Electronic Reviews. Who remembers last year’s presentation??? It looked something like this…. What’s that?. How will that work?. Will it be more work for me?. What will that cost?. Good questions! We have answers! . Survey says….
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
It looked something like this…
How will that work?
What will that cost?
We have answers!
Overall, how Satisfied or Dissatisfied are you with the Electronic Review Communications?
Email Communications w/ Attachments
Missouri fully supports the electronic review process. It provided an opportunity for staff members other than program managers/supervisors to be involved in the process. This involvement provided ‘big picture’ knowledge of the program and how daily individual job tasks affect the outcome. Ownership of the program instead of going through the motions.
NE: Our office was moving during the week of the review. Not having to find adequate space for 3 review team members was helpful. It would have been a little stressful to try to work around the movers.
Were the Electronic File Name formats for the Clearinghouse uploads easy to understand?
Ease of uploading data into the IFTA, Inc. Clearinghouse?
Opening Conference (including Team and Jurisdictions Introductions, Electronic Review Overview and the Review of the Program Review Process)
4 As Good 0 Not As Good
How would you rate the overall satisfaction of the Electronic Review Process versus the On-site Review Process? (Including the gathering of information, interaction with team and lead reviewers, pre and post Review communications)
4 As Good 0 Not As Good
Comment: NE: you do miss out on the Face-To-Face interactions which can be extremely beneficial.
Closing Conference (including Review Findings, Post Review Procedures explained)
4 As Good
0 Not As Good
Comment: NE: One reviewer did not participate – had wrong time.
Were there parts of the Electronic Review that were more difficult than if the team were on-site?
Comments: NE: No question. The scanning of returns and some audit papers was more difficult than just pulling the files had the reviewers been here.
Did the Electronic Review present any problems or unexpected burden(s) to the staff?
Overall Electronic Review Experience
Most notable strength is being able to continue with other department tasks during the review as the review team is not in the office requiring much of our time.
Most notable weakness is not being able to review firsthand some of the documents being questioned. Better communications during Review needed.
How likely would you be to recommend an Electronic Review to member jurisdictions?
0 Not Likely
General Review Comments member jurisdictions?
How can we improve this process? What suggestions do you have for the next Electronic Review?
Explain the upload site and functionality early in the communication. Uploading the .pdf was easy to do but a clearer explanation would be good for non-techie folks. Once I understood the process and received access, it worked great!
Would be great if we could upload in Excel or Word.
The process of reviewing and discussing issues during the audit went very well. However the development of the final report regarding the review could be better explained. It was unclear whether we were to begin to respond to the findings or wait for another final report.
Once the files are uploaded, confirmation should be provided to the jurisdictions.
Review Cost (travel):
3 Reviewers/3 days
Travel per diems: $1,200 per person X 3 days = $3,600
$3,600 x 4 (Reviews) = $14,400
Electronic Review Cost (Conference calls): member jurisdictions?
MO: $ 100.68
NE: $ 135.23
ND: $ 178.99
SD: $ 177.01
TOTAL: $ 591.92
Travel vs. Electronic? member jurisdictions?
Net Savings (4 Reviews):
Ballot 2-2009 passed which changed IFTA from a 4 – 5 year review cycle. The IFTA, Inc. Board was provided with and reviewed two proposals prior to making its decision.The IFTA, Inc. Board decided at its January 2010 Board Meeting that the best way for IFTA membership to transition into this cycle was to skip Reviews in the 2011 year and begin the 5 year cycle in 2012.
The Combined Review Committee met in February 2010. review cycle.
Future of our Combined Review Project – As the discussions turned to the future of this Committee, more questions than answers arose.
Mary Pat Paris advised the Committee that the IRP Board has convened a committee to research Distance Reviews for IRP. The study should be available for the IRP Boards review at their May meeting.
It was decided that our next call would be scheduled sometime after the IRP Board meeting in May.
In the meantime IRP, Inc. notified the IFTA, Inc. Board of its Regional Rotation proposal. Both Boards are reviewing Regional Rotations.
Any future Committee work has ceased as the Committee awaits direction from the IFTA, Inc. Board.