San Diego County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
The Development Services Department Project Tracking System
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 6 findings
F1
There is no evidence that the Process 2000/Project Tracking System has reduced permit processing time by 50%.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
DSD should develop firm deadlines for the final implementation of the remaining modules as well as determining those who are responsible for each module.
F2
Process 2000/Project Tracking System has not been developed and implemented within the time frame initially contemplated. 201
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
DSD should consider outsourcing the completion of the remaining modules so that the current in-house IT development team can focus on modifications and enhancements to the modules already completed. 207
F3
Process 2000/Project Tracking System has not been developed and implemented within the budget originally proposed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
DSD should develop an annual budget for PTS expenses including personnel, development, maintenance, software, and hardware expenses.
F4
Information is not available to enable the determination of the actual cost of developing and implementing the Process 2000/Project Tracking System. Findings
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
DSD should set up a job order for DSD staff involved in the development and maintenance of PTS. This job order number could track all labor hours relating to PTS as well as future software and hardware costs.
F5
The Development Services Department has not planned, developed or accounted for the Process 2000/Project Tracking System effort in a proficient manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
DSD should track the cost each individual module of PTS as well as other components of DSD’s IT expense so that management can determine if costs will fall within budget for any given fiscal year. DSD should revise its accounting methods as needed to efficiently and effectively track these expenses and should include salaries, wages, and benefits relating to those expenses.
F6
The Development Services Department has not planned, developed or accounted for the Process 2000/Project Tracking System effort in a proficient manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
In addition to implementing all modules and delivering target dates, as recommended in Finding I, DSD management should use information obtained through Module 10 - Management Reports and Module 11 - Customer Self- Access to improve customer satisfaction by providing customers with data on average time saved using PTS for each project category.
Additional Recommendations 2
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R7DSD management should revisit and amend its record retention policies as necessary to ensure that records related to specific projects are retained for a specific period of time after the completion of the project.
-
R8DSD management should obtain all relevant information regarding the planning of PTS, research, and due diligence completed relating to decisions to support the development of a software program in-house. COMMENDATION The Office of Audits & Advisory Services commends and sincerely appreciates the courtesies and cooperation extended by the City of San Diego’s Development Services Department for their assistance during this follow-up audit of the risk assessment. AUDIT TEAM Juan R. Perez, Senior Performance Auditor Shane Ellis, Associate Financial Auditor 211 This page left blank intentionally. 212
Commendations 1
-
CM1The Office of Audits & Advisory Services commends and sincerely appreciates the courtesies and cooperation extended by the City of San Diego's Development Services Department for their assistance during this follow-up audit of the risk assessment. AUDIT TEAM Juan R. Perez, Senior Performance Auditor Shane Ellis, Associate Financial Auditor Report 2003/4-15 This page left blank intentionally.
Comments 2
-
CO1permits to generate $3.5 million in revenues. These funds were earmarked for the development of the project tracking system and automation of mapping and record data. However, a portion of these funds was used to pay an arbitration settlement award to a subcontractor hired to automate the maps used to determine the number and type of permits required for each parcel. After a contract with the aforementioned subcontractor for the automation of the
-
CO2landbase was terminated in March 1997, DSD staff continued the development of the department's own project tracking and mapping software applications. However, the City did not have allocated adequate resources to complete the project within the originally estimated timeframe. According to planning documents, DSD expected to fully implement the new system by late 1999. Departmental needs for the PTS changed, requiring re-design or modification of
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Diego
City