Meeting notes - October 1st 2024

[Chris-ECE]

Specify Needs phase Introduction text

In response to a comment from Giorgia, it was agreed to replace the word “anticipated” with “expected”.
While UNECE’s proposed additional text in response to Portugal’s comment addressed some of its aspects (such as risks vs benefits), it did not address the issue of geographical detail versus confidentiality risk.
There was discussion about whether or not such a specific point should be included here, and whether it would overlap with descriptions of the subprocesses themselves (such as 1.6, which also refers to business cases). It was affirmed that the introductory text is a summary of the phase, so some repetition is acceptable.
InKyung pointed out that other statistical decisions beyond granularity (like integrating with other sources of data) can also imply similar risks. Edgardo pointed out that it is probably impossible to establish a priori within the specify needs phase the number of units occurring in each cell of an output table, before response rates are known.
UNECE was tasked with making a proposal for handling the point about granularity versus confidentiality.
Proposal: Not to mention this point in the introductory text for Phase 1

Regarding 1.1 Identify Needs

Andrew suggested that respondent feedback could trigger a (change to a) statistical need, but withdrew this suggestion, considering that the evaluation conducted at the end of the cycle is also listed as a potential trigger for a statistical need.
There was some debate about the suitability of the phrase “what statistics are needed, and what is needed of the statistics” as being too ambiguous. Giorgia wanted to know whether this statement might include quality, though it was pointed out that this is already addressed by subprocess 1.3. Juan wasn’t sure if this statement referred to gaps in what needs are fulfilled.
Andrew suggested “what statistics are needed and why” though this would somewhat change the meaning of that sentence. UNECE proposes to keep this phrase as-is, unless there is another formulation suggested with strong support from the group.

Prioritisation of needs and not meeting all needs

There was a comment from Hungary about not all identified needs being met, as well as similar points made by Giorgia and Gabriel. Gabriel asked about the prioritisation of identified needs, and there was a discussion about whether this takes place only at the whole enterprise-wide level (outside of the scope of GSBPM) or within individual production cycles. Giorgia suggested that at least some competing needs may need to be dealt with within GSBPM.
Edgardo might suggest some text for the last paragraph of 1.6 to address the issue of checking needs being addressed by other GSBPM production cycles, since the business case would be a place for making a decision and investigating other needs being addressed elsewhere. InKyung might also suggest adding a couple of words to 1.2 about consulting with internal stakeholders.

Regarding the distinction between sub-processes 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3

(under construction...)

Other

Giorgia will decide whether or not to add extra text about how GSBPM is used, if this is not already addressed by the existing text.