statistisches bundesamt - ec.europa.eu

Statistisches Bundesamt

page 1 of 24

Ingo Planz, Sven Claussen1

Evaluation report ‘Census Hub Evaluation’

on behalf of the Sponsorship on Standardisation

Executive Summary

In 2012 the Sponsorship on Standardisation charged the Federal Statistical Office of Germany with the evaluation of the Census Hub project. The Census Hub project aims at setting up an architecture for dissemination of European census results. The focus of this evaluation is in particular on the standards which have been developed or are used in the project. The evaluation does not deal either with the technical project implementation or the Census Hub programme of content.

At first Germany conducts a survey by use of a questionnaire following the Sponsorship’s proposal of a SWOT tool. The questionnaire’s questions were chosen such that in general each SWOT aspect is being considered by at least one question and all questions relate to one SWOT aspect at least.

The participation in the survey was very high. Out of 31 NSIs and Eurostat a total of 28 organisations returned an answered questionnaire. For analysis purposes all answers were aggregated subsequently by counting the different ratings, and visualized using bar charts. In addition the answers of the open questions provided additional insights. Furthermore the analysis focused on main aspects based on “core questions” mainly posed by the Sponsorship on Standardisation.

After that the Federal Statistical Office of Germany conducted in 2013 a workshop to discuss the results and deduce appropriate conclusions, where several members of the NSIs and Eurostat participated. As an outcome the final survey report was agreed to.

Overall the Census Hub project was considered mainly positive. But the analysis offered partially negative and different estimations among the organisations which is worthwhile to look at carefully to learn one’s lesson from the Census Hub project. Regarding the core questions the participants of the workshop draw the following main conclusions:

• For project success it is very important to have a clear business case so that the tasks and responsibilities of the project participants are clearly defined and project costs as well as potential re-use can be estimated to a great extent.

• The consideration of national circumstances is essential although this may slow down the standardisation process. Especially the minimum requirements (legal, confidentiality, security) must always be met.

• A key factor for success is mainly the support by management, but also the availability of know-how of the standards, financial/staff resources, harmonised metadata and technical support for setting up the reference infrastructure.

1 [email protected], [email protected]


page 2 of 24

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

At its session in May 2011 the ESSC established the so-called Sponsorship on Standardisation and mandated it as follows2:

The Sponsorship is created for a period of two years and is expected to 1) define the scope and the business case for ESS standardisation; 2) review the state of the art, identify barriers and propose remedies; 3) set up an action plan and mechanism for standardisation in the ESS; 4) liaise with external initiatives and actively involve stakeholders.

The mandate contains the requirement to present and discuss the approach and the work programme with the ESSC.

The Sponsorship consists of members from six National Statistical Institutes (NL, LV, FR, DE, HU, IT) and Eurostat.

The Sponsorship’s work programme is divided into three pillars investigating the possibilities and conditions of standardisation as well as frameworks for implementing standards. One of these pillars explicitly includes reviewing past and current pilot projects for standardisation in the ESS. Within this pillar of the work programme an evaluation of the Census Hub project was decided upon.

The Census Hub project aims at setting up an architecture for the dissemination of European census results. Its approach necessitates the implementation of a wide range of standards throughout the ESS.

The Sponsorship on Standardisation itself has thus identified the Census Hub as one of the attractive pilots in the area of establishing and implementing standards.

1.2 Aims

In understanding the aims of the evaluation, it is important to keep in mind that it has been commissioned by the Sponsorship as described above. Considering the mission of the Sponsorship, the focus of this evaluation is in particular on the standards which have been developed or are used in the project. The evaluation does not deal either with the technical project implementation or the Census Hub programme of content.

That is, in line with the aims of the third pillar of the Sponsorship on Standardisation, the evaluation seeks to investigate the following questions:

� How do we collaborate in the ESS?

� How did the standardisation take place (how were standards chosen/what criteria were/should have been applied)?

2 Cf. Sponsorship on Standardisation: Progress report; Sponsorship on Standardisation, ESSC

2012/15/13/EN


page 3 of 24

� Which of the standards (and tools) can be shared and reused in the ESS (i.e. transferability)?

� What has turned out to be hampering the implementation of standards?

� What has proven to be fostering the implementation of standards?

2 Methodology

2.1 SWOT aspects and questionnaire rationale

One of the results of their investigation of methods for assessing standardisation projects or efforts is the Sponsorship’s proposal of a SWOT tool. The tool and in particular its aspects are described in detail in appendix IV. The evaluation of the Census Hub project builds upon these aspects.

However, the evaluation is not an immediate SWOT analysis. Most notably, no scores were assigned. Such scores (cf. appendix IV) serve a useful purpose only as a means to compare multiple projects.

For the purpose of evaluation a survey was conducted employing a questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed as follows on the basis of the SWOT aspects: The questionnaire’s questions were chosen such that each SWOT aspect is being considered by at least one question and that all questions relate to at least one SWOT aspect.

There are just two notable exceptions to that rule: Firstly, aspect O53 is not addressed by any question. The reason is that aspect O5 refers to respondents’ burdens – an issue which does not apply to a project that focuses entirely on the data exchange between ESS members. Secondly, there are several open questions in the questionnaire, asking for comments etc. For these questions no related SWOT aspects can be identified a priori.

2.2 Structure of questionnaire and conduct of survey

The questionnaire consists of 6 main sections. These cover the different aspects of the Census Hub project where standardisation occurs. Furthermore, questions regarding transferability and strategic issues are asked. In the latter case, the relation to SWOT aspects is immediately evident. The entire questionnaire is documented in appendix I.

The vast majority of the questionnaire’s questions is of one particular type: It asks for an assessment using a scale ranging from -- to ++. This allows for an aggregation

of answers by counting and adding the individual answers together. However, each section has at least one open question that can provide additional insight into the assessment-style answers.

3 Here and subsequently, any reference to SWOT aspects employs the abbreviations as given in

appendix IV. I. e., here O5 refers to ‘Reduced burden on respondents’


page 4 of 24

As mentioned above, the questionnaire questions were designed with the SWOT aspects in mind. Appendix III shows the correspondence between questionnaire questions and SWOT aspects.

In the course of the evaluation, the questionnaire was submitted to the participants of the Census Hub project. That means, the NSIs of the 31 member states and Eurostat were asked for their assessment.

2.3 Survey analysis

The SWOT aspects are a valuable guide in assuring that a broad spectrum of aspects is considered. However, for the purpose of analysis and assessment of the results, it was decided to deviate from the SWOT aspects and instead focus on the set of core questions4 as laid out in section 1.2 above.

The following approach was chosen to answer the core questions: For each of the core questions, the related questionnaire questions were identified. By grouping and aggregating these questionnaire answers, one should get an insight into the respective core question. The core questions and their related questionnaire questions are shown in the following table.

Core question Related questionnaire questions

1 How do we collaborate in the ESS?

Q08, Q10, Q11, Q12

2 How did the standardisation take place?

Q07, Q09, Q13, Q15, Q16

3 What of the standards can be shared and reused in the ESS?

Q32 – Q37, Q40, Q41, Q42, Q43, Q44, Q45, Q46

4 What has turned out to be hampering or fostering the implementation of standards?

Q12, Q17, Q18, Q19, Q20 – Q31, Q38, Q39, Q41 – Q44

Here, the last two of the questions from section 1.2 have been combined as they turn out to be related to the same questionnaire questions.

However, while aggregating the answers provides a high-level view of the overall tendencies, only breaking down the answers to the individual questionnaire questions will yield detailed insight.

4 From here on, the report will refer to these questions as the ’core questions’ in order to distinguish

them from the questions in the questionnaire, which will be aptly called ‘questionnaire questions’.


page 5 of 24

3 Results

Participation in the survey was very high. A total of 28 organisations out of 32 (31 NSIs and Eurostat) returned an answered questionnaire.

The complete table of (aggregated) answers can be found in appendix II.

In this chapter, the results are presented for the core questions by grouping the questionnaire questions as outlined above. In the case of assessment-style questions the percentages of answers given are shown as stacked bar charts. Again, the precise numbers can be found in the tables of appendix II.

In the case of open questions, a similar aggregate can not be computed. Without disclosing individual replies, only selected and recurring answers are provided in this report.

3.1 High-level view

The above chart shows the percentages of answers aggregated by core questions.

Roughly, the majority of answers given to the above core questions were positive with about 20 to 25 percent of answers being negative. Other than that, there is nothing of significance that can be seen in this high-level view.

��

�

�

��

�

�


page 6 of 24

3.2 Detailed results

3.2.1 How do we collaborate in the ESS?

The most striking observation when breaking down this core question is Q10 (‘The tasks and responsibilities of the project participants are clearly defined.’): Almost three quarters of the answers are positive. At the other extreme, only slightly more than one third of the answers to Q11 (‘The participants are involved in project planning and in the selection of standards and tools.’) were positive while roughly the same number of answers was negative. But this seems not necessarily crucial for project success.

Possibly the open question Q14 (‘Do you have any other comments on the Census Hub concept?’) hints at an underlying issue: Several responses relate to the business case. Either it is being made or a lack thereof is stated.

3.2.2 How did the standardisation take place?

Breaking down this core question reveals an otherwise invisible split. Questionnaire questions Q07 (‘Exchange processes in the ESS must be improved.’), Q09 (‘The project takes account of the development of standards by the OECD, the UN, etc.’) and Q13 (‘It is clearly defined in what area the standards are used.’) are largely answered positively – ranging from 72% to 81%. However, Q15 (‘The costs and time involved could clearly be calculated when the project started.’) and Q16 (‘Project planning allows calculating the future costs and time required.’) have had much more negative answers. Particularly Q15 is striking in that regard.

��

�

�

��

�

�

��

�

�

��

�

�


page 7 of 24

3.2.3 Which of the standards (and tools) can be shared and reused in the ESS?

Again, the results vary. Q33 (‘Data production’), Q41 (‘The standards are compatible with national developments.’) and Q43 (‘The standards are compatible with the statistical confidentiality requirements.’) have received a considerable amount of negative answers. Related to that, in the open question Q37 (‘Which standards or mechanisms of the Census Hub do you think are difficult to transfer or cannot be transferred at all?’) data production and production processes were mentioned as being difficult to transfer. However, as this is a project that employs a variety of new approaches, this is not surprising. In fact Q23 underlines that the importance of reusing is deemed to be smaller compared to other factors.

On the other hand, Q32 (‘Co-ordination of harmonised metadata’), Q35 (‘National interface (Web Service)’), Q44 (‘The standards are compatible with IT security requirements.’), Q46 (‘The standards are suited for long-term use.’) have had a majority of positive answers (up to 72%). Similarly, this is supported by the open question Q36 (‘Which standards or mechanisms of the Census Hub do you think are particularly well suited for transfer?’). Here SDMX, the web service approach and the Reference Infrastructure were mentioned repeatedly.

��

�

�

��

�

�


page 8 of 24

3.2.4 What has turned out to be hampering or fostering their implementation?

There are several things to note here: Firstly, when assessing the results, one has to keep in mind that the questionnaire questions Q20 through Q30 inquire about the importance of certain aspects. Hence, a negative response is not inherently critical. It merely asserts that a given aspect is of less importance.

Still, Q18 (‘Existing processes and procedures’) has received a majority of negative results. In fact, responses to Q19 (‘If you could use existing systems or processes and procedures: please briefly describe the relevant systems or processes and procedures.’) repeatedly refer to various IT systems: several database and data warehouse systems, the Reference Infrastructure, etc. The reuse of processes is mentioned only once.

��

�

�

��

�

�


page 9 of 24

Also, the strategic assessments Q41 (‘The standards are compatible with national developments.’) and Q43 (‘The standards are compatible with the statistical confidentiality requirements.’) hint at possible barriers with respect to the compatibility with national developments and confidentiality requirements.

While especially the answers to Q38 (‘Using them involves cost saving potential.’) still reveal some scepticism the answers to Q39 (‘Using them improves the quality of the products.’) with a majority of positive answers show that the benefits of the standards in the Census Hub project are widely appreciated.

4 Conclusions

After analysis of the answers of the questionnaire several members of the NSIs and Eurostat discussed the results in a two-day-workshop. Regarding the four core questions stated above the following conclusions can be drawn based on the answers of the Census Hub Evaluation survey:

1. How do we collaborate in the ESS? Since the tasks and responsibilities of the project participants are clearly defined it was not crucial that some project participants weren’t involved in project planning and in the selection of standards and tools like others were. For project success it is very important to have a clear business case though.

2. How did the standardisation take place? While the need for standards is commonly acknowledged and the consideration of international developments is appreciated the project participants identified a lack of pre-calculation of the essential expenditures the project comes along with. The thorough analysis of user requirements and detailed business cases play a crucial role in a standardisation project to ensure that standards are chosen appropriately and costs can be estimated to a great extent. Future projects should carefully invest more efforts on this.

3. What of the standards (and tools) can be shared and reused in the ESS? The survey results in the conclusion that especially the harmonization of metadata and the web service approach are useful for future projects. Also shared tools (such as the SDMX-RI) are considered to be valuable assets. Furthermore the compatibility with IT security requirements is deemed to be positive as well as the suitability of the standards for long term use. On the other hand the standards need to support national production processes. This includes the feasibility of transferring the standards to other – potentially smaller – data producers in a member state. More critically, the standards have to be compatible with national developments and the statistical confidentiality requirements as well. In future projects overcoming incompatibility with national circumstances should be considered in more extent although this would maybe slow down the standardisation process.

4. What has turned out to be hampering or fostering the implementation of standards? The project participants see a key factor for success mainly in the support by management, the availability of know-how of the standards, financial/staff resources, harmonised metadata and technical support for setting up the reference


page 10 of 24

infrastructure. Harmonised metadata however must be available timely to allow national production processes to align. The main advantage of using standards is seen in the improvement of the quality of the products. The greatest threats are the incompatibility with national developments and confidentiality requirements and to a small extent the lack of already existing processes and procedures in the NSIs. However a majority of positive answers shows that benefits of the standards in the Census Hub project are well recognized. If the standardisation process would take account of national characteristics in a broader way the possible barriers for comprehensive encouragement would be less.


page 11 of 24

Appendix I Questionnaire

Questionnaire on the evaluation of the Census Hub Project

Notes

To examine the framework conditions and possibilities of standardisation in the ESS, the ESSC has set up the Sponsorship on Standardisation. As part of its activities, an evaluation of the Census Hub Project has been agreed upon.

The evaluation focuses on the aspect of standardisation. What is examined is in particular the standards which have been developed, or are used, in the project. The evaluation does not deal either with the technical project implementation or the Census Hub programme of content.

General

Organisation

Address

Name

E-mail

Telephone


page 12 of 24

Project participation

Q01 To what extent is your Member State currently integrated in the Census Hub?

So far no activities

Planning and preparation

Setting up the technical infrastructure

Loading of test data is finished

Full integration

Q02 If you have already performed activities: when did you start working in the Census Hub Project? (QQ/YY)

Q03 If you are fully integrated: since when has your Member State been fully integrated? (QQ/YY)

Q04 If you are not fully integrated yet: by when do you plan to achieve full integration? (QQ/YY)

Q05 What other organisations in your Member State are involved in the Census Hub?

Q06 Do you have any other comments?


page 13 of 24

Project concept

Please indicate to what extent the following statements apply.

-- - o + ++

Q07 Exchange processes in the ESS must be improved.

Q08 National specificities are taken into account in the project.

Q09 The project takes account of the development of standards by the OECD, the UN, etc.

Q10 The tasks and responsibilities of the project participants are clearly defined.

Q11 The participants are involved in project planning and in the selection of standards and tools.

Q12 The participants’ share in the overall project is transparent to outsiders.

Q13 It is clearly defined in what area the standards are used.

Q14 Do you have any other comments on the Census Hub concept?


page 14 of 24

National project implementation

Please indicate to what extent the following statements apply.

-- - o + ++

Q15 The costs and time involved could clearly be calculated when the project started.

Q16 Project planning allows calculating the future costs and time required.

Please indicate to what extent you could use existing bases when setting up the national component.

-- - o + ++

Q17 Existing IT systems

Q18 Existing processes and procedures

Q19 If you could use existing systems or processes and procedures: please briefly describe the relevant systems or processes and procedures.

Please indicate the importance of the following factors influencing the successful project implementation in your Member State.

-- - o + ++

Q20 Availability of know-how of the standards

Q21 Financial/staff resources

Q22 Support by management

Q23 Existing processes and procedures

Q24 Are there other factors you consider important for the project implementation?


page 15 of 24

Overall project implementation

Based on your experience from the project, what aspects do you consider as particularly critical for success?

-- - o + ++

Q25 Timely availability of harmonised metadata

Q26 Technical support when setting up the national interface (NSI-RI)

Q27 Presenting the project to the management, seeking its support / business case

Q28 Training offered/know-how transfer

Q29 Documentation of IT solutions and architecture

Q30 Financial support (grants and the like)


Transferability

In your opinion, to what extent can the standards used in the project be transferred to other statistics in the following Census Hub areas?

-- - o + ++

Q32 Co-ordination of harmonised metadata

Q33 Data production

Q34 Loading of data into the national interface

Q35 National interface (Web Service)


page 16 of 24

Q36 Which standards or mechanisms of the Census Hub do you think are particularly well suited for transfer?

Q37 Which standards or mechanisms of the Census Hub do you think are difficult to transfer or cannot be transferred at all?

Strategic assessment

Please indicate to what extent the following statements on the used standards apply.

-- - o + ++

Q38 Using them involves cost saving potential.

Q39 Using them improves the quality of the products.

Q40 The standards can be transferred to other data producers in your Member State.

Q41 The standards are compatible with national developments.

Q42 The standards are compatible with national legal regulations.

Q43 The standards are compatible with the statistical confidentiality requirements.

Q44 The standards are compatible with IT security requirements.

Q45 The standards meet user or customer requirements.

Q46 The standards are suited for long-term use.

Q47 Do you have comments on, or examples regarding the statements?


page 17 of 24

Other



page 18 of 24

Appendix II Result tables

II.1 Answers by question

So far

no activities

Planning and

preparation

Setting up the technical infrastructure

Loading of test data is

finished

Full integration

Project participation

Q01 - 5 - 14 8

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Q02 5 - 11 5 4 - -

Q03 - 1 3 5 - - -

Q04 - - - - - 7 10

-- - o + ++

% % % % %

total # replies

Project concept

Q07 - - 19 58 23 26

Q08 7 19 33 37 4 27

Q09 - - 28 52 20 25

Q10 - 7 19 52 22 27

Q11 12 23 31 27 8 26

Q12 8 15 50 19 8 26

Q13 - 8 12 58 23 26 National project implementation

Q15 30 48 11 7 4 27

Q16 7 37 26 26 4 27

Q17 11 22 19 22 26 27

Q18 15 41 22 19 4 27

Q20 4 7 7 33 48 27

Q21 - 7 7 33 52 27

Q22 - 4 7 52 37 27

Q23 4 15 33 33 15 27 Overall project implementation

Q25 - - 11 37 52 27

Q26 - 4 14 36 46 28

Q27 - 11 32 39 18 28

Q28 - 11 18 39 32 28

Q29 - - 14 29 57 28

Q30 4 11 37 37 11 27


page 19 of 24

Transferability

Q32 4 - 25 46 25 28

Q33 7 25 43 21 4 28

Q34 7 11 36 32 14 28

Q35 11 - 18 43 29 28

Strategic assessment

Q38 11 14 18 32 25 28

Q39 - 4 21 46 29 28

Q40 19 7 30 41 4 27

Q41 21 11 39 25 4 28

Q42 4 4 58 15 19 26

Q43 15 19 42 19 4 26

Q44 7 7 25 46 14 28

Q45 - 18 61 11 11 28

Q46 - 14 29 32 25 28


page 20 of 24

II.2 Answers by SWOT aspects (assessment-style questions only)

-- - o + ++

% % % % %

Strengths

S1: Improved process and systems quality (less risk) 1 6 20 46 27

S2: Easy development of new proc. and systems 12 21 25 27 15

S3: Easy incorporation of new data sources 12 17 27 30 15

S4: Easy incorporation of new diss. channels 10 17 17 29 27

S5: (Re)use of ESS standards, systems, approaches 5 11 21 33 31

S6: Reduced personnel costs 5 11 13 33 38

Weaknesses

W1: Costs of development (one-off) 4 12 18 33 32

W2: Costs of transition (one-off) 7 13 23 33 24

W3: Costs of support and maintenance (recurring) 4 21 30 32 13

W4: Loss of autonomy 3 7 25 40 25

W5: Lack of flexibility 3 7 25 40 25

W6: Lack of room for differences between parties 8 10 26 38 19

Opportunities

O1: (Re)use of standards, systems and/or approaches 5 2 16 38 40

O2: Improved quality of individual data sets 5 2 20 45 29

O3: Increased consistency of data over domains 7 13 29 33 18

O4: Easier development of new statistical products 7 9 30 36 18

O5: Reduced burden on respondents - - - - -

O6: Better communication with users and stakeholders 6 12 32 33 17

Threats

T1: Loss of identity for ESS partners 6 12 34 33 15

T2: Proprietary standards that hamper cooperation - 9 45 30 15

T3: High entry costs for new parties 2 9 15 33 41

T4: Lack of coherence with national policies 13 10 39 30 9

T5: Lack of synergy with other statistical communities - - 28 52 20

T6: Lack of support stakeholders/funding providers 3 9 24 34 29


page 21 of 24

Appendix III Relation between questions and SWOT aspects

The following table shows the relations between questionnaire questions and SWOT aspects. That is, a bullet point indicates that a given question is meant to cover the respective SWOT aspect.

Grey lines (questions) indicate open question. Here, no relation is assumed a priori. The grey column (aspect O5) does not apply to the Census Hub project.

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Q01 � � � �

Q02 � � � � �

Q03 � � � � �

Q04 � � � �

Q05

Q06

Q07 �

Q08 � � � �

Q09 � �

Q10 � � �

Q11 � � � � �

Q12 �

Q13 �

Q14

Q15 � � � �

Q16 �

Q17 � � �

Q18 � � �

Q19

Q20 � � � � �

Q21 � � � � �

Q22 �

Q23 �

Q24

Q25 � � � � �

Q26 � � � � �

Q27 � � � �

Q28 � � � � �


page 22 of 24

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Q29 � � � � � �

Q30 � � � �

Q31

Q32 � � � � � � � � � � �

Q33 � � � � � �

Q34 � � � � �

Q35 � � � � � � � � �

Q36

Q37

Q38 � �

Q39 � �

Q40 � � �

Q41 �

Q42 �

Q43 �

Q44 �

Q45 � � �

Q46 � �

Q47

Q48


page 23 of 24

Appendix IV SWOT analysis

The second pillar of the Sponsorship’s work programme is concerned with developing a framework for standardisation for the ESS. In its interim report, the Sponsorship proposes a so-called SWOT tool as a tool to evaluate standardisation projects or efforts.

A SWOT tool is a way to make a business case for a project. It seeks to rate the strengths (S) and weaknesses (W) of the project, as well as opportunities (O) and threats (T) involved in it. Strengths and weaknesses refer to aspects inherent to the project itself whereas opportunities and threats refer to strategic aspects or aspects outside the actual project.

These four categories are detailed by a list of individual aspects. In a SWOT analysis, these aspects are then rated using a scoring scale. The resulting scores are then added to give an overall score for the project.

The SWOT tool proposed here is based on a SWOT tool proposed by Kloek, Szücs and Vereczkei5. The authors explicitly note that a resulting score has in itself little information on the quality of the project. SWOT scores are useful rather as a means to compare different projects.

The following is a list of the aspects and scoring scales as proposed by the Sponsorship.

IV.1 Categories and aspects

IV.1.1 Strengths

� S1: Improved process and systems quality (less risk)

� S2: Easy development of new statistical processes and systems

� S3: Easy incorporation of new data sources

� S4: Easy incorporation of new dissemination channels

� S5: (Re)use of existing ESS standards, systems and/or approaches

� S6: Reduced personnel costs

5 Cf. Standardisation of methods and integration in the ESS – Appraisal of projects; Kloek, Szücs and

Vereczkei; http://isi2011.congressplanner.eu/pdfs/650250.pdf


page 24 of 24

IV.1.2 Weaknesses

� W1: Costs of development (one-off)

� W2: Costs of transition (one-off)

� W3: Costs of support and maintenance (recurring)

� W4: Loss of autonomy (enforced vs. voluntary standards)

� W5: Lack of flexibility (rigid standards)

� W6: Lack of room for differences between parties (e.g. national differences)

IV.1.3 Opportunities

� O1: (Re)use of standards, systems and/or approaches from non-ESS parties

� O2: Improved quality of individual data sets for strategic and other users

� O3: Increased consistency of data over statistical domains

� O4: Easier development of new statistical products

� O5: Reduced burden on respondents

� O6: Better communication with users and stakeholders

IV.1.4 Threats

� T1: Loss of identity for ESS partners

� T2: Proprietary standards that hamper cooperation with non-ESS partners

� T3: High entry costs for new parties

� T4: Lack of coherence with national (government) policies

� T5: Lack of synergy with other statistical communities (UN, OECD, …)

� T6: Lack of support from stakeholders/ funding providers

IV.2 Scoring scales

� Relevance. For example, the threat ‘High entry costs’ might be considered less relevant than ‘Lack of support’ (or vice versa).

� Effect. For example, a scenario with a lot of law-enforced rules has a large impact on the aspect ‘High entry costs’.

Relevance might be scored on a scale from 1 to 4, while effect might be scored on a scale from 0 to 3. For a given scenario, the value of an aspect is the product of both factors.

statistisches bundesamt - ec.europa.eu

Documents