Performance Management
Performance vs Spend Correlation
Read budget expenditure against target achievement by programme to expose value-for-money gaps.
Why correlating spend with performance matters
Value for money, a core AGSA and COSO concern, lives in the relationship between money spent and results achieved, not in either figure alone. Programmes that spend their full budget while missing targets, or hit targets while under-spending, both warrant scrutiny that single-axis reporting misses. AuditPro Core pairs expenditure with target achievement by programme so the efficiency of spending becomes visible and questionable.
The Numbers
AuditPro Core renders this view from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records. The figures below are illustrative sample data.
Programmes Analysed
24
High Spend Low Delivery
5
21%
Balanced Performers
13
54%
Avg Cost per Target
R 1.9m
Spend % vs Achievement % by Programme
Value-for-Money Indicators
| Programme | Spend % | Achievement % | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prog A | 92% | 88% | Efficient |
| Prog B | 88% | 61% | Poor value |
| Prog C | 74% | 79% | Efficient |
| Prog D | 95% | 54% | Poor value |
| Prog E | 69% | 72% | Adequate |
Figures shown are illustrative sample data for demonstration. AuditPro Core renders these views from your own tenant's live, tamper-evident records.
The value-for-money lens
Value for money asks whether resources converted into results efficiently and effectively. High spend with low achievement signals inefficiency; the correlation is where this becomes visible.
The four quadrants
Programmes fall into combinations of high or low spend and high or low achievement. The diagnostic quadrants are full spend with poor results, and strong results on modest spend, each demanding a different question.
Spurious achievement
Hitting targets while barely spending can indicate targets were set too low rather than performance being efficient. The correlation prompts a usefulness review of how targets were calibrated.
Beyond the averages
Institution-wide spend and achievement rates can both look healthy while specific programmes fail badly. Programme-level pairing prevents averages from masking poor performers.
How AuditPro Core Bridges the Gap
- Paired metrics: expenditure and target achievement are presented together per programme, never in isolation.
- Quadrant flagging: programmes with full spend and poor results are surfaced for value-for-money review.
- Target scrutiny: strong achievement on low spend prompts a check on whether targets were under-set.
- Traceability: both axes link to expenditure records and verified performance evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Value for money lives in the spend-to-results relationship, not either figure alone.
- Full spend with poor achievement is the classic inefficiency flag.
- Strong results on tiny spend may mean targets were set too low.
- Programme-level pairing stops healthy averages from hiding failures.
See This on Your Own Data
AuditPro Core renders this dashboard from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records — every figure traceable to source.