佳價(jià)值審計(jì)模式對(duì)審計(jì)結(jié)果還是有所保留的，那不難設(shè)想在今后越來(lái)越具有挑戰(zhàn)性的審計(jì)結(jié)果，將會(huì)使審計(jì)證據(jù)的要求越來(lái)越高。政府也越來(lái)越意識(shí)到審計(jì)人員的素質(zhì)對(duì)審計(jì)結(jié)果有很大的聯(lián)系，應(yīng)進(jìn)一步加