Examination Procedures

Booklet: Development and Acquisition
Section: Appendix A: Examination Procedures
Subsection:

Previous Subsection

Next Subsection

EXAMINATION OBJECTIVES: The objectives of Development and Acquisition assessments are to identify weaknesses or risks that could negatively impact an organization, to identify entities whose condition or performance requires special supervisory attention, and to subsequently effect corrective action.

Examiners should not expect organizations to employ formal project management techniques in all situations. Reviews should be risk focused and center on ensuring project management standards, controls, and procedures are present and commensurate with the characteristics and risks of the projects under review.

Examiners are not required to include lengthy responses to each Objective or bulleted item. Often, examiners should be able to simply note an item is adequate or inadequate with yes or no responses. However, examiners must adequately document material findings. Documentation must be sufficient to support the assignment of the Development and Acquisition component rating of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s Uniform Rating System for Information Technology.

OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURES

*Objective 1: Determine the scope of the Development and Acquisition review.*
1.	Identify strengths and weaknesses relating to development, acquisition, and maintenance activities, through a review of:
		Prior reports of examination;
		Internal and external audits;
		Regulatory, audit, and security reports from key service providers;
		Organizational charts;
		Network topology maps; and
		Résumés of technology managers.

2.	Review management’s response to report and audit findings to determine:
		The adequacy and timing of corrective actions;
		The resolution of root causes rather than just specific issues; and
		The existence of outstanding issues.

3.	Review applicable documentation and interview technology managers to identify:
		The type and frequency of development, acquisition, and maintenance projects;
		The formality and characteristics of project management techniques;
		The material changes that impact development, acquisition, and maintenance activities, such as:
			Proposed or enacted changes in hardware, software, or vendors;
			Proposed or enacted changes in business objectives or organizational structures; and
			Proposed or enacted changes in key personnel positions.


Objective 2: Assess the level of oversight and support provided by the board and management relating to development, acquisition, and maintenance activities.
1.	Assess the level of oversight and support by evaluating:
		The alignment of business and technology objectives;
		The frequency and quality of technology-related board reporting;
		The commitment of the board and senior management to promote new products;
		The level and quality of board-approved project standards and procedures;
		The qualifications of technology managers; and
		The sufficiency of technology budgets.


*Objective 3: Assess the organizational structure in relation to the appropriateness of assigned responsibilities concerning technology systems and initiatives.*
1.	Evaluate organizational responsibilities to ensure the board and management:
		Clearly define and appropriately assign responsibilities;
		Appropriately assign security, audit, and quality assurance personnel to technology-related projects;
		Establish appropriate segregation-of-duty or compensating controls; and
		Establish appropriate project, technology committee, and board reporting requirements.


Objective 4: Assess the level and characteristics of risks associated with development, acquisition, and maintenance activities that could materially impact the organization.
1.	Assess the risks identified in other objectives and evaluate the adequacy of risk management programs regarding:
		Risk identification and assessment procedures;
		Risk reporting and monitoring procedures; and
		Risk acceptance, mitigation, and transfer strategies.


*Objective 5: Assess the adequacy of development project management standards, methodologies, and practices.*
1.	Evaluate the adequacy of development activities by assessing:
		The adequacy of, and adherence to, development standards and controls;
		The applicability and effectiveness of project management methodologies;
		The experience of project managers;
		The adequacy of project plans, particularly with regard to the inclusion of clearly defined:
			Phase expectations;
			Phase acceptance criteria;
			Security and control requirements;
			Testing requirements; and
			Documentation requirements;

		The formality and effectiveness of quality assurance programs;
		The effectiveness of risk management programs;
		The adequacy of project request and approval procedures;
		The adequacy of feasibility studies;
		The adequacy of, and adherence to, standards and procedures relating to the:
			Design phase;
			Development phase;
			Testing phase; and
			Implementation phase;
		The adequacy of project change controls;
		The appropriate inclusion of organizational personnel throughout the project’s life cycle;
		The effectiveness of project communication and reporting procedures; and
		The accuracy, effectiveness, and control of project management tools.

*Objective 6: Assess the adequacy of acquisition project management standards, methodologies, and practices.*
1.	Assess the adequacy of acquisition activities by evaluating:
		The adequacy of, and adherence to, acquisition standards and controls;
		The applicability and effectiveness of project management methodologies;
		The experience of project managers;
		The adequacy of project plans, particularly with regard to the inclusion of clearly defined:
			Phase expectations;
			Phase acceptance criteria;
			Security and control requirements; and
			Testing, training, and implementation requirements;
		The formality and effectiveness of quality assurance programs;
		The effectiveness of risk management programs;
		The adequacy of project request and approval procedures;
		The adequacy of feasibility studies;
		The adequacy of, and adherence to, standards that require request-for-proposals and invitations-to-tender to include:
			Well-detailed security, reliability, and functionality specifications;
			Well-defined performance and compatibility specifications; and
			Well-defined design and development documentation requirements;
		The adequacy of, and adherence to, standards that require:
			Thorough reviews of vendors’ financial condition and commitment to service; and
			Thorough reviews of contracts and licensing agreements prior to signing;
		The adequacy of contract and licensing provisions that address:
			Performance assurances;
			Software and data security provisions; and
			Source-code accessibility/escrow assertions;
		The adequacy of project change controls;
		The appropriate inclusion of organizational personnel throughout the project’s life cycle;
		The effectiveness of project communication and reporting procedures; and
		The accuracy, effectiveness, and control of project management tools.

*Objective 7: Assess the adequacy of maintenance project management standards, methodologies, and practices.*
1.	Evaluate the sufficiency of, and adherence to, maintenance standards and controls relating to:
		Change request and approval procedures;
		Change testing procedures;
		Change implementation procedures;
		Change review procedures;
		Change documentation procedures;
		Change notification procedures
		Library controls; and
		Utility program controls.


*Objective 8: Assess the effectiveness of conversion projects.*
1.	Evaluate the effectiveness of conversion projects by:
		Comparing initial budgets and projected time lines against actual results;
		Reviewing project management and technology committee reports;
		Reviewing testing documentation and after-action reports;
		Reviewing conversion after-action reports;
		Interviewing technology and user personnel; and
		Reviewing suspense accounts for outstanding items.


*Objective 9: Assess the adequacy of quality assurance programs.*
1.	Assess the adequacy of quality assurance programs by evaluating:
		The board’s willingness to provide appropriate resources to quality assurance programs;
		The completeness of quality assurance procedures (Are the deliverables of each project, and project phase, including the validation of initial project assumptions and approvals, appropriately assured?);
		The scalability of quality assurance procedures (Are the procedures appropriately tailored to match the characteristics of the project?);
		The measurability of quality assurance standards (Are deliverables assessed against predefined standards and expectations?);
		The adherence to problem-tracking standards that require:
			Appropriate problem recordation;
			Appropriate problem reporting;
			Appropriate problem monitoring; and
			Appropriate problem correction;

		The sufficiency of, and adherence to, testing standards that require:
			The use of predefined, comprehensive test plans;
			The involvement of end users;
			The documentation of test results;
			The prohibition against testing in production environments; and
			The prohibition against testing with live data;
		The sufficiency and effectiveness of testing programs regarding:
			The accuracy of programmed code;
			The inclusion of expected functionality; and
			The interoperability of applications and network components; and
		The independence of quality assurance personnel.

*Objective 10: Assess the adequacy of program change controls.*
1.	Evaluate the sufficiency of, and adherence to:
		Routine and emergency program-change standards that require appropriate:
			Request and approval procedures;
			Testing procedures;
			Implementation procedures;
			Backup and backout procedures;
			Documentation procedures; and
			Notification procedures;

		Controls that restrict the unauthorized movement of programs or program modules/objects between development, testing, and production environments;
		Controls that restrict the unauthorized use of utility programs, such as:
			Policy prohibitions;
			Monitoring of use; and
			Logical access controls;
		Library controls that restrict unauthorized access to programs outside an individual’s assigned responsibilities such as:
			Logical access controls on all libraries or objects within libraries; and
			Automated library controls that restrict library access and produce reports that identify who accessed a library, what was accessed, and what changes were made; and
		Version controls that facilitate the appropriate retention of programs, and program modules/objects, revisions, and documentation.

*Objective 11: Assess the adequacy of patch-management standards and controls.*
1.	Evaluate the sufficiency of, and adherence to, patch-management standards and controls that require:
		Detailed hardware and software inventories;
		Patch identification procedures;
		Patch evaluation procedures;
		Patch request and approval procedures;
		Patch testing procedures;
		Backup and backout procedures;
		Patch implementation procedures; and
		Patch documentation.

*Objective 12: Assess the quality of application, system, and project documentation, and the adequacy of documentation controls.*
1.	Assess the adequacy of documentation controls by evaluating the sufficiency of, and adherence to, documentation standards that require:
		The assignment of documentation-custodian responsibilities;
		The assignment of document authoring and approval responsibilities;
		The establishment of standardized document formats; and
		The establishment of appropriate documentation library and version controls.
2.	Assess the quality of application documentation by evaluating the adequacy of internal and external assessments of:
		Application design and coding standards;
		Application descriptions;
		Application design documents;
		Application source-code listings (or in the case of object-oriented programming: object listings);
		Application routine naming conventions (or in the case of object-oriented programming: object naming conventions); and
		Application operator instructions and user manuals.
3.	Assess the quality of open source-code system documentation by evaluating the adequacy of internal and external assessments of:
		System design and coding standards;
		System descriptions;
		System design documents;
		Source-code listings (or in the case of object-oriented programming: object listings);
		Source-code routine naming conventions (or in the case of object-oriented programming: object naming conventions); and
		System operation instructions.
4.	Assess the quality of project documentation by evaluating the adequacy of documentation relating to the:
		Project request;
		Feasibility study;
		Initiation phase;
		Planning phase;
		Design phase;
		Development phase;
		Testing phase;
		Implementation phase; and
		Post-implementation reviews.
Note: If examiners employ sampling techniques, they should include planning and testing phase documentation in the sample.

*Objective 13: Assess the security and integrity of system and application software.*
1.	Assess the quality of open source-code system documentation by evaluating the adequacy of internal and external assessments of:
		Evaluate the security and integrity of system and application software by reviewing:
		The adequacy of quality assurance and testing programs;
		The adequacy of security and internal-control design standards;
		The adequacy of program change controls;