Страницы

Статья

Internal analysis of corruption risks

List of Positions Vulnerable to Corruption Risks

Based on the results of the internal analysis of corruption risks, the following positions have been identified as vulnerable to corruption:

Name of the entity subject to internal corruption risk analysis:
Digitalization Department of Almaty City

№	Position Vulnerable to Corruption Risks	Official Powers with Corruption Risks	Corruption Risks
1	Head of the Digitalization Department of Almaty City	Provides methodological and other assistance to legal entities and individuals on issues within the department's competence.	The head may provide assistance based on personal interests rather than objective criteria. This could lead to favoritism towards “own” companies or individuals, causing conflicts of interest and potential corruption.
2	Deputy Head of the Digitalization Department of Almaty City	Makes decisions on the implementation of proposals for the integration of information systems.	The decision-maker might choose contractors for system integration based on personal interests rather than objective criteria, leading to corruption risks when signing work completion acts.
3	Deputy Head of the Digitalization Department of Almaty City	Participates in internal monitoring of the quality of public services provided.	During internal monitoring, there is a risk of falsifying data and reporting inflated quality indicators. This could lead to avoiding penalties for identified violations or creating false positive indicators.
4	Head of the Process Development and Change Management Division of the Digitalization Department of Almaty City	Ensures the involvement of government agencies, organizations, and project teams in the development of digitalization projects.	There is a risk of unequal distribution of resources (funding, equipment, information) when involving state bodies or organizations.
5	Head of the Information Security and Data Management Division of the Digitalization Department of Almaty City	Monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of information security protection measures and tools used.	There is a risk of falsifying data in reports on the effectiveness of security measures. This could lead to creating a false impression of adequate security levels to avoid additional costs or inspections.