ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016) ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016) ... – EGR - Stabilize, maintain, ... I found the training seminar helpful to set

ESSnet on a European System of Interoperable Statistical Business Registers

ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 (2014 – 2016)

2016 Euro Groups Register and Profiling ESSnet ESBRs workshop

Paris, 11-12th April 2016

|slide 2

ESSnet is commited to help at building a « mutually beneficial European System of business registers for the production of high quality business statistics in Europe ».

ESSnet ESBRs organised

– In two phases -> Phase 1 (2014-2016)

– During the first phase tasks are distributed into 3 Work Packages (WP): WP1 – Business architecture, Statistical Services, and Coordination WP2 – Interoperability framework WP3 – Process development and data quality program

– Deliverables to be produced and provided (delivered) to Eurostat are listed in the ESSnet ESBRs Multi-Beneficiary Grant Agreement

ESSnet ESBRs

09/04/2016ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1

|slide 3

➢ Today, second ESSnet ESBRs Workshop focused on WP3 tasks

WP3 tasks: – EGR - Stabilize, maintain, and upgrade EGR 2.0 system (support Eurostat in the

EGR 2.0 set up and development);

– Profiling Consolidate methodological and practical aspects of profiling; Support to NSIs in carrying out test of European profiling; Support Eurostat in developping the Interactive Profiling Tool; Make recommendation to settle a perennial system for performing European

profiling;

– Both - Organisational models to improve the quality of the EGR; integration of the results of European profiling into the EGR

Countries involved: FR, NL, UK, IT, FI, DK -> presenters/discussion leader

Work Package 3

09/04/2016ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1

|slide 4

What are the aims of the Workshop ?

– 1. Inform Member States on the ESSnet ESBRs WP3 deliverables (those delivered since the last Workshop and work on-going on those to be achieved by the end of April 2016).

– 2. Collect Member States views on EGR and profiling (part of the ESSnet work, for transmission to Eurostat, as a deliverable → Detailed minutes of the meeting).

Warning – possible confusion

– Current situation/Short, Medium or Long term plans

– Eurostat/ESSnet/NSI positions

– Under discussion in the ESSnet/Delivered/Accepted/Consultation-Approval

Workshop

|slide 5

Agenda distributed

Day 1 (11th April - afternoon): Profiling

Day 2 (12th April - morning): EGR Data Quality Management

Each day, same format:

Presentations followed by Questions & Answers → for information on the ESSnet ESBRs deliverables

Guided discussion → For collecting your views → Take the floor !!! Active participation expected.

This afternoon : profiling → Have a look at the agenda

Agenda of the Workshop

|slide 6

➢ Coffee – Lunch breaks and social events

Coffee breaks

Social Dinner organised tonight at your own expense (At 7.30 pm)

Lunch offered by Insee tomorrow (From 1.00 pm to 2.00 pm)

Presentations

No printed copies – will be made accessible on CROS PORTAL after the meeting

Wifi Access

Organisational information point

|slide 7

Thank you for your attention.

Now it's time to start !

ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS


Profiling session

ESSnet ESBRs WP3 deliverables on profiling – Focus on documentation

Agnès Topiol INSEE

2016 ESSnet ESBRs WP3 EGR and Profiling Workshop - Paris Bercy

|slide

ESSnet ESBRS WP3 activities (2014-2016) aim at supporting NSIs testing

profiling of large and complex Global Enterprise Groups under European

initiative (= « European Profiling »).

*Scope of the work : Manual European Profiling

*4 NSIs have participated to the ESSNET ESBRS WP3 activities

ESSnet ESBRs WP3 activities on profiling : reminder

04.04.16ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1

*14 NSIs have carried out manual european profiling tests in 2014/2015

|slide

ESSnet ESBRS WP3 activities (2014-2016) covers 4 types of actions:

1 - Training Seminars (3 Seminars organised and delivered)

2 - Coaching Visits (5 bilateral or trilateral meetings)

3 - Supporting through helpdesk facilities (Q&A by mail or phone)

4 - Drafting and updating documents

ESSnet ESBRs WP3 activities on profiling : reminder

04.04.16ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1

|slide ESSnet ESBRs WP3 activities on profiling : reminderDocuments released circuit :

1) The list of the documents can be found in the ESSnet ESBRs Multibeneficiary grant (WP3).

2) After completed the deliverables ESSnet delivers the documents to Eurostat.

3) After validation and acceptation, documents are made accessible on :

CROS-PORTAL with unrestricted access : http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/wp3-process_development-0_en/

CROS-PORTAL with restricted access :http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/wp3-process-development_en

So far, only documents which have been accepted by Eurostat are available

Documents are also released on CIRCABC

|slide OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION

Drafting and updating documents

1.Deliverables completed between June and Dec 2015

1.1 – ''Operational'' deliverables

1.2 – ''Prospective'' deliverablesZoom on 3 deliverables which can be used for both manual european and national profiling. 2. Deliverables to be completed by end of April 2016

|slide 1- Deliverables completed between June-Dec 2015

1.1- ''Operational'' deliverables

''Operational'' : « concretely support the testing of profiling of large and complex Global Enterprise Groups on-going in 2014-2015 under European initiative and financed by Eurostat individual grants 2014 ».

- Tools used for testing « European profiling » Update Guidelines and guidelines on completing the new Excel files ; Update of Excel files where profilers store, share and update information.

- Training Seminars output3 follow-up meetings for testing countries output.

- Coaching visits reportsDetailed reports on the coaching visits organised.

Notes : → Useful mainly for NSIs testing manual european profiling as part of individual grant


1.2- ''Prospective'' deliverables

''Prospective'' : « to support future profiling activities ».

- Report on profiling dedicated Q&A forum

=> How to organise a secured forum dedicated to European profiling Q&A.

Notes :

→ Useful for all EU-EFTA NSIs.

- Methodological Report to Treat Domestic Enterprise Groups - Vademecum of Switching Scenarios and Organisational Model - Report on the Development of a Survey of Light Profiling


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.


1.2- Prospective deliverables (2/3)

Vademecum of Switching Scenarios and Organisational Model

TOPICThis document provides NSIs who considers profiling for the future options and experience feedbacks to start profiling activities.

« organisation model » => a process through its framework including lines of authority, communication, roles, responsabilities and resource allocations.

« Scenarios » => options of organisations.

CONTENT - Existing profiling organisational models (ONS,INSEE, CBS) with its « pros and cons » ;- ESBRs European profiling organisation ;- What is required when switching from national profiling to European profiling ;- Proposals on the role and responsabilities of a Center of Excellence for profiling to support profiling activities.


1.2 - Prospective deliverables (3/3)

Report on the Development of a Survey of Light Profiling

TOPIC For the GEGs which should be treated through manual profiling : « intensive profiling » (desk + visit) => the largest and more complex GEGs.« light profiling » (desk only) => medium size GEGs. When using « light profiling », it may happen that some information for profiling is missing in the public and/or administrative sources.

CONTENT - Defines the GEGs which should be treated with « ligh profiling method» ; - Proposes initial ideas for a questionnaire which could supplement the data collection required for light EU profiling ;- Identifies requirements for drafting a light questionnaire, which could support the data collection for those GEGs.

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

List of the remaining deliverables

1- « Operational » deliverables

- Methodological Report - Guidelines on Profiling and Related Documents - Training Material (final version)- Handbook for Statistical Users

2- « Prospective » deliverable

- Recommendations for a Perennial system for profiling



Thank you for attention !!!!All questions and comments are welcomed

Please address your queries to : Agnès TOPIOL

[email protected]



STATISTIK AUSTRIA BUNDESANSTALT STATISTIK ÖSTERREICH

ABTEILUNG REGISTER, KLASSIFIKATIONEN UND GEOINFORMATION

Datei: Sachbearbeiter: Erich Greul Version 00; gespeichert 00.00.0000 00:00

Coaching Activities

Sarah Eaton – Office for National Statistics

ESBR EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris 11/12 April 2016

|slide 2OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION

1. Coaching Activities- Training Seminars- Helpdesk - Coaching Visits- Documentation

2. Coaching Survey

3. Results of Survey- What went well- What Improvements are needed for the future

4. Coaches Feedback

|slide 3

•Presentation of the European profiling methodology, focus on the desk work and information about individual grant 2014.

September 2014

•Technical Information, information concerning ESSnet activities

•Practical exercises on how to follow up a profiling case and what are the main specificities of Non EU GEGs. Cases presentations.

February 2015

•Sharing main information to finalize profiling cases, information about IPT and ESSnet activities, profiling cases presentations and confrontation of GDC NSI proposal versus partnering NSIs answers.

October 2015

Coaching Activities – Training Seminars

|slide 4

Every NSI testing profiling as part of the individual grant could approach

his/her coach with any upcoming problem via e-mail or telephone.

The questions raised concerned specific issues around profiling cases in

progress or clarifications of the profiling guidelines.

NSIs generally received an answer in less than a week.

Emails were shared by coaches in order to ensure consistency between

the answers provided.

Coaching Visits - Helpdesk

|slide 5

Sofia, Bulgaria

May 2015

Vienna and Prague

May 2015

Newport, UK

June 2015

Heerlen, NL

September 2015

Coaching Activities - Visits

|slide 6

Detailed Coaching Reports are available on CROS Portal:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/essnet-esbrs-1-del-a242-profiling-coaching-reports-2_en

Coaching Reports Available

|slide 7

Another coaching activity was the release of newsletters.

Newsletters focused on topics which were insufficiently developed or

missing from the current documentation produced by EU and EFTA

NSIs.

Two newsletters were drafted by the ESSnet ESBR:

1-ESSnet ESBR Profiling Newsletter No.1 November 2014

2-ESSnet ESBR Profiling Newsletter No.2 April 2015

Newsletters available on Cros Portal:-

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/profiling-newsletters_en

Coaching Activities - Documentation

|slide 8

A survey to assess coaching activities and pick up new ideas to improve the support to NSIs was launched in January 2016.

The survey is split into five sections covering:

Training Seminars,

Documentation,

Coaching visits,

Helpdesk

General Feedback (covering all coaching activities).

Each section has a series of statements where participants are asked to rate each one either as:

strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree and strongly disagree.

An ‘ideas for improvement/general comments’ box has also been provided at the end of each

section to allow participants to provide further detail.

Coaching Survey

|slide 9Results of Survey – Training Workshops

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Strongly agree Agree Neither agreeor disagree

Disagree Stronglydisagree

1. I found the training seminars wellorganised

2. I found the training seminars helpful fortreating my profiling cases

3. I found the training seminar helpful to setup an international network that can easeprofiling coordination

4. I found the duration of the trainingseminars appropriate

5. I would have liked more training seminars

Training Seminars

|slide 10

Longer training sessions at the start of the profiling cycle.

Less discussion on specific cases to allow greater time to discuss multinational coordination and how to deal with expectation from SBS and NA users.

More real cases and help with communicating with internal users.

Sharing of training materials before the meeting to allow more time for each NSI to discuss and make concrete proposals.

General Comments for Training Workshops

|slide 11Results of Survey – Documentation

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Strongly agree Agree Neither agreeor disagree


1. I received all the information I needed inthe documentation to complete mydeliverable

2. The documentation was delivered on time

3. I found the documentation proved helpful

Documentation

|slide 12

Too many versions of the documentation which should be fixed at the beginning of the project. During the grant only answers to questions and clarifications should be issued i.e. as a newsletter.

There should be a single information point where all relevant documentation is stored. It would also be good to avoid different profiling template versions during one profiling grant/cycle.

Create a template for the final report. At present NSI’s create different versions of final reports, which make it more difficult to compare those reports.

General Comments on Documentation

|slide 13Results of Survey – Coaching Visits

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree ordisagree


1. I found face to face meetings helpful

2. I wold have prefered more face to facemeetings

3. The face to face meetings took place at theappropriate stage of the process

Coaching Visits

|slide 14

Face to face meeting was a very good idea, it would be useful to have

another meeting when all partnering answers have been returned.

The trilateral helped us to clarify uncertainties, and took place at the

appropriate time i.e. in the middle of the project.

Use of technology i.e. webinars to allow more face to face meetings at

less cost.

It was helpful to meet both the coach and another partnering country at

the same time.

General Comments on Coaching Visits

|slide 15Results of Survey – Helpdesk

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Disagree Strongly disagree

1. I found the helpdesk facility helpful

2. The responses I received via the helpdeskfacility were timely

3. The helpdesk facility was easy to use

Helpdesk

|slide 16

The helpdesk was very helpful for spontaneous urgent

questions arising and helped to clarify.

Make use of FAQs for all users as similar questions may be

asked by different NSIs

Centre of Excellence for profiling is needed but would like to

continue with the email support from coaches if possible

General Comments on Helpdesk

|slide 17Results of Survey – General Feedback

0

2

4

6

8

10

12



1. I found the coaching experience helpful

2. The support I was given met my needs

3. I was provided with clear instructons onwhat I needed to achieve

4. Generally when I raised a question Ireceived satisfactory answers

General Feedback

|slide 18

The idea of a web based profiling chat room where questions can be

raised is appealing

Profiling newsletter and summary of coach meetings were helpful to

explain questions raised during profiling and to share with all coached

countries

Inconsistencies with guidance notes proved frustrating. Perhaps a longer

first training workshop, splitting the process into sections to avoid

unnecessary questions later on.

It is difficult when Eurostat and other member states seem not to agree

on definitions and rules regarding TEN, ENT and NACE.

General Feedback Comments

|slide 19

The coaching survey highlighted areas of success which include:

Direct working relationship between coach and profiling NSI

including coaching visits.

Helpdesk (via email / telephone) access for profilers and fast

response to questions.

Collaboration between coaches with regular monthly video

conferences to discuss issues and share experiences.

The profiling newsletters as a means of disseminating

information to all profiling NSIs.

What Went Well

|slide 20

The coaching survey highlighted areas where future improvement may be

required including:

Continued use of the PT and PR due to revisions and inconsistencies of

completion (should be addressed with IPT).

Additional time at workshops to consider multinational coordination

and the expectations of SBS and NA users.

A longer first workshop to help those countries completely new to

profiling to fully understand the concepts and processes in profiling.

Lack of agreement between Eurostat and member states regarding

definitions and rules for TEN, ENT and NACE will need to be addressed

as part of the next Grant agreement.

What Improvements are needed for future activities

|slide 21

Very Interesting and Challenging.

Questions from Coached NSIs demonstrated good understanding of Topics.

Good Exchanges between coaches which ensured that all views were

shared by all.

Training Seminars and Coaching Meetings are really important to build

relationships. Meetings revealed different approaches according to

different working cultures and local constraints.

Coaches acknowledge the ESSnet needs tools for communicating, i.e. Q&A

Forum.

Coaches found it challenging to address the outstanding issues regarding

the methodology i.e. the application of TEN and ENT.

Coaches Feedback



A perennial system on profiling

Maryse FESSEAU, ESSnet ESBRs WP3 Coordinator (INSEE – FR)

Irène SALEMINK, ESSnet partner, Director of Business Register (CBS – NL)

ESSnet ESBRs EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris – April 11th-12th, 2016

|slide 2AIMS OF THE PRESENTATION

Present the work on-going and the challenges faced in drafting:

1. The (WP3) deliverable: “Recommendation for perennial system on profiling“ – short term view

2. The (WP1) ESBRs business architecture deliverable – medium – long-term view

DEADLINE for both : by end April 2016.


1. Profiling - definition and current context

2. Short term view: making recommendation for a perennial system - a challenge

3. Medium-long term view: Business Architecture – work on-going

4. Conclusion

|slide 41 – Profiling - definition and current context (1/5)

• Profiling – definition:

• “[..]a method to analyse the legal, operational and accounting structure of an enterprise group [..], in order to establish the statistical units within that group, their links, and the most efficient structures for the collection of statistical data” (Eurostat BR manual)

• Profiling – aim:

• Produce improved business statistics using enterprise units according to the 1993 definition (Reg EEC N°696/93)


• 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


• European profiling – current situation:

• Methodology established by the ESSnet on Profiling (2009-2013). Some clarification from the ESSnet ESBRs (2014-2016)

• Under test since 2009 through individual grants contracted between NSIs and Eurostat, on a voluntary basis.

• Methodology:

• A “pure” method: a top-down approach analysing 3 units (GEG, GEN, TEN) and 3 main economic variables (activity, employment, turnover)

• A collaborative work process with associated responsibilities, roles and workload.


ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1

Review of GEG

Prepare input for profiling

Start GDC profiling

Check/Fill info on GEG

Compare with a list of LEUs from the GEG

Check the

LEUs

Creation of the GENs

and fill info

Creation of the

TEN and fill info

Start

Complete GDC

profiling

Send to partnering

NSIs

Send data to partnering NSIs

Stop

Complete profiling Review data from

partnering NSI

Prepare counter proposal

GDC Profiler Work

Receive dataStart partnering

profiling exercise

Check LEUS and fill/add LEUsLEUs information

Check the relevancy of TEN to be used ENT

Fill TEN info

Complete partnering NSI

profiling

Send partnering NSI data to GDC NSI – propose

change request

Receive updated

data

Partnering NSI Profiler work

Final call from GDC

• Reminder – EU profiling, a collaborative work under GDC NSI responsibility





4. Conclusion

|slide 92 – Short term - Making recommendation – A challenge

• Uncertainty on European profiling:

• No full consensus between NSIs on the European profiling model (in particular on NSI GDC responsibilities and collaborative work process)

• No thorough evaluation of the testing done so far -> no shared views on the pros and cons of the current European profiling model

• Launch of a Centre of Excellence on European profiling:

• Call for proposal details the objectives and tasks to be pursued at central level


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


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





4. Conclusion

|slide 13

WP1 – ESBRs Business Architecture draft march 2016 , further steps needed:

•A shared view on the level of collaboration is missing in the context of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality

•A shared frame methodology is needed

•ESBRs should satisfy stakeholder needs i.e. statisticians needs

• Globalisations statistics

• Consistency across statistical surveys

• Consistency across NSI’s

•Based on the Principle of Interoperability

• NSI’s autonomous to design and operate their own solutions in their own national information systems

• Ability to produce and exchange ESBRs data effectively and efficiently

3 – Medium – Long term view – Business Architecture

|slide 143 – Medium – Long term view – Business Architecture

Aim concerning profiling of the ESBRs BA;

To provide a view on how profiling can be integrated keeping the interoperability principle unimpaired

• Distinction between EU profiling and National Profiling

• Options to share profiling processes and services

Challenge is the Gap between;

•To be state for medium term; an operational ESBRs for production of quality constant national and global frames serving as backbone for national as well as globalisation statistics.

•As is state for short term; current EU profiling methodology under testing, however missing a vision/concept on the use, role and definition of the global dimension of statistical objects.

Global statistical unit structure National statistical unit structure


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……


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


Suggestions for adjustment current EU Profiling model to narrow the Gap;

•Keep the current EU profiling methodology except for remarks below

•AND use the methodology to create better national enterprises

•Make a better definition of the “Global Enterprise” and it’s role and use in (global) statistics (including the continuity rules)

•Make Global Enterprise units that fit to well designed concepts and operational rules

•Relate ENTs to GENs by the country/NSI of the ENT

•Perform consistency and quality checks on GEN-ENT relation by the GDC country and give advice to ENT-countries.

•Use the TEN only as a technical unit with the function of a relationship entity;

• It can be derived from the GEN perimeter if NSI’s want to make use of it to delineate their national ENTs,

• Countries were the GEN has affiliates can use the GEN perimeter restricted to the national boundaries as a proxy for the ENT (if no ENT available)

•Workload should be in relation to profit and gain from the work done

|slide 18

Comparing outcome suggestions to the current model (national and EU)

•Units for EU profiling: GEG and “Global Enterprise”

•Nothing is “touched” on national profiling (ENT)

•GDC country not primarily responsible for delineating national ENTs

•Still the aim to improve quality of EU and national BR and business statistics

•Technical unit can be derived, helping partners to implement ENT & profiling

•Commitment of GDC country to identify GEN perimeter and help partners

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

•GDC country not primarily responsible for TEN perimeter

•GDC country not responsible for collecting and discussing data on TEN (NACE, employment, turnover)

•Decreased (relatively) workload for GDC country

•Strengthened role and more work for partners to match ENTs/LEUs to GEN

3 – Medium – Long term view – Business Architecture


How to proceed in the future in order to close the Gap?

•Meaningful concepts in the context of a system of 'global accounts’ need to be defined•Clarity and transparency is needed on all the statistical objects and their roles in the ESBRs system. •Define the statistical objects with their characteristics to be included in the ESBRs frames; 1.Acknowledge that a meaningful concept of the ‘global Enterprise’ needs to be defined in the context of also a system of 'global accounts’, in the same manner as national enterprises are defined in the context of ‘national accounts’.

2.Consider the concept of “global Enterprise’ as a statistical unit and relationships between ‘national enterprises’ and ‘global enterprises’ as a topic that needs additional methodological definition.

3. Acknowledge that integration of national accounts into global accounts is a very complex process at which the integration process could be facilitated by a (well-defined) “relationship entity” between both (national and global) statistical units.

|slide 204 – Conclusion

• Profiling both EU and National is strongly supported

• Profiling based on the “current methodology” is still relevant and not outdated however method needs adaptation

• Work still on going to stabilize and define the best EU profiling approach

• What was presented is still under discussion between ESSnet partners and whatever is delivered by the ESSnet will have to be approved and discussed by NSIs (BRWG; BSDG..) and Eurostat

• Further work is needed to close the Gap; TF on defining global SU in relation to use in Global statistics

• Work under architecture

Profiling Points for information

Levente Szekely Eurostat

• call launched 18.02.2016 • deadline for proposals extended until 25.04.2016 • two main topics:

• support and guidance to NSIs on how to organize and perform their profiling activities and on using the Interactive Profiling Tool (IPT)

• bug reporting and development suggestions to Eurostat regarding the IPT

• timeframe: 01.05.2016-31.12.2018 • budget: 250.000 EUR

Centre of Excellence (CenEx)

• the prototype of an interactive tool for exchange, update and visualisation of profiling information

• it will allow • the profiling teams to smoothly exchange information during

the profiling process; • the centralization of information on the GENs and the TENs

for the groups being profiled • the release of information on profiling to the users

• in production since early March 2016 • being prepared for first use by individual grant beneficiaries • minor issues encountered • to sort out issues and to allow for ample time for the CenEx to

get acquainted with the IPT, Eurostat is extending the duration of each individual grant (intensive/desk profiling) by 3 months

Interactive Profiling Tool (IPT)

• after ESSnet delivery, Eurostat will internalize the methodology • further methodological development will be taken forward by a

dedicated task force (to be set up with the endorsement of the BSDG)

Profiling methodology

Thank you for your attention.



EGR data quality management

ESSnet ESBRs WP3 Deliverable :

Quality indicators, validation procedure for the EGR

• Isabelle Collet (Insee-France)

2016 EuroGroup Register and Profiling workshop of the ESSnet of ESBRs, Paris - Bercy 11-12 April 2016

|slide 2Aims of the presentation

Present an overview of the ESSnet WP3 deliverable “Quality indicators, validation procedure for the EGR”– Short term

– Based on current knowledge of the timetable and EGR 2.0

– EGR 2014 production cycle still on-going

– Deliverable available on Cros-portal

Give examples on quality indicators

|slide 3Outline

EGR 2.0 process – Data production cycle

Framework for EGR quality indicators proposed by the ESSnet

Definitions and examples of quality indicators

Conclusion

|slide 4EGR 2.0 process – Data production cycle

Quality indicators can be seen :

– From a producer perspective – EGR 2014 cycle

To monitor data quality

– From the EGR team perspective – EGR 2.0 version

To monitor the system

Quality indicators aim at monitoring EGR 2.0 process and data production

|slide 5EGR 2014 Cycle - From a producer perspective

N° Task name Timing NSI participation

1 EGR acquires and processes commercial data February – April T+1

2 NSIs deliver national legal units to EGR IS May T+1 Yes

3 EGR processes data in the Identification service June T+1

4 NSIs deliver foreign legal units to EGR IS July – October T+1 Yes

5 Foreign legal units identified in the Identification service

July – October T+1 Yes

6 NSIs deliver datasets for EGR (LEU, REL, ENT, LEL) November T+1 Yes

7 EGR acquires commercial data November T+1

8 EGR processes NSI and CDP data December T+1January T+2

9 EGR sends preliminary frame via FATS interface January T+2

10 NSIs improve and validate data in EGR (including GEG data)

February - March T+2

Yes

11 EGR sends final frame via FATS interface March T+2Source : Eurostat EGR Wiki – 04/04/2016

|slide 6EGR 2.0 version – From the EGR team perspective

|slide 7Framework for EGR quality indicators proposed

Framework proposal for measuring quality indicators – Common framework gathering both perspectives

Three work phases– Identification of legal units

– Creation of groups in EGR

– Creation of the FATS Frame

Three categories of indicators for each phase– Input, process and output indicators

|slide 8Framework for EGR quality indicators proposed by the ESSnet

Phases Indicators Producer EGR team

Identification of legal units

Input Delivery of commercial data, resident and non-resident (foreign) legal units Tasks N°1, 2, 4, 7

EGR IS Process Identification process for commercial data, resident and non-resident (foreign) legal unitsTasks N°1, 3, 5, 8

Output

Creation of groups in EGR

Input Delivery of commercial data and NSIs datasets and repair phaseTasks N° 1, 6, 7, 10

EGR CORE Process Process of commercial and NSIs datasetsTasks N° 1, 8

Output

Creation of FATS frame

Input

EGR FATS Proccess Delivery of preliminary and final framesTask N° 9, 11Output

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

Definition – Input indicator

To assess what is delivered to the system for

a given phase

– EDIT : Checks the file structure, format, suitable

character and code, etc.

– Additional work to describe the content of the

file from a statistical perspective


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


Example – Input indicator for the phase Identification of legal units – EGR 2014 cycle

Indicator : 1 827 errors were found by EDIT in non-resident legal units files (20 countries) 0.3 % of the total accepted records

Source Eurostat data received by the 02/12/2015

|slide 12Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Process indicator

Definition – Process indicator

To monitor how data are processed

– Integration and transformation of data, derivation of new variables

To compare “data after” to “data before” processing

– Check the changes, to compare the delivered data to the processed data

|slide 13

Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Process indicator

Example – Process indicator for the phase Identification of legal units

Indicator : Percentage of non-resident legal units “identified” in total accepted records

Calculation : Indicator can be calculated by NSIs and Eurostat

What for : Evaluation of completeness and coverage of EGR IS database and efficiency of the search algorithm in EGR IS

|slide 14Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Process indicator

Source Eurostat data received by the 02/12/2015

Example – Process indicator for the phase Identification of legal unitsIndicator : Percentage of non-resident legal units “identified” in total accepted records per

country (EGR 2014 cycle – 24 countries)

NL

HU

MT

BG

DE

DK

IT

SI

HR

LU

LT

LV

EU Average

SE

CZ

CY

FR

PT

SK

AT

PL

FI

EE

ES

UK

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

|slide 15Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Output indicator

Definition – Output indicator

To validate the output produced

– Check the population coverage

– Compare the statistics with previous cycles

– Perform macro editing

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

Example – Output indicator for the phase Identification of legal units

Indicator : Total number of legal units in EGR IS database (by zone, country, source, etc.)

Calculation : Indicator can be calculated by Eurostat

What for : Assess the coverage and completeness of database

|slide 17

11-12 April 2016

ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1

Definitions and examples of quality indicators - Output indicator

Example – Output indicator for the phase Identification legal units

Indicator: Total number of legal units by geographical zone Source: EGR Eurostat Wiki

|slide 18Conclusion

Proposed indicators need to be tested After testing and validation some quality

indicators could be part of EGR quality report

Quality indicators need to be used and evolve with the EGR

|slide 19Links

Cros-portal

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/esbrs-0_en

EGR Wiki

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EGR

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EGR

Please address queries to:

Contact data:



• Isabelle Collet

• [email protected]

Thank you!AnyQuestions?



Proposal of organisational model to improve the EGR quality

Andrew Allen – Office for National Statistics - UK

(Maryse Fesseau - INSEE - FR)

ESBR EGR/Profiling Workshop Paris 11/12 April 2016

|slide 2OVERVIEW

1. Recent move to EGR 2.0

2. Proposals to improve common quality issues

3. Roles and responsibilities to improve EGR

Aim of the presentation: present the content of the ESSnet ESBRs WP3 deliverable “Proposal for an organisational model to improve the EGR quality” (Work on-going, expected by end April 2016)

Outline:

|slide 3

Caveat:

WP3 deliverables still under finalisation (on-going discussion).

Most of the thinking was done on the hybrid EGR 2.0 version.

Now moved to EGR 2.0. Need to reflect on the impact of this on

the proposals – but too soon. First cycle will reveal additional

needs.

Recommendation:

– Review the proposals when results from EGR 2.0 have been

processed and the quality assessed (As soon as possible; will

come after the ESSnet delivery anyway).


|slide 4OVERVIEW


2. Proposals to improve common quality issues-> Focus on 3 proposals


Outline:

|slide 5

1. Authentic store and Quality and Timeliness of Member States

data:

Key issues still: Authentic Store and Quality and Timeliness.

• Note: being an authentic store implies that there are no other

possible sources permitted

Recommendations:

• Date stamping needed.

• Define criteria for the Authentic Store status; Not meeting those

criteria should remove Authentic Store rights (e.g. poor

timeliness, poor coverage…); Criteria must be defined and

agreed.


|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.


|slide 7

3. Manual and Seminars:

Recommendations:

• EGR user manual.

• EGR annual seminar to consider all quality aspects and

identify improvements


|slide 8OVERVIEW




Outline:

|slide 9

Roles and responsibilities of key actors is crucial:

Key actors:

– Eurostat EGR Team

– Business register staff / Profiling staff within NSIs

– Commercial data provider

– FATS/FDI users

Notes:

– Roles of the actors are defined further in the deliverable.

– These need to be agreed to improve EGR quality.

– The required resources need to be available

3. Roles and responsibilities

|slide 10CONCLUSIONS

Now that EGR 2.0 is in production main focus should be on improving the current system to get Quality output.

In this respect clarifying roles and responsibilities and having them agreed is needed. Producing quality reports also.

Nothing will be possible without the involvement from both the Eurostat EGR Team and Member States.

Should start from a clear and shared evaluation of the EGR 2.0 2014 production cycle. First cycle running will reveal needs; a review of the ESSnet proposals will be needed anyway.



Integration of IPT into EGR 2.0

Maryse FESSEAU, ESSnet ESBRs WP3 Coordinator



1. Introduction – what are we talking about ?

2. Work on-going

-> Proposals under consideration

3. Conclusion

|slide 31 – Introduction (1/5)

• What are we talking about ?

• Manual profiling under European initiative (collaborative process);

• Aim: developing the organisation and technical pre-requisites to allow the information to be taken into account in the EGR production cycle;

• Integration = Profiling information in the Interactive Profiling Tool (IPT) as input to the EGR production cycle (what information, which channel, which roles and responsibilities, when)

• Term: short-term; concrete first steps towards integration


• 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


• 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



2. Work on-going


3. Conclusion

|slide 72 – Work on-going

• ESSnet ESBRs WP3 roadmap for drafting the deliverable:

How information from IPT can be (if relevant) taken into account in the EGR process

• SHORT TERM -> IPT and EGR seen as two processes/systems exchanging data

•Work in 2 steps:

• Clarifying the current status of the integration/exchange

• Moving towards more integration/exchange


• As is state

EGR

European profiling(IPT)

Process owner (GDC Profiler)

Partnering country

Eurostat

Global Enterpris e Group (GEG)

Truncated Enterprise (TEN)

Legal Unit

Profiling process

EGR -

IPT - Profiling result

generates

retrieves IPT

data from

Request for changes

is part of

concerns

is linked with

Initiates, Creates Controls/completes

Consults and retreives data from

Profiler

Business Register Staff

Data sets

Global Enterprise Group (GEG)

Enterprise (ENT)

Legal Unit Relationship between

Legal units

Global Enterprise (GEN)

Cross border frames

Users

oversees

runs

Exchange information and data

ESSnet

supports

analyses

sends and validates

EGR

ESSnet

supports

concerns


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


Major question: Is there any possibility for integration in the short term given the current calendars ?

Complete GDC profiling

Possibilities for adding input data to the EGR RY 2015

Profiling requested and initialized

RY 2015

GDC Profiling running

Partnering profiling running

Profiling completed

GDC-partering Profiling running

Start GDC profiling

April 2016

May till mid-July2016

Mid-July till end September 2016

From end September 2016…

…till December 2016

EGR data processing of input

data received to produce EGR

preliminary frame

NSI send data on LEU, REL,

ENT, LEL By Nov 15th

RY 2015

PROFILING INPUT IPT (NSI_PR) EGR PROCESS EGR INPUT (NSI_BR)

EGR preliminary frame by January 25


1 - GEG : Send information on GEG and its legal unit structure

•As soon as a profiling process is completed data sent to EGR

•Sent as input data to EGR (in addition to NSI BR input) with as source “GDC NSI profiler”.

•Data sent:

• Indirect relationships between legal units (GGH and subsidiaries)

• Information on GEG attributes (e.g. Name, NACE, turnover, employment)

•To be investigated: how to make sure data sent can be handled by EGR: e.g. send right information on date; legal unit identified; …


1 - GEG : Send information on GEG and its legal unit structure

•IPT/Profilers will add information but will not overwrite data from NSI BR - Example

A

B

C D

EF

A

B

C D

E

A

B

C D

E

F

ACTUALGEG controlled

perimeter

EGR viewUsing BR data only

(F missing)

EGR integrated viewUsing of information from both BR and PR

A

B

C

DF

IPT viewUsing PR data only

(E not consolidated)


2 - GEN : Make information on GEN available to EGR users

• As soon as a profiling process is completed data made available for consultation.

• Access is allowed through a web service from the FATS and/or IM interfaces.

• Data made available for EGR users:

• Legal unit perimeter

• Economic variable (?)

•Issue (for some ESSnet partners): no users clearly identified for the unit GEN


3. TEN : Make it possible to send information on TEN to EGR

•As soon as a profiling process is completed data on TEN can be sent to the EGR if NSI want to use TEN as ENT.

•This is not mandatory. It will be allowed as an option under the responsibility of each NSI.

•The EGR system will receive and process the information as information on ENT.

•Data sent: mandatory information that are currently sent by NSI_BR as part of the EGR production cycle (ENT and LEL files)

•To be investigated: how to make sure data sent can be handled by EGR: e.g. send information on date; enough information provided by profiler to feed in the EGR mandatory variables;


3 - TEN : Make it possible to send information on TEN to EGR

• Issues (For all ESSnet partners):

• Conflict with the current principle that the NSI_BR of a country is the authoritative source for the EGR concerning the ENT

• NSI will still be authoritative source but within a given NSI Profiler may overwrite what Business Register Staff sent.

• How flows to the BR are going to be done so that data in NSBR and EGR are synchronized ?

• Conflict with the principle of the « single flow model »


• As is state

EGR

European profiling(IPT)

Process owner (GDC Profiler)

Partnering country

Eurostat

Global Enterpris e Group (GEG)

Truncated Enterprise (TEN)

Legal Unit

Profiling process

EGR -

IPT - Profiling result

generates

retrieves IPT

data from

Request for changes

is part of

concerns

is linked with

Initiates, Creates Controls/completes

Consults and retreives data from

Profiler

Business Register Staff

Data sets

Global Enterprise Group (GEG)

Enterprise (ENT)

Legal Unit Relationship between

Legal units

Global Enterprise (GEN)

Cross border frames

Users

oversees

runs

Exchange information and data

ESSnet

supports

analyses

sends and validates

EGR

ESSnet

supports

concerns



2. Work on-going


3. Conclusion

|slide 183 – Conclusion

•Complex work

•Work still on going

• Work under constraints:

• Short-term -> has to take into account the current state of the systems (IPT and EGR 2.0)

• Eurostat ESBRs call for proposal requirements

• Deliverables expected by end April 2016

• Future: careful if calendar and processes change it may open new possibilities for integration !



EGR data quality management

Barry COENEN, Statistic Netherlands


|slide 21 – Introduction

• What are we talking about ?

Data Quality Management

1.Which quality? Which quality goal?

2.How can we measure?

3.Where are we?

4.How can we improve and reach our goal?Or go beyond our goal….

Data quality is when de data they are fit for their intended uses in operations, decision making and planning.

High quality if it correctly represents the real-world construct to which it refers

|slide 3Prelimenary conclusion

3

BR and FATS

Int profiling

NSA working together

EGR 2.0

Eurostat and NSA

|slide 4Total approach in doing thing right

4

IT

Organisation

PeopleProcesses

Core business

processes

Added value

Who does what

when– Culture– Skills and competences– Roles

– Business capabilities– External business

environment– Business model

– IT System– Concepts– Information flow

|slide 5

5

IT EGR CORE

EGR FATS

EGR IM

EGR IS

IPT

- Only build/improve what adds benefit to the needed output

|slide 6

Processes

EGR 2.0 process

Profiling process

– Make use of profiling in EGR

– Fit DQM process in national processes

– Broader participation

|slide 7

People

Work is in

progress,

people are

doing it

– Are the right people doing it– Part of their daily work?– Is it a structural part of their work?

|slide 8

Organisation

NSA have set up a

(prelimenary) internal

EGR organisation

NSA have set up a

(prelimenary) internal

EGR organisation

– Not NSA top priority– Short time for work– Not contiously

organised

|slide 9Where can we improve data quality in the process?

Analyse and improve

|slide 10

- Is all data as we need it

to process this in our IT

systems?

- Is data from each source

consistent?

- Is data between EGR IS,

EGR CORE, IPT

consistent?

- Do we receive the data

when we need it?

- Are we complete?

|slide 11

ESSnet performed two types of

analysis

– Quality of processing data

– Quality of output

Quality assessment

|slide 12Quality of input and throughput

• Is the input data of good quality?Not assessed yet.

• NSA data (LeU and res REL) is succesfully being processed. More than 95%. 100% is goal. network of authentic business registers

• Cross border information. More than 75%.

• Is this enough?• Is this good?

• How many corrections have been made?

• Why were these corrections made?

• Not delivered before?• Error in dataprocessing?

Need for:

Data processing monitor

|slide 13

- CBS analysed NL FATS output to EGR NL

“FATS” output in terms of employement

- Goal was to get a rough idea of the output

quality

- Performed together with NL FATS and NL

BR colleagues

Quality of output

|slide 14

- There was a gap

- Some NL data

remained all

resident in EGR

- NL EGR data

send once a

year

NL FATS

ongoing process

Recommendations:

-Perform analysis for

more countries

-Analyse and improve

EGR rules and

derivations

-Work more closely

together with FATS

statistician

Quality of output

|slide 15

For the discussion…

|slide 16

Data Quality Management

1.Which quality (for who)? Which quality goal?

Short term, long term

2.How can we measure? (input, throughput, output)

3.Where are we?

4.How can we improve and reach our goal?

Or go beyond our goal….

Coming back to EGR DQM

|slide 17

When have we done our work with high quality?

|slide 18

Start working and using output.

– E.g. Pilot with few countries which use EGR

output in statistical process

Define what is essential

– Short term, long term.

Focus on essential for users and output

Measure and analyse

Improve most import issues

(business value)

Food for thought

|slide 19

When are our users (FATS, FDI, … )happy?

Is EGR work inbedded in national processes?

Is BR working together with users?

How to organise to achieve the needed quality?

Food for thought