Top Five Process Integration Key Goal Indicators

1. Incidents, or a lack of them, traceable to a lack of integration.
The Australian Customs office example, in which two people appearing to be service personnel simply entered a supposedly high-security area and walked out with several highly sensitive servers, illustrates the point. Most organizations would hopefully consider something less dramatic as a suitable indicator of the need to coordinate and integrate these functions.

2. The number of management levels before assurance processes fall under the same organizational position.
It is axiomatic that the more reporting levels for the various assurance functions before coalescing to a single “authority,” the greater is the likely lack of integration between their functions. A KGI could be fewer reporting lines and levels before reporting to a single organizational position.

3. Inconsistencies or contradictions in the objectives, policies, and standards applied to various assurance functions.
Various assurance functions should have common strategic objectives to avoid working at cross purposes. A KGI would be policies or documented references to functional interfaces between assurance processes in roles and responsibilities.

4. An absence of communications between assurance providers.
Better communications between assurance providers as well as collective participation

5. in a steering or risk committee can improve integration of activities.
A KGI might be regular formal review meetings to promote collective understanding of risks and various departmental objectives, activities, and processes.