GSBPM "Collect" Phase

[InKyungChoi]

Phase name

• We suggest changing “Collect” to either “Acquire” or “Source”, as ‘Collect’ does have connotations of ‘survey collections’ but with increased reliance on admin data etc. terms such as ‘acquire’ or ‘source’ maybe more relevant. While the dictionary definitions of ‘acquire’ or ‘source’ do fit, we realise the need to support multi-lingual interpretations, so such changes will need some care. (New Zealand)
• The “collect” step has been given a new name “data capture” to show the mixture of data sources used, and we have added an extra process step, “compile and make data sources available” as the las step of this phase. This also means that some tasks previously performed only in phase 5, process, will now be performed in phase 4, capture data, to reflect that chronologically, data is coded and edited as soon as it comes into the office. (Sweden)
• The GSBPM still has the appearance of being survey collection specific (even if this is not the case in reality). Is there a way to ensure that the model appears more collection mode-agnostic? E.g. is there a need to review language within the model with this in mind? (For example, “Collect data” does include receiving administrative data from a supplier, but that is not immediately obvious from the sub-phase name. A separate “Acquire data” sub-phase may work.) (UK)
• we suggest a new name, as “collect” implies the actual collection of data by traditional means (questionnaire). As most data sources in NSOs are not coming from data collection anymore, this should be reflected in the name of the Phase as well. There are elements in the description of sub-processes that belong to the Design phase and not collection (example: preparation of a collection strategy mentioned in sub-process 4.2). We suggest these should be moved to the right Phase. (Hungary)

General comment

• Maybe consider in the ‘collect’ phase of the GSBPM separating out respondent engagement and data collection into 2 components. The idea being that they are two quite separate processes with one about ‘recruiting the respondent’ and the other about ‘administering the instrument’ (or ‘gathering the data’). I think is a growing dichotomy with some agencies moving from face-to-face interview to things like ‘knock to nudge’ where the door-step is used to recruit and provide an access code for subsequent CAWI completion. I think this would help, for example, emphasize risks associated with postal approaches (and other indirect approaches) versus other more direct approaches (like door knocking) in terms of engaging respondents (and hence maintaining response rates etc.). I think it would also highlight that the mode of collection can be independent of the respondent engagement process ( so we can pair digital based collection processes with various possible modes of engagement). (New Zealand)

Sub-process 4.2

• Boundary between Phase 3 - Build and Phase 4 – Collect: In case of administrative data sub-process 4.2 includes making some checks with test files and arranging secure channel. It is unclear to what extent this task could be done as part of 3.5 or 3.6. Is 4.2 just about routine check made prior to launching the collection ? (France)

Sub-process 4.4

• The GSBPM needs to systematically analyse and define what is happening in the "finalise" sub-processes (Phases: 3, 4, 5, 6). (GSBPM "Task" task team)

[Chris-ECE]

Boundary between Phases 4 and 5 (Collect and Process)
• The “collect” step has been given a new name “data capture” to show the mixture of data sources used, and we have added an extra process step, “compile and make data sources available” as the las step of this phase. Some tasks previously performed only in phase 5, process, will now be performed in phase 4, capture data, to reflect that chronologically, data is coded and edited as soon as it comes into the office. (Sweden) Phase_4, Phase_5 (editing)
• It could be useful to make a clear distinction between the population collected and the population of interest. In which sub-process are we restricted to the population of interest, (France – previously discussed) Phase_4, 5.1 or 5.5 ?
• In the case of surveys, when the checks on the questionnaires are carried during collection with or without a possible feedback to the respondents: (France – previously discussed)
◦ do the checks fall under 4.3 or 5.3 ?
◦ does the correction of anomalies fall under 4.3 or 5.4 ?
If processing, it could be useful to clarify interactions between the sub-processes of Phase_4 and Phase_5.

Boundary between Phases 2 and 4 (Design and Collect)
• 2.3 Design collection. Add content to address the planning of the field work which may be a substantive part of this process when talking about surveys and censuses. This work includes tasks like calculating workloads and quantities of people needed, collection paths, and defining required characteristics of temporal offices, among other topics that are substantial for the process. This work is related to sub-process 4.2 but must be done at a previous stage as the resources to set up the collection must be negotiated previously to set up the collection. (Mexico) 2.3, 4.2
• There are elements in the description of sub-processes that belong to the Design phase and not collection (example: preparation of a collection strategy mentioned in sub-process 4.2). We suggest these should be moved to the right Phase. (Hungary) Phase_2 vs 4.2

Geospatial aspects
• We suggest change “geo-coding” to “geocoding” in the point 71 in order to be consistent with the term included in the GeoGSBPM. The description of this term in the footnote should also be updated according to the UN-GGIM “GSGF: Implementing Geocoding”, as presented in the GeoGSBPM document: “Geocoding can be considered as a method of linking a description of a location to the location’s measurable position in space. Geocoding links unreferenced location information (e.g., an address, or other location description) associated with a statistical unit (e.g., housing unit or business) to a set of coordinates within a coordinate system”. (Portugal) 4.3
• We suggest change “geographical” to “geospatial” in the point 72 in order to be consistent throughout the document regarding the term of geospatial data/information (and services). (Portugal) 4.3
• “On several occasions, there were mentions of (data inputs from GPS systems). While the implication of it is clear, we suggest using: (Location data from location-enabled systems). The reason is that the Global Positioning System (GPS) is so specific and its data comes in the form of x-y coordinates; while the location is used within NSOs in a broader sense” (Saudi Arabia) 4.2, 4.3

Changes to 4.2
• We suggested adding the following information in the point 69: 4.2
o Translating of materials and other contents (e.g., into the different languages spoken or used in the country, FAQ). 4.2
o Providing information for respondents and users about the framework, legal context, methodological information, metadada (concepts, classifications,…), confidentiality and privacy issues , etc. (Portugal) 4.2
• Sub-process “4.2. Set up collection” says: “Ensuring collection resources are available (i.e., laptops, collection apps, APIs);” we suggest a change to say: “…laptops, mobile devices, collection apps…” (Mexico) 4.2

Other comments
• “Modernizing” the terminology used in the models: making sure that the terminology keeps up with the changes in the environment and enables organizations to model new solutions, objects, activities, etc. (e.g. “collect” in GSBPM implies the actual collection of data by traditional means (questionnaire). (Hungary) Phase_4

4 Collect.docx

[Chris-ECE]

Regarding the Phase Name, maybe "Source Data" is the better option than "Acquire".

[GiorgiaSimeoni]

Hi, I understand the issue with Acquire, also in Italian it does not sounds good, but Source data does not give the idea of phase or subprocess (action) but of an object. Something like "Source data acquisition"?

[FlavioRizzolo]

The use of source as a verb is not that common (as in sourcing data). It's not wrong, but it's more commonly used as a noun or adjective.

There are many data lifecycle models out there that can be used here as a reference (just Google "data lifecycle models" or "data lifecycle stages", for a taste). The only verbs I remember they use for that phase are collect, capture, ingest, acquire and gather.

[andrewphelps-ons]

Understand the issue with 'acquire' - my vote would be for 'Source data' or 'Gather data'