I can tell you how I think it has changed, but all I know is what the organization has been like since I've been there. Maybe Monsieur Ricard, or Ms. Seally, could provide you with some more information.
There are a few things we have done in particular. One is we have reduced the number of senior assistant auditors general level. At the top level of the organization, we have reduced that. I believe when I started in the organization the executive table was about 16 people. We have a couple of pending retirements, and that will get us to nine. We've significantly reduced that.
We also went through the strategic operating review process. In that process we were able to identify some financial audits we were doing that we felt didn't need to be done, or didn't need to be done by us, so we made that reduction.
We identified that we were not meeting our requirements on official languages at all of our supervisory levels. We put in place a strategy to deal with that.
Again, because we've reduced the number of assistant auditors general, it meant we had to better define the roles and responsibilities of the next two levels in the organization, what we refer to as the principals and the directors. We've had to clearly define what their responsibilities are, who's responsible for delivering audits, and who's responsible for making sure of the quality of audits. Those would be a number of the main things we have done.
The other things we continue to struggle with are that we do promote performance measurement, and we do promote reporting on performance. We constantly struggle with trying to get a good performance measure for understanding the value that is coming from a performance audit, because right now we have that unsatisfactory measurement of just being able to survey people and ask, “Do you think it added value, or do you not?” We also have the follow-up audits, but that might be five years down the road.
We are trying to find additional ways to measure the value we bring from performance audits.