GAMSO discussion - March 7th, 2025

[Chris-ECE]

Juan made some comments in the google doc, and about relating activities to GSBPM, but these are perhaps different things.

The Human Resources activity could be elaborated to a much greater level of detail to put it on the same level as GSBPM.

Juan commented about relating the models rather than merging them, as GSBPM would then be an annex of a GAMSO document. Also, the fact that GSBPM and GAMSO are individually widely known, it might not be best to merge them, but rather to establish mappings between activities of GAMSO and GSBPM, to follow a process.

Chris asked whether signposting of relevant parts of the other model might be sufficient, since a mapping might constrain the flexibility with which parts of GSBPM and GAMSO can be used as building blocks to create whatever system is desired.

Juan suggested that we don’t have enough time to describe the recommended process for all activities, but for an example such as IT procurement, we deliver requirements for the Collect phase, logically relating the activities (but not explicitly).
Action: Juan offered to develop a conceptual diagram.

Joni thought that they are both describing activities (which if sequenced could form a process). GAMSO is describing activities in a more organizational way, and wondered if they could be revamped to bring them up to the same level.

InKyung said that making granular descriptions of activities in GAMSO would be very extensive. Juan said we are describing a process, and each activity has its own process. The gateway is the production of information that goes into any activity in GAMSO. The GSBPM process is related to the GAMSO process (i.e. at the more detailed level), not the GAMSO activity (at the more general level).

Chris pointed out that GSBPM processes are really activities at more detail.

Joni suggested that we don’t have to describe both standards to the same depth (we don’t need GAMSO to have sub-activities, as these can be found in non-statistical models). There was a discussion about whether GAMSO should correspond to the organizational structure. For small offices, it may not, which Juan agreed.

Carlo pointed out that GAMSO activities are not specific to statistical organizations (except the production/GSBPM part), so we don’t need a detailed description of this.

Juan agreed and suggested identifying the relation between GSBPM and the activities, but Carlo did not think a mapping is necessary. Carlo suggested that GAMSO is more about organization of work than about processes.

Joni asked what are the issues we are trying to fix or improve? He said the main issue for him is the lower uptake of GAMSO compared to GSBPM, and that it might be helpful to have both within a single document for that reason alone. He suggested starting with GSBPM before describing GAMSO.

InKyung wanted to avoid literally merging GSBPM and GAMSO. She suggested GSBPM is too widely known to get rid of.

Juan said that when INEGI implemented GSBPM, Human Resources wanted to understand which phases of GSBPM they intervene in.

Briefly discussed Flavio’s suggestions for addressing overlap between the GSBPM and GAMSO.

• Manage Statistical Methodology -> there is methodology management in the Design and Analysis phases.
• Quality Management -> Quality Management OP
  - We previously improved the diagram and description of the quality management OP in the GSBPM revision. It was said at that time that within GAMSO, quality management relates to developing(or reusing) a quality management framework, and corporate-level quality. InKyung agreed. Carlo said he wasn’t so concerned about overlap.
• Manage Information and Knowledge -> Metadata, Data, Process Data, Knowledge Management OPs
• Manage Data Suppliers -> Provider Management OP
  - We previously discussed this at length in the GSBPM revision, and probably resolved this one.
• Manage HR (Manage Recruitment) -> Setup and Run Collection

Joni suggested merging the models to remove these overlaps, but Chris pointed out that these would then be duplications within the same model. Chris suggested in the GSBPM diagram, illustrating the 6 Overarching Activities separately, to mirrow the approach for phases.

InKyung suggested that we allocate time to ensure that we cover important topics such as data governance.

[Chris-ECE]

Dear colleagues, Juan has made a proposal related to the diagrams that depict the relationship between GAMSO and GSBPM in these slides.
Slides to picture relation GAMSO - GSBPM v2.pptx

We have also discussed the following diagram, which includes the GSBPM phases at the same level as GAMSO activities, and whether or not this makes sense:

Your thoughts would be welcome!

Chris