essnet esbrs phase 1 (2014 – 2016) esbrs phase 1 (2014 – 2016) ... – egr - stabilize,...
TRANSCRIPT
ESSnet on a European System of Interoperable Statistical Business Registers
ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016)
2016 Euro Groups Register and Profiling ESSnet ESBRs workshop
Paris, 11-12th April 2016
|slide 2
ESSnet is commited to help at building a « mutually beneficial European System of business registers for the production of high quality business statistics in Europe ».
ESSnet ESBRs organised
– In two phases -> Phase 1 (2014-2016)
– During the first phase tasks are distributed into 3 Work Packages (WP): WP1 – Business architecture, Statistical Services, and Coordination WP2 – Interoperability framework WP3 – Process development and data quality program
– Deliverables to be produced and provided (delivered) to Eurostat are listed in the ESSnet ESBRs Multi-Beneficiary Grant Agreement
ESSnet ESBRs
09/04/2016ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1
|slide 3
➢ Today, second ESSnet ESBRs Workshop focused on WP3 tasks
WP3 tasks: – EGR - Stabilize, maintain, and upgrade EGR 2.0 system (support Eurostat in the
EGR 2.0 set up and development);
– Profiling Consolidate methodological and practical aspects of profiling; Support to NSIs in carrying out test of European profiling; Support Eurostat in developping the Interactive Profiling Tool; Make recommendation to settle a perennial system for performing European
profiling;
– Both - Organisational models to improve the quality of the EGR; integration of the results of European profiling into the EGR
Countries involved: FR, NL, UK, IT, FI, DK -> presenters/discussion leader
Work Package 3
09/04/2016ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1
|slide 4
What are the aims of the Workshop ?
– 1. Inform Member States on the ESSnet ESBRs WP3 deliverables (those delivered since the last Workshop and work on-going on those to be achieved by the end of April 2016).
– 2. Collect Member States views on EGR and profiling (part of the ESSnet work, for transmission to Eurostat, as a deliverable → Detailed minutes of the meeting).
Warning – possible confusion
– Current situation/Short, Medium or Long term plans
– Eurostat/ESSnet/NSI positions
– Under discussion in the ESSnet/Delivered/Accepted/Consultation-Approval
Workshop
|slide 5
Agenda distributed
Day 1 (11th April - afternoon): Profiling
Day 2 (12th April - morning): EGR Data Quality Management
Each day, same format:
Presentations followed by Questions & Answers → for information on the ESSnet ESBRs deliverables
Guided discussion → For collecting your views → Take the floor !!! Active participation expected.
This afternoon : profiling → Have a look at the agenda
Agenda of the Workshop
|slide 6
➢ Coffee – Lunch breaks and social events
Coffee breaks
Social Dinner organised tonight at your own expense (At 7.30 pm)
Lunch offered by Insee tomorrow (From 1.00 pm to 2.00 pm)
Presentations
No printed copies – will be made accessible on CROS PORTAL after the meeting
Wifi Access
Organisational information point
|slide 7
Thank you for your attention.
Now it's time to start !
ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS
ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016)
Profiling session
ESSnet ESBRs WP3 deliverables on profiling – Focus on documentation
Agnès Topiol INSEE
2016 ESSnet ESBRs WP3 EGR and Profiling Workshop - Paris Bercy
|slide
ESSnet ESBRS WP3 activities (2014-2016) aim at supporting NSIs testing
profiling of large and complex Global Enterprise Groups under European
initiative (= « European Profiling »).
*Scope of the work : Manual European Profiling
*4 NSIs have participated to the ESSNET ESBRS WP3 activities
ESSnet ESBRs WP3 activities on profiling : reminder
04.04.16ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1
*14 NSIs have carried out manual european profiling tests in 2014/2015
|slide
ESSnet ESBRS WP3 activities (2014-2016) covers 4 types of actions:
1 - Training Seminars (3 Seminars organised and delivered)
2 - Coaching Visits (5 bilateral or trilateral meetings)
3 - Supporting through helpdesk facilities (Q&A by mail or phone)
4 - Drafting and updating documents
ESSnet ESBRs WP3 activities on profiling : reminder
04.04.16ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1
|slide ESSnet ESBRs WP3 activities on profiling : reminderDocuments released circuit :
1) The list of the documents can be found in the ESSnet ESBRs Multibeneficiary grant (WP3).
2) After completed the deliverables ESSnet delivers the documents to Eurostat.
3) After validation and acceptation, documents are made accessible on :
CROS-PORTAL with unrestricted access : http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/wp3-process_development-0_en/
CROS-PORTAL with restricted access :http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/wp3-process-development_en
So far, only documents which have been accepted by Eurostat are available
Documents are also released on CIRCABC
|slide OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION
Drafting and updating documents
1.Deliverables completed between June and Dec 2015
1.1 – ''Operational'' deliverables
1.2 – ''Prospective'' deliverablesZoom on 3 deliverables which can be used for both manual european and national profiling. 2. Deliverables to be completed by end of April 2016
|slide 1- Deliverables completed between June-Dec 2015
1.1- ''Operational'' deliverables
''Operational'' : « concretely support the testing of profiling of large and complex Global Enterprise Groups on-going in 2014-2015 under European initiative and financed by Eurostat individual grants 2014 ».
- Tools used for testing « European profiling » Update Guidelines and guidelines on completing the new Excel files ; Update of Excel files where profilers store, share and update information.
- Training Seminars output3 follow-up meetings for testing countries output.
- Coaching visits reportsDetailed reports on the coaching visits organised.
Notes : → Useful mainly for NSIs testing manual european profiling as part of individual grant
|slide 1- Deliverables completed between June-Dec 2015
1.2- ''Prospective'' deliverables
''Prospective'' : « to support future profiling activities ».
- Report on profiling dedicated Q&A forum
=> How to organise a secured forum dedicated to European profiling Q&A.
Notes :
→ Useful for all EU-EFTA NSIs.
- Methodological Report to Treat Domestic Enterprise Groups - Vademecum of Switching Scenarios and Organisational Model - Report on the Development of a Survey of Light Profiling
|slide 1- Deliverables completed between June-Dec 2015
1.2- Prospective deliverables (1/3) Methodological Report to Treat Domestic Enterprise Groups
TOPIC : Explains to which extent the methodology of profiling large and complex Global Enterprise Groups, presently under testing at EU level can be applied to treat large Domestic Enterprise Groups (DEGs).
CONTENT : - Profiling GEGs and DEGs serve a common objective. - Most of the guidances of European profiling can be applied to treat DEGs.
- Treatment of DEGs differs from GEGs since : - more economic variables should be collected (all SBS data) ; - no coordination is needed with other EU EFTA NSIs ; - public information is less available.
|slide 1- Deliverables completed between June-Dec 2015
1.2- Prospective deliverables (2/3)
Vademecum of Switching Scenarios and Organisational Model
TOPICThis document provides NSIs who considers profiling for the future options and experience feedbacks to start profiling activities.
« organisation model » => a process through its framework including lines of authority, communication, roles, responsabilities and resource allocations.
« Scenarios » => options of organisations.
CONTENT - Existing profiling organisational models (ONS,INSEE, CBS) with its « pros and cons » ;- ESBRs European profiling organisation ;- What is required when switching from national profiling to European profiling ;- Proposals on the role and responsabilities of a Center of Excellence for profiling to support profiling activities.
|slide 1- Deliverables completed between June-Dec 2015
1.2 - Prospective deliverables (3/3)
Report on the Development of a Survey of Light Profiling
TOPIC For the GEGs which should be treated through manual profiling : « intensive profiling » (desk + visit) => the largest and more complex GEGs.« light profiling » (desk only) => medium size GEGs. When using « light profiling », it may happen that some information for profiling is missing in the public and/or administrative sources.
CONTENT - Defines the GEGs which should be treated with « ligh profiling method» ; - Proposes initial ideas for a questionnaire which could supplement the data collection required for light EU profiling ;- Identifies requirements for drafting a light questionnaire, which could support the data collection for those GEGs.
|slide 2- Deliverables to be completed by end April 2016
List of the remaining deliverables
1- « Operational » deliverables
- Methodological Report - Guidelines on Profiling and Related Documents - Training Material (final version)- Handbook for Statistical Users
2- « Prospective » deliverable
- Recommendations for a Perennial system for profiling
ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS
ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016)
Thank you for attention !!!!All questions and comments are welcomed
Please address your queries to : Agnès TOPIOL
ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS
ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016)
STATISTIK AUSTRIA BUNDESANSTALT STATISTIK ÖSTERREICH
ABTEILUNG REGISTER, KLASSIFIKATIONEN UND GEOINFORMATION
Datei: Sachbearbeiter: Erich Greul Version 00; gespeichert 00.00.0000 00:00
Coaching Activities
Sarah Eaton – Office for National Statistics
ESBR EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris 11/12 April 2016
|slide 2OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION
1. Coaching Activities- Training Seminars- Helpdesk - Coaching Visits- Documentation
2. Coaching Survey
3. Results of Survey- What went well- What Improvements are needed for the future
4. Coaches Feedback
|slide 3
•Presentation of the European profiling methodology, focus on the desk work and information about individual grant 2014.
September 2014
•Technical Information, information concerning ESSnet activities
•Practical exercises on how to follow up a profiling case and what are the main specificities of Non EU GEGs. Cases presentations.
February 2015
•Sharing main information to finalize profiling cases, information about IPT and ESSnet activities, profiling cases presentations and confrontation of GDC NSI proposal versus partnering NSIs answers.
October 2015
Coaching Activities – Training Seminars
|slide 4
Every NSI testing profiling as part of the individual grant could approach
his/her coach with any upcoming problem via e-mail or telephone.
The questions raised concerned specific issues around profiling cases in
progress or clarifications of the profiling guidelines.
NSIs generally received an answer in less than a week.
Emails were shared by coaches in order to ensure consistency between
the answers provided.
Coaching Visits - Helpdesk
|slide 5
Sofia, Bulgaria
May 2015
Vienna and Prague
May 2015
Newport, UK
June 2015
Heerlen, NL
September 2015
Coaching Activities - Visits
|slide 6
Detailed Coaching Reports are available on CROS Portal:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/essnet-esbrs-1-del-a242-profiling-coaching-reports-2_en
Coaching Reports Available
|slide 7
Another coaching activity was the release of newsletters.
Newsletters focused on topics which were insufficiently developed or
missing from the current documentation produced by EU and EFTA
NSIs.
Two newsletters were drafted by the ESSnet ESBR:
1-ESSnet ESBR Profiling Newsletter No.1 November 2014
2-ESSnet ESBR Profiling Newsletter No.2 April 2015
Newsletters available on Cros Portal:-
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/profiling-newsletters_en
Coaching Activities - Documentation
|slide 8
A survey to assess coaching activities and pick up new ideas to improve the support to NSIs was launched in January 2016.
The survey is split into five sections covering:
Training Seminars,
Documentation,
Coaching visits,
Helpdesk
General Feedback (covering all coaching activities).
Each section has a series of statements where participants are asked to rate each one either as:
strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree and strongly disagree.
An ‘ideas for improvement/general comments’ box has also been provided at the end of each
section to allow participants to provide further detail.
Coaching Survey
|slide 9Results of Survey – Training Workshops
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Strongly agree Agree Neither agreeor disagree
Disagree Stronglydisagree
1. I found the training seminars wellorganised
2. I found the training seminars helpful fortreating my profiling cases
3. I found the training seminar helpful to setup an international network that can easeprofiling coordination
4. I found the duration of the trainingseminars appropriate
5. I would have liked more training seminars
Training Seminars
|slide 10
Longer training sessions at the start of the profiling cycle.
Less discussion on specific cases to allow greater time to discuss multinational coordination and how to deal with expectation from SBS and NA users.
More real cases and help with communicating with internal users.
Sharing of training materials before the meeting to allow more time for each NSI to discuss and make concrete proposals.
General Comments for Training Workshops
|slide 11Results of Survey – Documentation
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Strongly agree Agree Neither agreeor disagree
Disagree Stronglydisagree
1. I received all the information I needed inthe documentation to complete mydeliverable
2. The documentation was delivered on time
3. I found the documentation proved helpful
Documentation
|slide 12
Too many versions of the documentation which should be fixed at the beginning of the project. During the grant only answers to questions and clarifications should be issued i.e. as a newsletter.
There should be a single information point where all relevant documentation is stored. It would also be good to avoid different profiling template versions during one profiling grant/cycle.
Create a template for the final report. At present NSI’s create different versions of final reports, which make it more difficult to compare those reports.
General Comments on Documentation
|slide 13Results of Survey – Coaching Visits
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree ordisagree
Disagree Stronglydisagree
1. I found face to face meetings helpful
2. I wold have prefered more face to facemeetings
3. The face to face meetings took place at theappropriate stage of the process
Coaching Visits
|slide 14
Face to face meeting was a very good idea, it would be useful to have
another meeting when all partnering answers have been returned.
The trilateral helped us to clarify uncertainties, and took place at the
appropriate time i.e. in the middle of the project.
Use of technology i.e. webinars to allow more face to face meetings at
less cost.
It was helpful to meet both the coach and another partnering country at
the same time.
General Comments on Coaching Visits
|slide 15Results of Survey – Helpdesk
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree ordisagree
Disagree Strongly disagree
1. I found the helpdesk facility helpful
2. The responses I received via the helpdeskfacility were timely
3. The helpdesk facility was easy to use
Helpdesk
|slide 16
The helpdesk was very helpful for spontaneous urgent
questions arising and helped to clarify.
Make use of FAQs for all users as similar questions may be
asked by different NSIs
Centre of Excellence for profiling is needed but would like to
continue with the email support from coaches if possible
General Comments on Helpdesk
|slide 17Results of Survey – General Feedback
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree ordisagree
Disagree Stronglydisagree
1. I found the coaching experience helpful
2. The support I was given met my needs
3. I was provided with clear instructons onwhat I needed to achieve
4. Generally when I raised a question Ireceived satisfactory answers
General Feedback
|slide 18
The idea of a web based profiling chat room where questions can be
raised is appealing
Profiling newsletter and summary of coach meetings were helpful to
explain questions raised during profiling and to share with all coached
countries
Inconsistencies with guidance notes proved frustrating. Perhaps a longer
first training workshop, splitting the process into sections to avoid
unnecessary questions later on.
It is difficult when Eurostat and other member states seem not to agree
on definitions and rules regarding TEN, ENT and NACE.
General Feedback Comments
|slide 19
The coaching survey highlighted areas of success which include:
Direct working relationship between coach and profiling NSI
including coaching visits.
Helpdesk (via email / telephone) access for profilers and fast
response to questions.
Collaboration between coaches with regular monthly video
conferences to discuss issues and share experiences.
The profiling newsletters as a means of disseminating
information to all profiling NSIs.
What Went Well
|slide 20
The coaching survey highlighted areas where future improvement may be
required including:
Continued use of the PT and PR due to revisions and inconsistencies of
completion (should be addressed with IPT).
Additional time at workshops to consider multinational coordination
and the expectations of SBS and NA users.
A longer first workshop to help those countries completely new to
profiling to fully understand the concepts and processes in profiling.
Lack of agreement between Eurostat and member states regarding
definitions and rules for TEN, ENT and NACE will need to be addressed
as part of the next Grant agreement.
What Improvements are needed for future activities
|slide 21
Very Interesting and Challenging.
Questions from Coached NSIs demonstrated good understanding of Topics.
Good Exchanges between coaches which ensured that all views were
shared by all.
Training Seminars and Coaching Meetings are really important to build
relationships. Meetings revealed different approaches according to
different working cultures and local constraints.
Coaches acknowledge the ESSnet needs tools for communicating, i.e. Q&A
Forum.
Coaches found it challenging to address the outstanding issues regarding
the methodology i.e. the application of TEN and ENT.
Coaches Feedback
ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS
ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016)
A perennial system on profiling
Maryse FESSEAU, ESSnet ESBRs WP3 Coordinator (INSEE – FR)
Irène SALEMINK, ESSnet partner, Director of Business Register (CBS – NL)
ESSnet ESBRs EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris – April 11th-12th, 2016
|slide 2AIMS OF THE PRESENTATION
Present the work on-going and the challenges faced in drafting:
1. The (WP3) deliverable: “Recommendation for perennial system on profiling“ – short term view
2. The (WP1) ESBRs business architecture deliverable – medium – long-term view
DEADLINE for both : by end April 2016.
|slide 3OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION
1. Profiling - definition and current context
2. Short term view: making recommendation for a perennial system - a challenge
3. Medium-long term view: Business Architecture – work on-going
4. Conclusion
|slide 41 – Profiling - definition and current context (1/5)
• Profiling – definition:
• “[..]a method to analyse the legal, operational and accounting structure of an enterprise group [..], in order to establish the statistical units within that group, their links, and the most efficient structures for the collection of statistical data” (Eurostat BR manual)
• Profiling – aim:
• Produce improved business statistics using enterprise units according to the 1993 definition (Reg EEC N°696/93)
|slide 51 – Profiling - definition and current context (2/5)
• Profiling – current situation:
• Most NSIs still using the legal unit to produce business statistics on Enterprises but profiling activities on-going, under two kind of initiatives:
• NSI initiative: “National Profiling”• Automatic and Manual Profiling
• National part of Global Enterprise Group (GEG) and Domestic Enterprise Groups
• Eurostat initiative: “European Profiling”• Manual profiling
• Most complex GEG with at least one affiliate in a EU/EFTA country
|slide 61 – Profiling - definition and current context (3/5)
• European profiling – current situation:
• Methodology established by the ESSnet on Profiling (2009-2013). Some clarification from the ESSnet ESBRs (2014-2016)
• Under test since 2009 through individual grants contracted between NSIs and Eurostat, on a voluntary basis.
• Methodology:
• A “pure” method: a top-down approach analysing 3 units (GEG, GEN, TEN) and 3 main economic variables (activity, employment, turnover)
• A collaborative work process with associated responsibilities, roles and workload.
|slide 71 – Profiling - definition and current context (5/5)
ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1
Review of GEG
Prepare input for profiling
Start GDC profiling
Check/Fill info on GEG
Compare with a list of LEUs from the GEG
Check the
LEUs
Creation of the GENs
and fill info
Creation of the
TEN and fill info
Start
Complete GDC
profiling
Send to partnering
NSIs
Send data to partnering NSIs
Stop
Complete profiling Review data from
partnering NSI
Prepare counter proposal
GDC Profiler Work
Receive dataStart partnering
profiling exercise
Check LEUS and fill/add LEUsLEUs information
Check the relevancy of TEN to be used ENT
Fill TEN info
Complete partnering NSI
profiling
Send partnering NSI data to GDC NSI – propose
change request
Receive updated
data
Partnering NSI Profiler work
Final call from GDC
• Reminder – EU profiling, a collaborative work under GDC NSI responsibility
|slide 8OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION
1. Profiling - definition and current context
2. Short term view: making recommendation for a perennial system - a challenge
3. Medium-long term view: Business Architecture – work on-going
4. Conclusion
|slide 92 – Short term - Making recommendation – A challenge
• Uncertainty on European profiling:
• No full consensus between NSIs on the European profiling model (in particular on NSI GDC responsibilities and collaborative work process)
• No thorough evaluation of the testing done so far -> no shared views on the pros and cons of the current European profiling model
• Launch of a Centre of Excellence on European profiling:
• Call for proposal details the objectives and tasks to be pursued at central level
|slide 102 – Short term - Making recommendation – A challenge
Lessons learned in the context of ESSnet coaching activities
•Warning: this is not a thorough evaluation of the testing done
•Benefits:
• Set up a network of European profilers
• Help for national profiling
• Harmonisation of practices (based on discussion on concrete cases on which NSIs work together)
• Required if European statistics at GEN level are produced and if NSIs want to know the real size of the global enterprise to which their national enterprise belong
|slide 112 – Short term - Making recommendation – A challenge
Lessons learned in the context of ESSnet coaching activities
• Difficulties challenging the European profiling model:
• No ambition and no regulation to produce European statistics at GEN level
• Countries hosting the GDC that are not taking part in the individual grants (huge workload and not mandatory)
-> no-one to initiate the profiling process on the biggest GEG
• Methodology not finalised (difficulty in gathering data; non-EU GEG; follow-up; timing and reference year;…)
• Conclusion: need to adjust the current European model to make it sustainable before setting-up a perennial system
|slide 12OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION
1. Profiling - definition and current context
2. Short term view: making recommendation for a perennial system - a challenge
3. Medium-long term view: Business Architecture – work on-going
4. Conclusion
|slide 13
WP1 – ESBRs Business Architecture draft march 2016 , further steps needed:
•A shared view on the level of collaboration is missing in the context of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality
•A shared frame methodology is needed
•ESBRs should satisfy stakeholder needs i.e. statisticians needs
• Globalisations statistics
• Consistency across statistical surveys
• Consistency across NSI’s
•Based on the Principle of Interoperability
• NSI’s autonomous to design and operate their own solutions in their own national information systems
• Ability to produce and exchange ESBRs data effectively and efficiently
3 – Medium – Long term view – Business Architecture
|slide 143 – Medium – Long term view – Business Architecture
Aim concerning profiling of the ESBRs BA;
To provide a view on how profiling can be integrated keeping the interoperability principle unimpaired
• Distinction between EU profiling and National Profiling
• Options to share profiling processes and services
Challenge is the Gap between;
•To be state for medium term; an operational ESBRs for production of quality constant national and global frames serving as backbone for national as well as globalisation statistics.
•As is state for short term; current EU profiling methodology under testing, however missing a vision/concept on the use, role and definition of the global dimension of statistical objects.
Global statistical unit structure National statistical unit structure
|slide 153 – Medium – Long term view – Business Architecture
This struggle with bridging the Gap between long term view & design and short term actions & realisations is reflected in current concept BA
Issues {to be solved and or clarified}
•Open ends and room for interpretation leads to some confusion on “what is actually proposed?”
•Gap between ESS vision and the practical needs of users of the business registers, including statistical users (dealing with SBS2020…….).
•What does cooperation/collaboration mean (sharing information or…) and to what extent is the collaboration between NSI’s kept?
•Do we pursue & ensure consistency between national (ENT) and global (GEG ) structures and between countries on ENT for a given GEG?
•Role and responsibilities of GDC NSI; gathering data, maintaining GEG perimeter (if it has affiliates in countries that are authoritative source) in the light of subsidiarity……..
•Status of the operational segment(s); statistical object or attribute for GEG……
|slide 163 – Medium – Long term view – Business Architecture
Users (statistical and BR) needs ;
•Realistic goal setting and precise features for quality improvements for the business registers at European (EGR) and National level
•Future proof EGR 3.0, Global Value Chains, SBS2020, Business functions, Global accounts
•A less rigid European Profiling model with more flexibility to create meaningful national ENTs
•Related in a conceptual correct way to global statistical objects.
•Solid concepts on statistical objects
•No dependence nor interference from any other country in decisions on national ENTs subsidiarity
•No procedural difficulties interfering with national needs (timings on initiating, finalizing or updating a profile) collaboration and coordination
•Recognition of local expertise and knowledge on national units
|slide 173 – Medium – Long term view – Business Architecture
Suggestions for adjustment current EU Profiling model to narrow the Gap;
•Keep the current EU profiling methodology except for remarks below
•AND use the methodology to create better national enterprises
•Make a better definition of the “Global Enterprise” and it’s role and use in (global) statistics (including the continuity rules)
•Make Global Enterprise units that fit to well designed concepts and operational rules
•Relate ENTs to GENs by the country/NSI of the ENT
•Perform consistency and quality checks on GEN-ENT relation by the GDC country and give advice to ENT-countries.
•Use the TEN only as a technical unit with the function of a relationship entity;
• It can be derived from the GEN perimeter if NSI’s want to make use of it to delineate their national ENTs,
• Countries were the GEN has affiliates can use the GEN perimeter restricted to the national boundaries as a proxy for the ENT (if no ENT available)
•Workload should be in relation to profit and gain from the work done
|slide 18
Comparing outcome suggestions to the current model (national and EU)
•Units for EU profiling: GEG and “Global Enterprise”
•Nothing is “touched” on national profiling (ENT)
•GDC country not primarily responsible for delineating national ENTs
•Still the aim to improve quality of EU and national BR and business statistics
•Technical unit can be derived, helping partners to implement ENT & profiling
•Commitment of GDC country to identify GEN perimeter and help partners
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
•GDC country not primarily responsible for TEN perimeter
•GDC country not responsible for collecting and discussing data on TEN (NACE, employment, turnover)
•Decreased (relatively) workload for GDC country
•Strengthened role and more work for partners to match ENTs/LEUs to GEN
3 – Medium – Long term view – Business Architecture
|slide 193 – Medium – Long term view – Business Architecture
How to proceed in the future in order to close the Gap?
•Meaningful concepts in the context of a system of 'global accounts’ need to be defined•Clarity and transparency is needed on all the statistical objects and their roles in the ESBRs system. •Define the statistical objects with their characteristics to be included in the ESBRs frames; 1.Acknowledge that a meaningful concept of the ‘global Enterprise’ needs to be defined in the context of also a system of 'global accounts’, in the same manner as national enterprises are defined in the context of ‘national accounts’.
2.Consider the concept of “global Enterprise’ as a statistical unit and relationships between ‘national enterprises’ and ‘global enterprises’ as a topic that needs additional methodological definition.
3. Acknowledge that integration of national accounts into global accounts is a very complex process at which the integration process could be facilitated by a (well-defined) “relationship entity” between both (national and global) statistical units.
|slide 204 – Conclusion
• Profiling both EU and National is strongly supported
• Profiling based on the “current methodology” is still relevant and not outdated however method needs adaptation
• Work still on going to stabilize and define the best EU profiling approach
• What was presented is still under discussion between ESSnet partners and whatever is delivered by the ESSnet will have to be approved and discussed by NSIs (BRWG; BSDG..) and Eurostat
• Further work is needed to close the Gap; TF on defining global SU in relation to use in Global statistics
• Work under architecture
Profiling Points for information
Levente Szekely Eurostat
• call launched 18.02.2016 • deadline for proposals extended until 25.04.2016 • two main topics:
• support and guidance to NSIs on how to organize and perform their profiling activities and on using the Interactive Profiling Tool (IPT)
• bug reporting and development suggestions to Eurostat regarding the IPT
• timeframe: 01.05.2016-31.12.2018 • budget: 250.000 EUR
Centre of Excellence (CenEx)
• the prototype of an interactive tool for exchange, update and visualisation of profiling information
• it will allow • the profiling teams to smoothly exchange information during
the profiling process; • the centralization of information on the GENs and the TENs
for the groups being profiled • the release of information on profiling to the users
• in production since early March 2016 • being prepared for first use by individual grant beneficiaries • minor issues encountered • to sort out issues and to allow for ample time for the CenEx to
get acquainted with the IPT, Eurostat is extending the duration of each individual grant (intensive/desk profiling) by 3 months
Interactive Profiling Tool (IPT)
• after ESSnet delivery, Eurostat will internalize the methodology • further methodological development will be taken forward by a
dedicated task force (to be set up with the endorsement of the BSDG)
Profiling methodology
Thank you for your attention.
ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS
ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016)
EGR data quality management
ESSnet ESBRs WP3 Deliverable :
Quality indicators, validation procedure for the EGR
• Isabelle Collet (Insee-France)
2016 EuroGroup Register and Profiling workshop of the ESSnet of ESBRs, Paris - Bercy 11-12 April 2016
|slide 2Aims of the presentation
Present an overview of the ESSnet WP3 deliverable “Quality indicators, validation procedure for the EGR”– Short term
– Based on current knowledge of the timetable and EGR 2.0
– EGR 2014 production cycle still on-going
– Deliverable available on Cros-portal
Give examples on quality indicators
|slide 3Outline
EGR 2.0 process – Data production cycle
Framework for EGR quality indicators proposed by the ESSnet
Definitions and examples of quality indicators
Conclusion
|slide 4EGR 2.0 process – Data production cycle
Quality indicators can be seen :
– From a producer perspective – EGR 2014 cycle
To monitor data quality
– From the EGR team perspective – EGR 2.0 version
To monitor the system
Quality indicators aim at monitoring EGR 2.0 process and data production
|slide 5EGR 2014 Cycle - From a producer perspective
N° Task name Timing NSI participation
1 EGR acquires and processes commercial data February – April T+1
2 NSIs deliver national legal units to EGR IS May T+1 Yes
3 EGR processes data in the Identification service June T+1
4 NSIs deliver foreign legal units to EGR IS July – October T+1 Yes
5 Foreign legal units identified in the Identification service
July – October T+1 Yes
6 NSIs deliver datasets for EGR (LEU, REL, ENT, LEL) November T+1 Yes
7 EGR acquires commercial data November T+1
8 EGR processes NSI and CDP data December T+1January T+2
9 EGR sends preliminary frame via FATS interface January T+2
10 NSIs improve and validate data in EGR (including GEG data)
February - March T+2
Yes
11 EGR sends final frame via FATS interface March T+2Source : Eurostat EGR Wiki – 04/04/2016
|slide 6EGR 2.0 version – From the EGR team perspective
|slide 7Framework for EGR quality indicators proposed
Framework proposal for measuring quality indicators – Common framework gathering both perspectives
Three work phases– Identification of legal units
– Creation of groups in EGR
– Creation of the FATS Frame
Three categories of indicators for each phase– Input, process and output indicators
|slide 8Framework for EGR quality indicators proposed by the ESSnet
Phases Indicators Producer EGR team
Identification of legal units
Input Delivery of commercial data, resident and non-resident (foreign) legal units Tasks N°1, 2, 4, 7
EGR IS Process Identification process for commercial data, resident and non-resident (foreign) legal unitsTasks N°1, 3, 5, 8
Output
Creation of groups in EGR
Input Delivery of commercial data and NSIs datasets and repair phaseTasks N° 1, 6, 7, 10
EGR CORE Process Process of commercial and NSIs datasetsTasks N° 1, 8
Output
Creation of FATS frame
Input
EGR FATS Proccess Delivery of preliminary and final framesTask N° 9, 11Output
|slide 9Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Input indicators
Definition – Input indicator
To assess what is delivered to the system for
a given phase
– EDIT : Checks the file structure, format, suitable
character and code, etc.
– Additional work to describe the content of the
file from a statistical perspective
|slide 10Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Input indicators
Example – Input indicator for the phase Identification of legal units
Indicator : Number of errors found by EDIT per type in the non-resident legal unit's files sent for identification – Type of errors : missing value for mandatory
variables, wrong format, not allowed character, wrong code, invalid value, etc.
Calculation : Indicator can be calculated by NSIs and Eurostat
What for : assess cost and burden , (mis)understanding of guidelines
|slide 11Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Input indicators
Example – Input indicator for the phase Identification of legal units – EGR 2014 cycle
Indicator : 1 827 errors were found by EDIT in non-resident legal units files (20 countries) 0.3 % of the total accepted records
Source Eurostat data received by the 02/12/2015
|slide 12Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Process indicator
Definition – Process indicator
To monitor how data are processed
– Integration and transformation of data, derivation of new variables
To compare “data after” to “data before” processing
– Check the changes, to compare the delivered data to the processed data
|slide 13
Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Process indicator
Example – Process indicator for the phase Identification of legal units
Indicator : Percentage of non-resident legal units “identified” in total accepted records
Calculation : Indicator can be calculated by NSIs and Eurostat
What for : Evaluation of completeness and coverage of EGR IS database and efficiency of the search algorithm in EGR IS
|slide 14Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Process indicator
Source Eurostat data received by the 02/12/2015
Example – Process indicator for the phase Identification of legal unitsIndicator : Percentage of non-resident legal units “identified” in total accepted records per
country (EGR 2014 cycle – 24 countries)
NL
HU
MT
BG
DE
DK
IT
SI
HR
LU
LT
LV
EU Average
SE
CZ
CY
FR
PT
SK
AT
PL
FI
EE
ES
UK
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
|slide 15Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Output indicator
Definition – Output indicator
To validate the output produced
– Check the population coverage
– Compare the statistics with previous cycles
– Perform macro editing
|slide 16Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Output indicator
Example – Output indicator for the phase Identification of legal units
Indicator : Total number of legal units in EGR IS database (by zone, country, source, etc.)
Calculation : Indicator can be calculated by Eurostat
What for : Assess the coverage and completeness of database
|slide 17
11-12 April 2016
ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1
Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Output indicator
Example – Output indicator for the phase Identification legal units
Indicator: Total number of legal units by geographical zone Source: EGR Eurostat Wiki
|slide 18Conclusion
Proposed indicators need to be tested After testing and validation some quality
indicators could be part of EGR quality report
Quality indicators need to be used and evolve with the EGR
|slide 19Links
Cros-portal
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/esbrs-0_en
EGR Wiki
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EGR
Please address queries to:
Contact data:
ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS
ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016)
• Isabelle Collet
Thank you!AnyQuestions?
ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS
ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016)
Proposal of organisational model to improve the EGR quality
Andrew Allen – Office for National Statistics - UK
(Maryse Fesseau - INSEE - FR)
ESBR EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris 11/12 April 2016
|slide 2OVERVIEW
1. Recent move to EGR 2.0
2. Proposals to improve common quality issues
3. Roles and responsibilities to improve EGR
Aim of the presentation: present the content of the ESSnet ESBRs WP3 deliverable “Proposal for an organisational model to improve the EGR quality” (Work on-going, expected by end April 2016)
Outline:
|slide 3
Caveat:
WP3 deliverables still under finalisation (on-going discussion).
Most of the thinking was done on the hybrid EGR 2.0 version.
Now moved to EGR 2.0. Need to reflect on the impact of this on
the proposals – but too soon. First cycle will reveal additional
needs.
Recommendation:
– Review the proposals when results from EGR 2.0 have been
processed and the quality assessed (As soon as possible; will
come after the ESSnet delivery anyway).
1. Recent move to EGR 2.0
|slide 4OVERVIEW
1. Recent move to EGR 2.0
2. Proposals to improve common quality issues-> Focus on 3 proposals
3. Roles and responsibilities to improve EGR
Outline:
|slide 5
1. Authentic store and Quality and Timeliness of Member States
data:
Key issues still: Authentic Store and Quality and Timeliness.
• Note: being an authentic store implies that there are no other
possible sources permitted
Recommendations:
• Date stamping needed.
• Define criteria for the Authentic Store status; Not meeting those
criteria should remove Authentic Store rights (e.g. poor
timeliness, poor coverage…); Criteria must be defined and
agreed.
2. Proposals to improve common quality issues
|slide 6
2. Quality Control of Inputs into EGR:
Recommendations:
• Need a set of standard input checks.
• Develop EDIT further.
• Eurostat to produce end of year quality report to BRWG.
2. Proposals to improve common quality issues
|slide 7
3. Manual and Seminars:
Recommendations:
• EGR user manual.
• EGR annual seminar to consider all quality aspects and
identify improvements
2. Proposals to improve common quality issues
|slide 8OVERVIEW
1. Recent move to EGR 2.0
2. Proposals to improve common quality issues
3. Roles and responsibilities to improve EGR
Outline:
|slide 9
Roles and responsibilities of key actors is crucial:
Key actors:
– Eurostat EGR Team
– Business register staff / Profiling staff within NSIs
– Commercial data provider
– FATS/FDI users
Notes:
– Roles of the actors are defined further in the deliverable.
– These need to be agreed to improve EGR quality.
– The required resources need to be available
3. Roles and responsibilities
|slide 10CONCLUSIONS
Now that EGR 2.0 is in production main focus should be on improving the current system to get Quality output.
In this respect clarifying roles and responsibilities and having them agreed is needed. Producing quality reports also.
Nothing will be possible without the involvement from both the Eurostat EGR Team and Member States.
Should start from a clear and shared evaluation of the EGR 2.0 2014 production cycle. First cycle running will reveal needs; a review of the ESSnet proposals will be needed anyway.
ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS
ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016)
Integration of IPT into EGR 2.0
Maryse FESSEAU, ESSnet ESBRs WP3 Coordinator
ESSnet ESBRs EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris – April 11th-12th, 2016
|slide 2OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION
1. Introduction – what are we talking about ?
2. Work on-going
-> Proposals under consideration
3. Conclusion
|slide 31 – Introduction (1/5)
• What are we talking about ?
• Manual profiling under European initiative (collaborative process);
• Aim: developing the organisation and technical pre-requisites to allow the information to be taken into account in the EGR production cycle;
• Integration = Profiling information in the Interactive Profiling Tool (IPT) as input to the EGR production cycle (what information, which channel, which roles and responsibilities, when)
• Term: short-term; concrete first steps towards integration
|slide 41 – Introduction (2/5)
• Two deliverables expected from the ESSnet ESBRs WP3:
• Business Model for integration of IPT into EGR 2.0
-> Major questions identified and discussed with ESBRs Steering group Members and Eurostat (Dec. 2015)
• Business Specifications for integration of IPT into EGR 2.0
-> Detailed description towards concrete first steps
• Major issues in making proposals for integration:
• Complex nature of each process (business register and profiling)
• Difficulty in getting a common understanding of the current state as each process is continuously evolving
|slide 51 – Introduction (2/5)
• Major constraints in working on integration of IPT into EGR:
• Requirement from Eurostat call for proposal
• Existing systems, processes and calendars
-> Discussing limits of the current processes and calendars is out of scope
-> Specifications should be feasible with (relatively) limited changes to the system – the minimum level of changes allowing for integration in the short term
|slide 6OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION
1. Introduction – what are we talking about ?
2. Work on-going
-> Proposals under consideration
3. Conclusion
|slide 72 – Work on-going
• ESSnet ESBRs WP3 roadmap for drafting the deliverable:
How information from IPT can be (if relevant) taken into account in the EGR process
• SHORT TERM -> IPT and EGR seen as two processes/systems exchanging data
•Work in 2 steps:
• Clarifying the current status of the integration/exchange
• Moving towards more integration/exchange
|slide 82 – Work on-going
• As is state
EGR
European profiling(IPT)
Process owner (GDC Profiler)
Partnering country
Eurostat
Global Enterpris e Group (GEG)
Truncated Enterprise (TEN)
Legal Unit
Profiling process
EGR -
IPT - Profiling result
generates
retrieves IPT
data from
Request for changes
is part of
concerns
is linked with
Initiates, Creates Controls/completes
Consults and retreives data from
Profiler
Business Register Staff
Data sets
Global Enterprise Group (GEG)
Enterprise (ENT)
Legal Unit Relationship between
Legal units
Global Enterprise (GEN)
Cross border frames
Users
oversees
runs
Exchange information and data
ESSnet
supports
analyses
sends and validates
EGR
ESSnet
supports
concerns
|slide 92 – Work on-going
Now, to move towards more integration/exchange:
• One question: integration possibility with current calendars?
• Three use cases under analysis: one per unit
• Case 1 - on GEG : Send information on GEG and its legal unit structure to EGR;
• Case 2 - on GEN: Make information on GEN units available to EGR users;
• Case 3 - on TEN: Make it possible for NSIs as an option to send information on TEN to EGR so it can be processed as information for ENT in the EGR production cycle.
Warning – requirements from Eurostat ESSnet call for proposal
|slide 102 – Work on-going
Major question: Is there any possibility for integration in the short term given the current calendars ?
Complete GDC profiling
Possibilities for adding input data to the EGR RY 2015
Profiling requested and initialized
RY 2015
GDC Profiling running
Partnering profiling running
Profiling completed
GDC-partering Profiling running
Start GDC profiling
April 2016
May till mid-July2016
Mid-July till end September 2016
From end September 2016…
…till December 2016
EGR data processing of input
data received to produce EGR
preliminary frame
NSI send data on LEU, REL,
ENT, LEL By Nov 15th
RY 2015
PROFILING INPUT IPT (NSI_PR) EGR PROCESS EGR INPUT (NSI_BR)
EGR preliminary frame by January 25
|slide 112 – Work on-going
1 - GEG : Send information on GEG and its legal unit structure
•As soon as a profiling process is completed data sent to EGR
•Sent as input data to EGR (in addition to NSI BR input) with as source “GDC NSI profiler”.
•Data sent:
• Indirect relationships between legal units (GGH and subsidiaries)
• Information on GEG attributes (e.g. Name, NACE, turnover, employment)
•To be investigated: how to make sure data sent can be handled by EGR: e.g. send right information on date; legal unit identified; …
|slide 122 – Work on-going
1 - GEG : Send information on GEG and its legal unit structure
•IPT/Profilers will add information but will not overwrite data from NSI BR - Example
A
B
C D
EF
A
B
C D
E
A
B
C D
E
F
ACTUALGEG controlled
perimeter
EGR viewUsing BR data only
(F missing)
EGR integrated viewUsing of information from both BR and PR
A
B
C
DF
IPT viewUsing PR data only
(E not consolidated)
|slide 132 – Work on-going
2 - GEN : Make information on GEN available to EGR users
• As soon as a profiling process is completed data made available for consultation.
• Access is allowed through a web service from the FATS and/or IM interfaces.
• Data made available for EGR users:
• Legal unit perimeter
• Economic variable (?)
•Issue (for some ESSnet partners): no users clearly identified for the unit GEN
|slide 142 – Work on-going
3. TEN : Make it possible to send information on TEN to EGR
•As soon as a profiling process is completed data on TEN can be sent to the EGR if NSI want to use TEN as ENT.
•This is not mandatory. It will be allowed as an option under the responsibility of each NSI.
•The EGR system will receive and process the information as information on ENT.
•Data sent: mandatory information that are currently sent by NSI_BR as part of the EGR production cycle (ENT and LEL files)
•To be investigated: how to make sure data sent can be handled by EGR: e.g. send information on date; enough information provided by profiler to feed in the EGR mandatory variables;
|slide 152 – Work on-going
3 - TEN : Make it possible to send information on TEN to EGR
• Issues (For all ESSnet partners):
• Conflict with the current principle that the NSI_BR of a country is the authoritative source for the EGR concerning the ENT
• NSI will still be authoritative source but within a given NSI Profiler may overwrite what Business Register Staff sent.
• How flows to the BR are going to be done so that data in NSBR and EGR are synchronized ?
• Conflict with the principle of the « single flow model »
|slide 162 – Work on-going
• As is state
EGR
European profiling(IPT)
Process owner (GDC Profiler)
Partnering country
Eurostat
Global Enterpris e Group (GEG)
Truncated Enterprise (TEN)
Legal Unit
Profiling process
EGR -
IPT - Profiling result
generates
retrieves IPT
data from
Request for changes
is part of
concerns
is linked with
Initiates, Creates Controls/completes
Consults and retreives data from
Profiler
Business Register Staff
Data sets
Global Enterprise Group (GEG)
Enterprise (ENT)
Legal Unit Relationship between
Legal units
Global Enterprise (GEN)
Cross border frames
Users
oversees
runs
Exchange information and data
ESSnet
supports
analyses
sends and validates
EGR
ESSnet
supports
concerns
|slide 17OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION
1. Introduction – what are we talking about ?
2. Work on-going
-> Proposals under consideration
3. Conclusion
|slide 183 – Conclusion
•Complex work
•Work still on going
• Work under constraints:
• Short-term -> has to take into account the current state of the systems (IPT and EGR 2.0)
• Eurostat ESBRs call for proposal requirements
• Deliverables expected by end April 2016
• Future: careful if calendar and processes change it may open new possibilities for integration !
ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS
ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016)
EGR data quality management
Barry COENEN, Statistic Netherlands
ESSnet ESBRs EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris – April 11th-12th, 2015
|slide 21 – Introduction
• What are we talking about ?
Data Quality Management
1.Which quality? Which quality goal?
2.How can we measure?
3.Where are we?
4.How can we improve and reach our goal?Or go beyond our goal….
Data quality is when de data they are fit for their intended uses in operations, decision making and planning.
High quality if it correctly represents the real-world construct to which it refers
|slide 3Prelimenary conclusion
3
BR and FATS
Int profiling
NSA working together
EGR 2.0
Eurostat and NSA
|slide 4Total approach in doing thing right
4
IT
Organisation
PeopleProcesses
Core business
processes
Added value
Who does what
when– Culture– Skills and competences– Roles
– Business capabilities– External business
environment– Business model
– IT System– Concepts– Information flow
|slide 5
5
IT EGR CORE
EGR FATS
EGR IM
EGR IS
IPT
- Only build/improve what adds benefit to the needed output
|slide 6
Processes
EGR 2.0 process
Profiling process
– Make use of profiling in EGR
– Fit DQM process in national processes
– Broader participation
|slide 7
People
Work is in
progress,
people are
doing it
– Are the right people doing it– Part of their daily work?– Is it a structural part of their work?
|slide 8
Organisation
NSA have set up a
(prelimenary) internal
EGR organisation
NSA have set up a
(prelimenary) internal
EGR organisation
– Not NSA top priority– Short time for work– Not contiously
organised
|slide 9Where can we improve data quality in the process?
Analyse and improve
|slide 10
- Is all data as we need it
to process this in our IT
systems?
- Is data from each source
consistent?
- Is data between EGR IS,
EGR CORE, IPT
consistent?
- Do we receive the data
when we need it?
- Are we complete?
|slide 11
ESSnet performed two types of
analysis
– Quality of processing data
– Quality of output
Quality assessment
|slide 12Quality of input and throughput
• Is the input data of good quality?Not assessed yet.
• NSA data (LeU and res REL) is succesfully being processed. More than 95%. 100% is goal. network of authentic business registers
• Cross border information. More than 75%.
• Is this enough?• Is this good?
• How many corrections have been made?
• Why were these corrections made?
• Not delivered before?• Error in dataprocessing?
Need for:
Data processing monitor
|slide 13
- CBS analysed NL FATS output to EGR NL
“FATS” output in terms of employement
- Goal was to get a rough idea of the output
quality
- Performed together with NL FATS and NL
BR colleagues
Quality of output
|slide 14
- There was a gap
- Some NL data
remained all
resident in EGR
- NL EGR data
send once a
year
NL FATS
ongoing process
Recommendations:
-Perform analysis for
more countries
-Analyse and improve
EGR rules and
derivations
-Work more closely
together with FATS
statistician
Quality of output
|slide 15
For the discussion…
|slide 16
Data Quality Management
1.Which quality (for who)? Which quality goal?
Short term, long term
2.How can we measure? (input, throughput, output)
3.Where are we?
4.How can we improve and reach our goal?
Or go beyond our goal….
Coming back to EGR DQM
|slide 17
When have we done our work with high quality?
|slide 18
Start working and using output.
– E.g. Pilot with few countries which use EGR
output in statistical process
Define what is essential
– Short term, long term.
Focus on essential for users and output
Measure and analyse
Improve most import issues
(business value)
Food for thought
|slide 19
When are our users (FATS, FDI, … )happy?
Is EGR work inbedded in national processes?
Is BR working together with users?
How to organise to achieve the needed quality?
Food for thought