evaluation of the commission's market access database...
Post on 25-Jun-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluation of the Commission’s Market Access Database
Debriefing - Market Access Advisory Committee
Brussels, 17 November 2011
Personal data in this document have been redacted according to the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 and the European Commission Internal Data Protection Regulation 2018/1725
About the evaluation
• External evaluation of the Commission’s Market Access Database (MADB): follow-up upon an earlier evaluation from 2006
• Done by GHK in collaboration with Copernicus• Purpose
– assessing the effectiveness of achieving MADB’s main goals– assessing the efficiency of operations– providing recommendations for future orientations and eventual
improvements of the service (content, user-friendliness, broader reach)
• Mostly primary research– Web design and usability assessment– Online survey (202 users)– Interviews (users, data providers, EC)– User observation– “Mystery shopping” (14 trade promotion agencies)
• Timescale: February to October 2011
Patterns of usage
• Very uneven popularity of sections– ATD is by far the most often used
section in terms of number of visits
– The TBD, the SPS database and the statistical database are less used
– The Complaint Register is barely used (<1%)
• Web traffic figures reflect different frequency of usage
– Users have already visited or “used”almost all sections
– Average visits per user: ADT: 13.5, Trade Barriers: 2.2
92
88
62
47
73
52
0 50 100
Applied Tariffs db
EGIF
Statistical db
Complaint Register
Trade Barriers db
SPS Export db
65
23
8
8
8
0 50 100
Applied Tariffs db
EGIF
Statistical db
Complaint Register
Trade Barriers db
SPS Export db
Individual sections visited during MADB sessions, 2010
Proportion of respondents using individual sections
Additional user needs
• “Early warning” information
• External links for countries not yet covered
• Removing restrictions on the quota for queries for each IP
• More links for contact points
• More information on investment barriers and financial regulations/requirements in order to help exporters
Reliability of the information
• ATD and EGIF information is very reliable– Stakeholders see them as the most reliable tools available on the
internet
• Data in the TBD and the SPS is often outdated and not detailed enough
• Verification exercise confirms reliability– Results for 30 data clusters (10 countries, 3 sectors: textiles,
chemicals, wine). 242 pieces of information
– 22 possible discrepancies (9%): mostly due to time lags in updating information, or more accurate explanation on requirement not given
– Data in the MADB sometimes more reliable than information of third-country customs offices
Promotion and awareness (2)
• Only 251 “backlinks” found– 41% business representations– 18% public authorities– DE, ES, CZ most prominent (but usage data not correlated)
• MADB is very difficult to find via Google (through trade-related search terms). Out of the top 10 hits for 5 different questions…
– 4 MADB-related sites were found in Latvian– 3 in Dutch– 2 in Portuguese– 1 in French, Hungarian, Polish and Romanian– 0 in Finnish, German and Greek
• “Mystery shopping” revealed limited awareness/trust of information intermediaries
– Only 2 out of 14 trade promotion agencies/authorities recommended the MADB promptly
– In total, 6 recommended the MADB
Value of the service
• Experimental search to calculate time savings– 3 products in 7 countries– Time need: 153 minutes on average (MADB: 5 minutes)– Information obtained is not well structured, less reliable and up-to-
date• Time saving may add up to 20,833 working days a year, worth at
least €3.75 million• Additional value from the superior quality of the information
(millions of euro)• Total cost for MADB: about €2.35 million
– 2.8 euro per query, 14.8 euro for one average session– Less than the estimates for its value
• Quasi monopoly a possible problem, but…– unit prices remained stable– 10-20% discount is given on maximum budget– unit cost lower than for the Export Helpdesk
Key recommendations
1. Extend coverage of the TBD and SPS sections by stakeholder data2. Improve structure of the EGIF section3. Improve feedback mechanisms and timeliness of information4. Increase the frequency of updating the MADB5. Complement the content with additional information or links
6. Enhance the user-friendliness of the database7. Consider creating hybrid versions of the ATD and EGIF8. Consider renaming the database and target information
intermediaries in the Member States9. Improve the visibility of the MADB through search engine
optimisation (SEO)
10. Reinforce monitoring of user behaviour11. Reduce data verification and feedback time
Thank you for your attention
Senior consultantGHK Consulting
top related