Indicators not well defined
FMPPI Compliance Checklist
The Framework for Managing Programme Performance Information is the rulebook against which the Auditor-General tests whether an institution's indicators are even capable of being audited.
Why the FMPPI Framework Matters
National Treasury's FMPPI sets the structure every performance indicator must follow before it ever generates a result. When indicators are poorly defined, the AGSA cannot reliably audit predetermined objectives, and a usefulness or reliability finding follows almost automatically. AuditPro Core scores each indicator against the FMPPI requirements so accounting officers can fix definition defects in the planning phase rather than at audit.
The Numbers
AuditPro Core renders this view from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records. The figures below are illustrative sample data.
Indicators assessed
186
Fully compliant
118
63%
Definition gaps
47
Source data gaps
21
FMPPI compliance status
Criterion scoring
| FMPPI criterion | Pass | Fail |
|---|---|---|
| Well defined | 139 | 47 |
| Verifiable | 152 | 34 |
| Reliable source | 165 | 21 |
| Cost effective | 178 | 8 |
Figures shown are illustrative sample data for demonstration. AuditPro Core renders these views from your own tenant's live, tamper-evident records.
Indicator definitions
Each indicator needs a clear technical definition stating exactly what is being counted and how. Without it, two people measuring the same indicator can arrive at different numbers, which destroys reliability.
Source of evidence
FMPPI requires that the data source and collection method be specified up front. If the source is vague, the portfolio of evidence at year-end rarely supports the reported figure.
Means of verification
The framework expects a stated calculation method and verification approach so an independent auditor can recompute the result. Indicators that cannot be recomputed are inherently unauditable.
Usefulness versus reliability
The AGSA tests both whether an indicator is well defined and consistent (usefulness) and whether the reported number is supported (reliability). A well-built indicator framework protects against both finding types simultaneously.
How AuditPro Core Bridges the Gap
- Checklist scoring: every indicator is assessed against each FMPPI criterion and flagged where a definition, source or method is absent.
- Exception workflow: non-compliant indicators route to the responsible manager for correction before the SDBIP or APP is tabled.
- Audit-ready export: the compliance matrix exports as evidence that the framework was reviewed against FMPPI prior to approval.
- Traceability to source: each indicator links to its stated data source, so verification gaps are visible at a glance.
Key Takeaways
- FMPPI compliance is a planning-phase control; fixing definitions before tabling avoids audit findings later.
- Most usefulness findings trace back to a missing definition, source or means of verification.
- An indicator that cannot be recomputed by an auditor will not survive an AOPO audit.
- Scoring indicators against the framework turns a subjective review into a defensible, repeatable assessment.
See This on Your Own Data
AuditPro Core renders this dashboard from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records — every figure traceable to source.