Workshop on Integration of Profiling to EGR and on Data Quality Management

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROSTAT ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS PHASE 1 ( ) MBGA N Deliverable No A8.2 Workshop on Integration of Profiling to EGR and on Data Quality Management Paris, April 2016 Task: WP3, block 3 Authors: Various, ESSnet ESBRs WP3 Date: April 2016

2 This deliverable consists of the following documents: ESSnet-ESBRs1_WP3_EGR+Profiling-WS_Paris_ _Agenda.pdf: Final agenda of the EGR & Profiling Workshop, held in Paris Bercy on April, 2016 ESSnet-ESBRs1_WP3_EGR+Profiling-WS_Paris_ _Minutes.pdf: Final minutes of the EGR & Profiling Workshop, held in Paris Bercy on April, 2016 ESSnet-ESBRs1_WP3_EGR+Profiling-WS_Paris_ _Presence-Sheets.pdf: Presence sheets signed by the participants of the EGR & Profiling Workshop, held in Paris Bercy, on 11 & 12 April, 2016, respectively (not included in the deliverable s version published on CROS) ESSnet-ESBRs1_EGR+Profiling-WS_Paris_ _Reader.pdf: Reader of the presentations given at the EGR & Profiling Workshop, held in Paris Bercy on April, 2016 The workshop documents were published on CROS in the course of April 2016 for public access:

3 ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS (ESBRS) WORK PACKAGE 3, PROCESS DEVELOPMENT AND DATA QUALITY PROGRAM Paris, the 22 nd of February 2016 N 130/DG75-E001/MF/NT 2016 EuroGroups Register and Profiling workshop of the ESSnet on ESBRs AGENDA Workshop 11 th -12 th April 2016 French Ministry of Finance 139 rue de Bercy Paris Room : BERCY C.A.S.C. Amphitheatre.

4 April 11 th Registration 1.30 pm pm I. Welcoming statement and presentation of the agenda 2.00 pm pm II. Session on profiling The ESSnet will present the content of the last deliverables produced. A focus will be given on deliverables produced since June 2015* on topics such as switching scenarios and organisational models of profiling; treatment of Domestic Enterprise Groups; development of a survey for light profiling. The ESSnet will present the content of deliverables under finalisation with a particular focus on the presentation of the conclusions of the ESSnet profiling coaching experience and the recommendations that can be drawn from this experience for a perennial system for profiling. Eurostat will present the Centre of Excellence on Profiling and the Interactive Profiling Tool, and the next steps related to them. After each topic there will be a time slot for questions-answers. Coffee Break II. Session on profiling (continued) Guided discussion on the future of profiling (confronting methodology, future system for profiling at central level, Member states needs and priorities) pm pm 4.00 pm pm 4.30 pm pm Social dinner at 7.30 pm: a place to meet for having dinner will be proposed. Dinner will be on own expenses. April 12 th III. Session on EGR data quality management The ESSnet will present the content of the last deliverables produced* and those under finalisation with a particular focus on measure and analysis of quality indicators, EGR organisational model, and integration of information from profiling into the EGR After each topic there will be a time slot for questions-answers. Coffee Break III. Session on EGR data quality management (continued) Guided discussion on EGR data quality management with a particular focus on what has been achieved, what should be the target in the short-medium term and how to meet the target. IV. Concluding statement Lunch 9.30 am am am am am pm 1.00 pm pm 1.30 pm pm * The unrestricted deliverables produced by the ESSnet and accepted by Eurostat can be accessed at the following address:

5 ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS (ESBRS) PHASE 1 WORK PACKAGE 3 PROCESS DEVELOPMENT AND DATA QUALITY PROGRAM Minutes of the ESSnet ESBRs WP3 Workshop on EGR and Profiling Paris, 11 th -12 th April 2016 ESSnet ESBRs Deliverable A8.2 This document details the minutes of the second ESSnet ESBRs workshop on the EGR and on Profiling held in Paris on the 11 th and 12 th of April The workshop followed four main items: i) Welcoming statement and presentation of the agenda; ii) iii) iv) Session on Profiling; Session on EGR Data Quality Management; and Concluding statements. Around 60 participants coming from 27 countries attended the meeting (see Annex - List of attendees). The presentations given at the workshop can be accessed and downloaded at the following link: Reservation - Please note that the minutes provided are as detailed as possible. However, they do not intend to be exhaustive on everything that was said, in particular regarding the discussion parts. A project funded by the European Union MBGA No.:

6 ESSNET ON ESBRS PHASE 1 ( ) MINUTES EGR & PROFILING WORKSHOP, APRIL Welcoming statement and presentation of the agenda 1.1. Welcoming statement The Director of the French Business Statistics Directorate, Christel COLIN (FR), welcomed all participants at the workshop. She reinforced the message that the main goal for the ESBRs, is for all countries involved to work collaboratively and share knowledge in order to create consistent Business Registers and processes. Ms Colin emphasized the important role that the EGR and manual European Profiling of multinational groups have played in creating a consistent network of NSIs and Statistical Business Registers which is aiming at improving European Statistics Presentation of the agenda Maryse Fesseau (FR, ESBRs WP3 coordinator) provided an introduction to the workshop. Maryse highlighted that it is the second and last workshop organised by the ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 on EGR and Profiling. Maryse presented the two ESSnet objectives for the workshop: 1. Inform Member States on ESSnet ESBR s WP3 deliverables; 2. Collect Member States views on EGR quality and profiling activities. Maryse informed everyone that the first phase of the ESSnet ESBRs will finish by 2016 and that the deliverables for Work Package 3 will all be finalised and provided to Eurostat by end of April Session on profiling 2.1. Documentation on profiling Agnès Topiol (FR) provided a presentation discussing the European profiling documentation which: 1) has been completed by WP3 ESSnet partners since the first ESSnet ESBRs workshop on EGR and Profiling (Paris, June 2015); and 2) are under finalisation by the ESSnet partners at present. Agnès focused the presentation on detailing three deliverables that could be useful to all EU-EFTA NSIs that are performing profiling activities under national initiative, namely: Methodological report to treat domestic enterprise groups; Vademecum on switching scenarios and organisational models of profiling; Report on the development of a survey for light profiling. May 2016 page 2

7 ESSNET ON ESBRS PHASE 1 ( ) MINUTES EGR & PROFILING WORKSHOP, APRIL 2016 Agnès advised the list of documents can be found on the CROS portal site and invited everyone to consult the documents. Discussion Question - clarification about limitations in the collection of data variables when carrying out a light profiling case. Answer: There were some examples of light profiling cases, where there were limitations in the data that could be collected. The reasons for the limitations are mainly due to the fact that with light profiling one has very little contact with the group therefore, only publicly available data can be used. One of the most common variables that was not able to be collected was consolidated turnover. It was also difficult to establish the full legal unit perimeter and it was difficult to allocate legal entities to GENS, especially when more than one GEN existed. A proposal has been put forward to change the guidelines to only profile companies as a light case when there is clearly only one GEN Report on profiling coaching activities Sarah Eaton (UK) provided a presentation on the coaching activities carried out by the ESSnet ESBRs WP3 partners in and the results derived from a coaching survey which was derived to obtain feedback from countries receiving coaching on profiling. Sarah explained it was very interesting to work closely with other countries learning their processes and answering their questions. The feedback on the coaching received was generally positive and the suggestions put forward for improvement will be taken on board. Sarah informed that the coaching reports and newsletters are available on the CROS portal and invited everyone to study the documents. Discussion Question - Is there a central place where all the questions and answers (Q&A) discussed between ESSnet coaches and NSIs could be accessed? Answer: There are reports and newsletters detailing the Q&A s but not all are in one central place as yet. The question asked highlights the need for a Q&A forum or Wiki as advised by the ESSnet in one of its deliverables provided to Eurostat. The main Q&A s received have been added to the newsletters. A vast amount of work has been put by the ESSnet ESBRs WP3 partners in updating the profiling guidelines by making use of the Q&A s. The revised guidelines will be soon available and hopefully will now answer the questions countries previously had. Question - What were the most frequent challenges that new countries faced? Answer: The most common challenges faced concerned the methodology, i.e. what is a GEN, May 2016 page 3

8 ESSNET ON ESBRS PHASE 1 ( ) MINUTES EGR & PROFILING WORKSHOP, APRIL 2016 TEN, ENT, how we processed these. Another issue was the collaboration with the groups and the number of steps involved and how to make contact with the global group heads. Also, the profiling templates and profiling reports were quite complicated to use and changing these during the process caused confusion. Question - What were the biggest benefits from carrying out the coaching activities? Answer: The benefits received were the knowledge shared and gained across European countries. The knowledge gained enabled some NSIs to make improvements to their business registers. Profilers learned from each other. It was useful to understand how businesses were operating and why they were structured in certain ways to feed into business statistics, i.e. how auxiliary activities are treated. A huge amount of knowledge was learnt and could be applied to profiling multinational companies Recommendations for a perennial system for profiling Maryse Fesseau (FR) and Irene Salemink (NL) provided a presentation on the recommendations for a perennial system on profiling in two parts: part 1 was based on WP3 input presenting a short term view; part 2 was based on WP1 input on ESBRs business architecture presenting a medium to long-term view. Maryse underlined the importance of understanding the difference between the short term and medium to long-term views as they might differ, the medium to long-term views taking into account the lessons learned from experiences and tests on-going. Maryse informed the deadline for WP1 and WP3 deliverables was end of April 2016 and thus the proposals presented were still under discussion within the ESSnet and as such are not endorsed, neither by Eurostat nor by NSIs. Maryse provided an overview of the current situation regarding the distinction between National and European Profiling. A flow chart was also provided demonstrating the roles and responsibilities of NSIs in the current context for manual European profiling. Maryse explained why it is a challenge for the ESSnet to make proposals for a perennial system on Manual European Profiling given the current context. The main reason is an uncertainty on European profiling due to no full consensus between NSI s on the current EU profiling model. A thorough evaluation of the testing completed so far is still required as there are no shared views on the pros and cons of the EU profiling model. To summarise, Maryse presented the benefits of the current Manual European Profiling model under test and the difficulties that are challenging it, based on the lessons learned in the context of ESSnet coaching activities. The overall conclusion is a need to adjust the current European model to make it sustainable before setting up a perennial system. Irene (NL) provided a detailed proposal for a medium to long-term view on a model of profiling which could be developed in the overall ESBRs Business Architecture model. Irene highlighted the need for a shared and agreed methodology. Irene compared the medium to long-term model proposed with the current model for European Profiling. Irène stressed May 2016 page 4

9 ESSNET ON ESBRS PHASE 1 ( ) MINUTES EGR & PROFILING WORKSHOP, APRIL 2016 that there is still work on-going to stabilise and define the European Profiling approach and that what was presented is still under discussion between ESSnet partners Eurostat information points on profiling Levente Szekely (Eurostat) provided a presentation on profiling which included updates on the envisaged Centre of Excellence, the IPT tool and the methodology of profiling (including the set-up of a Task Force dedicated on methodological development on Profiling). Levente confirmed that the deadline for proposals for the Centre of Excellence was extended to 25 th April Eurostat had also extended by 3 months the period for those working on individual grants for testing Manual European Profiling. The IPT tool would shortly be available for everyone to test, especially for those who have applied for the grant. There are some issues with the IPT tool which are currently being looked into. Levente explained the IPT tool should resolve issues regarding the completion of the profiling template by partnering countries. A one stop shop will also be set up to provide help and guidance with the IPT tool. Levente also informed that Eurostat had received from all NSIs the groups they would like to profile. Eurostat are in the middle of entering data on those groups to initialise the IPT. Discussion Question - Will the scope of the Centre of Excellence only cover the Manual European Profiling activities? Answer: The Centre of Excellence will not support NSIs conducting profiling activities under national initiatives. Question - Should the Task Force organised by Eurostat be part of the Centre of Excellence? Answer: It has not been decided yet how the taskforce will be endorsed/set-up. Question - How should NSIs send profiling results back to Eurostat as working on IPT may lead to experiencing bugs? Answer: Eurostat are aware of technical issues/bugs and this is why they have also extended the deadline to give chance for the Centre of Excellence to help improve the tool. Question - Are there any guidelines for the IPT tool? Answer: Yes, there are guidelines in place. Question - How does the IPT tool work? Answer: The IPT will receive data from the EGR and profilers will add data into it. The functionality of IPT is not in the agenda to discuss in the workshop. There will be May 2016 page 5

10 ESSNET ON ESBRS PHASE 1 ( ) MINUTES EGR & PROFILING WORKSHOP, APRIL 2016 training for staff on how to use the IPT tool Open discussion on European Profiling Maryse Fesseau (FR) explained the information provided in the presentation Recommendations for a perennial system for profiling was new to everyone but important in order to collect feedback on the proposals. Maryse advised attendees to take the opportunity of the open discussion session to comment and react on the proposal. Irène Salemink (NL) presented again the slide of the presentation given ( 2.3) comparing the medium to long-term proposal for Manual European Profiling with the current European Profiling model in order to launch the discussion. Question Could the link between the definition of enterprise (ENT) and GEN clarified? Answer: Enterprise is the statistical unit in business registers on which data is reported. Delineation is from the GEG, using a top down approach and then looking at all the activities carried out by the company. In the current Manual European Profiling methodology the GDC NSI looks at the delineation of TEN s in each country. This is not needed and relevant. Indeed GDC countries have experienced problems when checking the perimeter for legal entities linked to partnering countries causing time restraints and burden. So they propose for partnering countries to take responsibility for their national units. In the medium to long-term view the responsibility of the GDC country would be to execute and perform the quality checks and will have overall view of the group but it will not be their responsibility anymore to work on national enterprise. The partnering countries should be able to derive the TEN from the proposed GEN and then decide whether it is the relevant unit as statistical unit in the Business Register. The medium to long-term view is under consideration in the Business Architecture and as such is looking into a high level proposal. ESSnet partners will discuss link between GEN and ENT in more details as part of the work on interoperability (ESSnet ESBRs WP2). Additional comment from attendees - There is still a need to set up more structured quality checks. Each legal unit needs to be linked to its enterprise, more than one GEN needs to be investigated in more detail. There is a need to ensure consistency to be provided by each country in the output. If this is achieved at national level, it will also be achieved at global level. Remark - There are issues with terminology, the most important being the confusion between GDC and UCI, which need to be consistent so everyone understands the correct terms to use for reference. May 2016 page 6

11 ESSNET ON ESBRS PHASE 1 ( ) MINUTES EGR & PROFILING WORKSHOP, APRIL 2016 Answer: There is documentation outlining the correct wording and terminology but there are issues with this which need to be looked at. For example, sources such as FATS use different/similar terminology. Statistical users need to be in the focus more and the business register working group cannot resolve these issues by themselves. Eurostat also need to look at this and the fact that there are inconsistencies created due to legislation which reinforces the need to have a shared frame of methodology. Question - Will the GDC NSI be responsible for defining the legal unit perimeter of the GEN? Answer: The GDC NSI has information for the whole legal perimeter of the GEG and can send information on the GEN legal unit perimeter. The proposal would be for the partnering countries to check their legal units and provide the information to the GDC NSI. In the medium to long-term proposal NSIs can be responsible for checking the legal perimeter but there is no more the burden on the GDC NSI to work on TENs. This will give NSI s partners more choice of deciding what to do with the national enterprises. Another issue is challenging the current European Profiling model and will still challenge the medium to long-term proposal. It is when the GDC NSI is not taking part in European Profiling activities. Indeed, the GDC country initiates the profiles in both approaches (current and medium to long-term). If the GDC NSI is not taking part in the European Profiling activities it will not work. Additional comments from attendees: The GDC NSI should be responsible for setting the GEN but not for checking the legal perimeter of the national part of the GEG. Partnering countries are best to check their legal entities and work closely together with the GDC NSI. It is important the GDC countries and partnering countries work together to check legal unit activity. Question - What will be the time scales involved in terms of the changes proposed by Irene in her presentation? Answer: The proposals presented are initial thoughts about the organisational model and architecture going forward and no NSIs will be forced to change. Profiling is a continuous process and going forward, the process will need good triggers in terms of maintaining and profiling cases. First step will be the finalisation of the Business Architecture and its endorsement by the BSDG. Special addition - After the workshop it was offered the possibility to NSIs to further comment on the presentations given at the workshop. In this context one country explained that they would be in favour of the idea that the GDC NSI is responsible for delineating the GENs and that the partnering countries have the main May 2016 page 7

12 ESSNET ON ESBRS PHASE 1 ( ) MINUTES EGR & PROFILING WORKSHOP, APRIL 2016 responsibility in delineating national ENTs and collecting data for the ENTs. However, it should be stressed that for reasons of consistency the aim still is that the partners relate their ENTs to the GENs if possible (and don t create completely different ENTs). 3. Session on EGR data quality management Maryse Fesseau (FR) opened the session on EGR Data Quality Management highlighting the main aim is to discuss the quality of the EGR and how the data is managed. Maryse highlighted that the launch of the EGR 2.0 version was a big achievement but that more work needed to be carried out to assess the quality of the EGR and ensure there are reliable datasets EGR quality indicators Isabelle Collet (FR) provided a presentation on proposals made by the ESSnet ESBRs WP3 partners for the current EGR quality indicators. Isabelle explained the overview was based on a short-term view and the current knowledge of the timetable and EGR 2.0. It was advised the deliverable is available on the CROS portal and the EGR 2014 production cycle is still ongoing. The conclusion demonstrated to everyone that the proposed indicators need to be tested and after testing and validation some quality indicators could be part of the EGR quality report. Maryse (FR, ESBRs WP3 Coordinator) referred back to the example given regarding the number of errors found in the data and the table showing different countries, highlighting there is no production routine as yet, it has been difficult to find out where information was. The ESSnet deliverable proposes a list of some 60 indicators but these need to be tested and analysed and then agreed. Discussion Question - Referring to the slide showing the percentage of Non Resident Legal entities identified, were there underlying factors as to why there are such large differences between NSIs? Answer: The table was produced at some point in time and there were files that may have not been processed at that time and therefore this table needs to be treated with caution. On average, 60% of non-resident legal units are identified in EGR. This needs to improve. This is only one indicator of over 60 quality indicators identified and this is only an input indicator. More work will be carried out on through put and output indicators. There will be new grants by end of the year as part of which indicators will be measured by NSIs. Data quality from input to output will be assessed by September and Eurostat will produce a data quality report on the EGR 2014 cycle. May 2016 page 8

13 ESSNET ON ESBRS PHASE 1 ( ) MINUTES EGR & PROFILING WORKSHOP, APRIL 2016 Question - Have the relevance and the purpose of the indicators been checked and measured to ensure they are producing quality for output users? Answer: The aim of the ESSnet was first to start with producing a list of indicators and then, based on the evaluation of those indicators on the EGR 2014 cycle, to discuss their relevance and usefulness and to work towards proposing a quality report. The content of the deliverable presented in the workshop is looking into the first step only (producing a broad list of indicators to be tested on the EGR 2014 cycle). Another ESSnet WP3 deliverable was aiming at the second step (checking the relevance and usefulness of the indicators). Eurostat does not consider the second deliverable as necessary anymore. As a consequence it was deleted from the list of documents to be produced by the ESSnet. Quality is hard to quantify but should consider all items listed in the European Quality Framework. The ESSnet had started to make reflection. Eurostat is also reflecting on it. Testing is now needed and can assess if the indicators are heading in the right direction. The aim is to satisfy users so it is crucial to be careful and use correct criteria. Eurostat plans to reflect on the indicators and on the quality dimensions of the Business register with a broad view covering not only the EGR but also National Statistical Business Registers, reason why the second deliverable from the ESSnet referred was not considered necessary anymore. There will be a Task Force meeting to discuss Business Register quality (including the EGR) on the 22 nd of April Organisational model to improve the EGR quality Maryse Fesseau (FR), on behalf of Andrew Allen (UK), presented the deliverable which had been focusing on the organisational model to improve the EGR quality. Maryse highlighted this deliverable is still evolving although the deadline is at the end of April Maryse presented the elements involved to improve the EGR quality which could include measuring input and output quality indicators, defining criteria for the authentic store status, drafting an EGR manual, organising an annual EGR seminar, identifying the roles and responsibilities for the EGR. Maryse explained there are difficulties with this deliverable due to EGR moving from version 1.0 to 2.0. The impact of the 2.0 version will still require reviewing after the EGR 2014 cycle is completed. An overall review of the proposals made in the deliverable will then be needed once a thorough evaluation of the EGR 2014 production cycle is available. Discussion Question - Why is a time stamp needed in relation with the status of authentic store? Answer: Information on time stamp is needed if quality criteria are defined in order to get the entitlement to be authentic store. Information on time stamp would help checking May 2016 page 9

14 ESSNET ON ESBRS PHASE 1 ( ) MINUTES EGR & PROFILING WORKSHOP, APRIL 2016 if NSIs are struggling to provide data in time. Additional remarks and information - o Roles and responsibilities: roles and responsibilities are currently being looked at and important to define. These will be published on the EGR Wiki. o Facilities: The facilities available to everyone such as EGR Wiki and Webinars are essential for clear communication and part of the quality programme and reporting. There will be an EGR Webinar in May. There will be EGR training scheduled on 6 th and 7 th September in Luxembourg. o Documentation: Eurostat is not planning to set up new documentation in the shortterm such as an EGR manual. o Evaluation: Support for the evaluation of the EGR with a need to focus on the users of the EGR and the coverage of statistics Integration of information from European profiling into EGR Maryse Fesseau (FR) provided a presentation on the integration of IPT into EGR. Maryse informed the deadline for the deliverables on integration is end of April but work is still ongoing. Maryse explained the content of the two deliverables on integration and the major issues faced which resulted in the work ongoing. The main issues were the complex nature of each process and the difficulty in getting understanding of how each process works. Other major constraints included existing systems, processes and calendars. Maryse stressed the deliverables are working with short-term view and as a consequence are looking at the EGR and Profiling as two separate systems and processes with the need to exchange data between both Open discussion on EGR Data Quality Management Barry Coenen (NL) provided a presentation on how the quality of the EGR is currently managed. Barry notified there is a huge need to assess the quality but first of all goals need to be set, agreement made on how quality is measured to reach these goals and quality needs to be measured against customer requirements. Barry presented a list of questions to be considered by attendees, to launch the discussion. Discussion Question - Was the presentation really based on short term as the slides suggested long term view and is the ESSnet consistent with views and what users really need? Answer: The short term view is a constraint for WP3 deliverables. However, ESSnet partners decided that one session of the workshop should offer the possibility to everyone to May 2016 page 10

15 ESSNET ON ESBRS PHASE 1 ( ) MINUTES EGR & PROFILING WORKSHOP, APRIL 2016 think medium to long-term, having broader views. Also, user needs were captured five years ago and there is a need for checking that these are still relevant. The Centre of Excellence needs to consider EGR work going forward. Question - Targeted to UK FDI users attending the workshop, question about their use of the EGR and what is important for them to use. Answer: Some data on the EGR is out of date and not timely enough for them to use. The FDI team also requires a good coverage including information on changes that occur, births and deaths, and the availability of data such as minority holdings, 50% ownership, turnover. Timeliness and capturing the minority holdings would be priority. Additional remarks and information o Business register requirement to provide data to EGR. As a consequence, the priority from a NSI point of view is to get support on how to improve the National Statistical Business Register to feed the EGR. The priority is not working on global units for which there is no user identified. 4. Concluding Statements 4.1. Wrap-up and conclusions on the workshop from the ESSnet ESBRs WP3 coordinator Maryse Fesseau (FR) concluded the workshop confirming progress is being made with some deliverables still being investigated. Maryse reinforced work that is still on-going is good because knowledge is shared and feedback is obtained which benefits everyone. There is a need to understand and raise questions on these topics to learn and be innovative. Maryse encouraged everyone to continue questioning and reviewing everything and take into account user perspectives. Maryse reflected on the objectives of the workshop and confirmed WP3 will shortly come to an end but the whole ESBRs project is not completed. There are still documents to be created, working groups and Task Forces to be involved with. Maryse thanked everyone for their participation and delivery of presentations throughout the whole work package. It has been a pleasure to work with everyone and has built good working relationships Concluding statement from the ESSnet ESBRs overall coordinator Norbert Rainer (AT) concluded the workshop confirming this to be the last workshop of the ESSnet after two years of working on WP3. Norbert thanked everyone for their participation and the presenters. The deliverables are due end of April 2016 and these will be looked at and agreements made. WP1 (Business Architecture, Statistical Services) will also finish end May 2016 page 11

16 ESSNET ON ESBRS PHASE 1 ( ) MINUTES EGR & PROFILING WORKSHOP, APRIL 2016 of April 2016 and WP2 (Interoperability Framework) will finish in October Norbert explained it has been innovative developing processes and executing volumes of work, some complex and completed under difficult circumstances. Norbert thanked Maryse Fesseau for co-ordinating work package 3. Norbert also thanked all partners working for WP3. There have been huge achievements made and the ESSnet is not finished yet. Everyone is encouraged to still provide feedback and to continue working closely together. May 2016 page 12

17 ESSNET ON ESBRS PHASE 1 ( ) MINUTES EGR & PROFILING WORKSHOP, APRIL 2016 Annex - ESSnet ESBRs WP3 Workshop (Paris, April 2016) - List of attendees AASMAE ACKERMANN ALVISET BARBADO BAUERNFEIND BRAZDOVA COENEN COLIN COLLET DEPIRE EATON FERIK FESSEAU FRECHOU GARBACZ GKOLEMI GREBENC GREGORIOU GRINSPONE GUY HAAG HAMROUSH HECIMOVIC HECQUET HELJALA ISKRENOVA JUHASZ KARUS KELLEHER KONGSTED KRISTENSEN LATA LIEPINA LIOTTI MIGLIARDO MONTULL MRAVCOVA PAPANDREOU PATERAKI RAINER RAMOS RANTALA REDECKER RULLIER SALEMINK SCHUHL SJODIN SOBEY STURM SWIETOCHOWSKA SZEKELY TODOSI TOPIOL UGLESIC VIVIANO VOLFINGER ZALETEL Katrin David Christophe Esteban Ulrike Magda Barry Christel Isabelle Alexandre Sarah Andrej Maryse Hélène Agnieszka Georgia Meta Thomas Aiva Jessica Olivier Sami Almira Vincent Hannah Iliana Miklos Epp Patrick Michael Søren Maksim Laine Amerigo Serena Maria Angeles Marta Konstantinos Anastasia Norbert Isabel Merja Matthias Barbara Irene Pierrette Bernt Barry Roland Julita Levente Ligia Agnès Zrinka Caterina Zsolt Mojca May 2016 page 13

18

19

20

21

22 ESSnet on a European System of Interoperable Statistical Business Registers ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 ( ) 2016 Euro Groups Register and Profiling ESSnet ESBRs workshop Paris, th April 2016

23 ESSnet ESBRs 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 ( ) 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 Phase 1 09/04/2016

24 Work Package 3 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 ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 09/04/2016

25 Workshop 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

26 Agenda of the 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

27 Organisational information point 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

28 slide 7 Thank you for your attention. Now it's time to start!

29 ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 ( ) Profiling session ESSnet ESBRs WP3 deliverables on profiling Focus on documentation Agnès Topiol INSEE 2016 ESSnet ESBRs WP3 EGR and Profiling Workshop - Paris Bercy

30 ESSnet ESBRs WP3 activities on profiling : reminder slide ESSnet ESBRS WP3 activities ( ) 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 *14 NSIs have carried out manual european profiling tests in 2014/2015 ESSnet ESBRs Phase

31 ESSnet ESBRs WP3 activities on profiling : reminder slide ESSnet ESBRS WP3 activities ( ) 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 Phase

32 ESSnet ESBRs WP3 activities on profiling : reminder Documents released circuit : slide 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 : CROS-PORTAL with restricted access : So far, only documents which have been accepted by Eurostat are available Documents are also released on CIRCABC

33 OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION slide Drafting and updating documents 1.Deliverables completed between June and Dec ''Operational'' deliverables 1.2 ''Prospective'' deliverables Zoom on 3 deliverables which can be used for both manual european and national profiling. 2. Deliverables to be completed by end of April 2016

34 1- Deliverables completed between June-Dec 2015 slide 1.1- ''Operational'' deliverables ''Operational'' : «concretely support the testing of profiling of large and complex Global Enterprise Groups on-going in 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 output 3 follow-up meetings for testing countries output. - Coaching visits reports Detailed reports on the coaching visits organised. Notes : Useful mainly for NSIs testing manual european profiling as part of individual grant

35 1- Deliverables completed between June-Dec 2015 slide 1.2- ''Prospective'' deliverables ''Prospective'' : «to support future profiling activities». - Methodological Report to Treat Domestic Enterprise Groups - Vademecum of Switching Scenarios and Organisational Model - Report on the Development of a Survey of Light Profiling - 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.

36 1- Deliverables completed between June-Dec 2015 slide 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.

37 1- Deliverables completed between June-Dec 2015 slide 1.2- Prospective deliverables (2/3) Vademecum of Switching Scenarios and Organisational Model TOPIC This 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.

38 1- Deliverables completed between June-Dec 2015 slide 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.

39 2- Deliverables to be completed by end April 2016 slide 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

40 ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 ( ) Thank you for attention!!!! All questions and comments are welcomed Please address your queries to : Agnès TOPIOL Agnes.topiol@insee.fr

41 ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 ( ) Coaching Activities STATISTIK AUSTRIA BUNDESANSTALT STATISTIK ÖSTERREICH Sarah Eaton Office for National Statistics ESBR EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris 11/12 April 2016 ABTEILUNG REGISTER, KLASSIFIKATIONEN UND GEOINFORMATION Datei: Sachbearbeiter: Erich Greul Version 00; gespeichert :00

42 OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION slide 2 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

43 Coaching Activities Training Seminars slide 3 September 2014 Presentation of the European profiling methodology, focus on the desk work and information about individual grant February 2015 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. October 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.

44 Coaching Visits - Helpdesk slide 4 Every NSI testing profiling as part of the individual grant could approach his/her coach with any upcoming problem via 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. s were shared by coaches in order to ensure consistency between the answers provided.

45 Coaching Activities - Visits slide 5 Sofia, Bulgaria May 2015 Vienna and Prague May 2015 Newport, UK June 2015 Heerlen, NL September 2015

46 Coaching Reports Available slide 6 Detailed Coaching Reports are available on CROS Portal: snet-esbrs-1-del-a242-profiling-coachingreports-2_en

47 Coaching Activities - Documentation 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 ESSnet ESBR Profiling Newsletter No.2 April 2015 Newsletters available on Cros Portal:-

48 Coaching Survey slide 8 A survey to assess coaching activities and pick up new ideas to improve the support to NSIs was launched in January 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.

49 Results of Survey Training Workshops slide I found the training seminars well organised 2. I found the training seminars helpful for treating my profiling cases 3. I found the training seminar helpful to set up an international network that can ease profiling coordination 4. I found the duration of the training seminars appropriate 5. I would have liked more training seminars 2 0 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Training Seminars

50 General Comments for Training Workshops 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.

51 Results of Survey Documentation slide I received all the information I needed in the documentation to complete my deliverable 2. The documentation was delivered on time 3. I found the documentation proved helpful 4 2 Documentation 0 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

52 General Comments on 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.

53 Results of Survey Coaching Visits slide I found face to face meetings helpful 2. I wold have prefered more face to face meetings 3. The face to face meetings took place at the appropriate stage of the process 2 1 Coaching Visits 0 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

54 General Comments on 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.

55 Results of Survey Helpdesk slide I found the helpdesk facility helpful 3 2. The responses I received via the helpdesk facility were timely 3. The helpdesk facility was easy to use Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Helpdesk

56 General Comments on 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 support from coaches if possible

57 Results of Survey General Feedback slide I found the coaching experience helpful The support I was given met my needs 3. I was provided with clear instructons on what I needed to achieve 4. Generally when I raised a question I received satisfactory answers 2 0 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree General Feedback

58 General Feedback Comments 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.

59 What Went Well slide 19 The coaching survey highlighted areas of success which include: Direct working relationship between coach and profiling NSI including coaching visits. Helpdesk (via / 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.

60 What Improvements are needed for future activities 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.

61 Coaches Feedback Very Interesting and Challenging. slide 21 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.

62 ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 ( ) A perennial system on profiling ESSnet ESBRs EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris April 11th-12th, 2016 Maryse FESSEAU, ESSnet ESBRs WP3 Coordinator (INSEE FR) Irène SALEMINK, ESSnet partner, Director of Business Register (CBS NL)

63 AIMS OF THE PRESENTATION slide 2 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.

64 OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION slide 3 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

65 1 Profiling - definition and current context (1/5) slide 4 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)

66 1 Profiling - definition and current context (2/5) slide 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

67 1 Profiling - definition and current context (3/5) slide 6 European profiling current situation: Methodology established by the ESSnet on Profiling ( ). Some clarification from the ESSnet ESBRs ( ) 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.

68 1 Profiling - definition and current context (5/5) slide 7 Reminder EU profiling, a collaborative work under GDC NSI responsibility GDC Profiler Work Review of GEG Prepare input for profiling Start GDC profiling Partnering NSI Profiler work Receive data Start partnering profiling exercise Start 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 Check LEUS and fill/add LEUsLEUs information Check the relevancy of TEN to be used ENT Fill TEN info Stop Complete GDC profiling Send data to partnering NSIs Prepare counter proposal Send to partnering NSIs Receive updated data Send partnering NSI data to GDC NSI propose change request Complete partnering NSI profiling Complete profiling Final call from GDC Review data from partnering NSI ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1

69 OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION slide 8 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

70 2 Short term - Making recommendation A challenge slide 9 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

71 2 Short term - Making recommendation A challenge slide 10 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

72 2 Short term - Making recommendation A challenge slide 11 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

73 OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION slide 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

74 3 Medium Long term view Business Architecture 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

75 3 Medium Long term view Business Architecture slide 14 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

76 3 Medium Long term view Business Architecture slide 15 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

77 3 Medium Long term view Business Architecture slide 16 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

78 3 Medium Long term view Business Architecture slide 17 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

79 3 Medium Long term view Business Architecture 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

80 3 Medium Long term view Business Architecture slide 19 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 (welldefined) relationship entity between both (national and global) statistical units.

81 4 Conclusion slide 20 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

82 Profiling Points for information Levente Szekely Eurostat

83 Centre of Excellence (CenEx) call launched deadline for proposals extended until 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: budget: EUR

84 Interactive Profiling Tool (IPT) 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

85 Profiling methodology 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)

86 Thank you for your attention.

87 ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 ( ) ESSnet ESBRs WP3 Deliverable : EGR data quality management Quality indicators, validation procedure for the EGR 2016 EuroGroup Register and Profiling workshop of the ESSnet of ESBRs, Paris - Bercy April 2016 Isabelle Collet (Insee-France)

88 Aims of the presentation slide 2 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

89 Outline slide 3 EGR 2.0 process Data production cycle Framework for EGR quality indicators proposed by the ESSnet Definitions and examples of quality indicators Conclusion

90 EGR 2.0 process Data production cycle slide 4 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

91 EGR 2014 Cycle - From a producer perspective slide 5 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+1 January 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+2 Source : Eurostat EGR Wiki 04/04/2016

92 EGR 2.0 version From the EGR team perspective slide 6

93 Framework for EGR quality indicators proposed slide 7 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

94 Framework for EGR quality indicators proposed by the ESSnet slide 8 Phases Indicators Producer EGR team Input Delivery of commercial data, resident and non-resident (foreign) legal units Tasks N 1, 2, 4, 7 Identification of legal units Process Identification process for commercial data, resident and non-resident (foreign) legal units Tasks N 1, 3, 5, 8 EGR IS Output Input Delivery of commercial data and NSIs datasets and repair phase Tasks N 1, 6, 7, 10 Creation of groups in EGR Process Process of commercial and NSIs datasets Tasks N 1, 8 EGR CORE Output Input Creation of FATS frame Proccess Output Delivery of preliminary and final frames Task N 9, 11 EGR FATS

95 Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Input indicators slide 9 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

96 Definitions 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 10

97 Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Input indicators Example Input indicator for the phase Identification of legal units EGR 2014 cycle Indicator : errors were found by EDIT in non-resident legal units files (20 countries) 0.3 % of the total accepted records slide 11 Source Eurostat data received by the 02/12/2015

98 Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Process indicator Definition Process indicator slide 12 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

99 Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Process indicator slide 13 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

100 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 per country (EGR 2014 cycle 24 countries) slide 14 UK ES EE FI PL AT SK PT FR CY CZ SE EU Average LV LT LU HR SI IT DK DE BG MT HU NL Source Eurostat data received by the 02/12/2015

101 Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Output indicator slide 15 Definition Output indicator To validate the output produced Check the population coverage Compare the statistics with previous cycles Perform macro editing

102 Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Output indicator slide 16 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

103 Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Output indicator Example Output indicator for the phase Identification legal units slide 17 Indicator: Total number of legal units by geographical zone Source: EGR Eurostat Wiki ESSnet ESBRs Phase April

104 Conclusion slide 18 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

105 Links slide 19 Cros-portal EGR Wiki

106 ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 ( ) Thank you! Please address queries to: Isabelle Collet Contact data: Isabelle.collet@insee.fr Any Questions?

107 ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 ( ) Proposal of organisational model to improve the EGR quality ESBR EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris 11/12 April 2016 Andrew Allen Office for National Statistics - UK (Maryse Fesseau - INSEE - FR)

108 OVERVIEW slide 2 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: 1. Recent move to EGR Proposals to improve common quality issues 3. Roles and responsibilities to improve EGR

109 1. Recent move to EGR 2.0 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).

110 OVERVIEW slide 4 Outline: 1. Recent move to EGR Proposals to improve common quality issues -> Focus on 3 proposals 3. Roles and responsibilities to improve EGR

111 2. Proposals to improve common quality issues 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.

112 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.

113 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

114 OVERVIEW slide 8 Outline: 1. Recent move to EGR Proposals to improve common quality issues 3. Roles and responsibilities to improve EGR

115 3. Roles and responsibilities 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

116 CONCLUSIONS slide 10 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 production cycle. First cycle running will reveal needs; a review of the ESSnet proposals will be needed anyway.

117 ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 ( ) Integration of IPT into EGR 2.0 ESSnet ESBRs EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris April 11th-12th, 2016 Maryse FESSEAU, ESSnet ESBRs WP3 Coordinator

118 OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION slide 2 1. Introduction what are we talking about? 2. Work on-going -> Proposals under consideration 3. Conclusion

119 1 Introduction (1/5) slide 3 What are we talking about? Manual profiling under European initiative (collaborative process); Aim: developing the organisation and technical prerequisites 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

120 1 Introduction (2/5) slide 4 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

121 1 Introduction (2/5) slide 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

122 OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION slide 6 1. Introduction what are we talking about? 2. Work on-going -> Proposals under consideration 3. Conclusion

123 2 Work on-going slide 7 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

124 2 Work on-going slide 8 As is state EGR Business Register Staff sends and validates concerns Global Enterprise Group (GEG) Data sets Enterprise (ENT) EGR - runs Consults and retreives data from Cross border frames Exchange information and data Legal Unit Relationship between Legal units IPT retrieves data from EGR Users IPT - Profiling result Initiates, Creates Controls/completes generates analyses oversees Eurostat supports European profiling (IPT) Profiler supports Process owner (GDC Profiler) Request for changes Profiling process Global Enterprise (GEN) concerns Global Enterpris e Group (GEG) is part of ESSnet ESSnet Partnering country Truncated Enterprise (TEN) is linked with Legal Unit

125 2 Work on-going slide 9 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

126 2 Work on-going slide 10 Major question: Is there any possibility for integration in the short term given the current calendars? PROFILING INPUT IPT (NSI_PR) EGR PROCESS EGR INPUT (NSI_BR) April 2016 Profiling requested and initialized RY 2015 Start GDC profiling May till mid-july2016 GDC Profiling running Mid-July till end September 2016 Partnering profiling running From end September 2016 GDC-partering Profiling running till December 2016 Complete GDC profiling Profiling completed Possibilities for adding input data to the EGR RY 2015 EGR data processing of input data received to produce EGR preliminary frame RY 2015 NSI send data on LEU, REL, ENT, LEL By Nov 15th EGR preliminary frame by January 25

127 2 Work on-going slide 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;

128 2 Work on-going slide 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 A A A B B C B C D C D B D F C D F E F E E ACTUAL GEG controlled perimeter EGR view Using BR data only (F missing) IPT view Using PR data only (E not consolidated) EGR integrated view Using of information from both BR and PR

129 2 Work on-going slide 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

130 2 Work on-going slide 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;

131 2 Work on-going slide 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»

132 2 Work on-going slide 16 As is state EGR Business Register Staff sends and validates concerns Global Enterprise Group (GEG) Data sets Enterprise (ENT) EGR - runs Consults and retreives data from Cross border frames Exchange information and data Legal Unit Relationship between Legal units IPT retrieves data from EGR Users IPT - Profiling result Initiates, Creates Controls/completes generates analyses oversees Eurostat supports European profiling (IPT) Profiler supports Process owner (GDC Profiler) Request for changes Profiling process Global Enterprise (GEN) concerns Global Enterpris e Group (GEG) is part of ESSnet ESSnet Partnering country Truncated Enterprise (TEN) is linked with Legal Unit

133 OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION slide Introduction what are we talking about? 2. Work on-going -> Proposals under consideration 3. Conclusion

134 3 Conclusion slide 18 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!

135 ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 ( ) EGR data quality management ESSnet ESBRs EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris April 11th-12th, 2015 Barry COENEN, Statistic Netherlands

136 1 Introduction slide 2 What are we talking about? Data Quality Management 1.Which quality? Which quality goal? 2.How can we measure? 3.Where are we? 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 4.How can we improve and reach our goal? Or go beyond our goal.

137 Prelimenary conclusion slide 3 BR and FATS Eurosta t and NSA EGR 2.0 Int profiling NSA working together 3

138 Total approach in doing thing right slide 4 Business capabilities External business environment Business model Core business processes Organisation Added value Who does what when Processes IT People Culture Skills and competences Roles IT System Concepts Information flow 4

139 slide 5 IT EGR CORE EGR FATS EGR IM EGR IS IPT - Only build/improve what adds benefit to the needed output 5

140 slide 6 EGR 2.0 process Processes Profiling process Make use of profiling in EGR Fit DQM process in national processes Broader participation

141 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?

142 slide 8 Organisation Not NSA top priority Short time for work Not contiously organised NSA have set up a (prelimenary) internal EGR organisation NSA have set up a (prelimenary) internal EGR organisation

143 Where can we improve data quality in the process? slide 9 Analyse and improve

144 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?

145 Quality assessment slide 11 ESSnet performed two types of analysis Quality of processing data Quality of output

146 Quality of input and throughput slide 12 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

147 Quality of output 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

148 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

149 For the discussion slide 15

150 Coming back to EGR DQM 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.

151 slide 17 When have we done our work with high quality?