Transcript Adaptation of the SBR to changing external conditions Søren Schiønning Andersen, Statistics Denmark ([email protected])

Adaptation of the SBR
to changing external conditions
Søren Schiønning Andersen, Statistics Denmark ([email protected])
Outline
•
Background and purpose
•
The three basic registers - our point of departure
•
The integration of the SBR with the CABR
•
The sources
•
Recent challenges
•
Pros and cons
•
Key differences between SBRs and ABRs
•
Overall learning points
Purpose
To describe:
•
The interface and integration between our SBR
and the main sources, especially the CABR
•
Recent challenges to our SBR and how we have
tried to cope with these challenges
•
How these changes have affected our ability to
fulfil the objectives of the SBR (coverage, quality,
usage, costs)
•
Our main learning points from these challenges
Our point of departure re registers
Personal identification number (PIN)
Data on persons
Persons
Identification
number
of workplace
Families
Owners
PIN
Data on buildings and
dwellings
Real estate identification
number
Address
Owners
PIN
Data on businesses
Address
Business identification
number
Basic data model for our SBR
Types of units comprised by Statistics Denmark’s SBR
Statistical units
Administrative units
Enterprise
group
Enterprise
Legal
unit
Establishment
(LKAU)
Local legal
unit (LKAU)
VAT unit 1
VAT unit 2
VAT unit 3
Kind of activity
unit (KAU)
Responsibility:
Responsibility:
Responsibility:
Statistics Denmark
CABR / DCCA
CCTA
Main sources for the SBR
The SBR is a satellite in a wider system of data users/providers
Primary data providers
Danish Commerce and
Companies Agency
Central Customs and
Tax Administration
Secondary data providers
Central ABR:
the core
Legal units
Central Register of
Persons
Official Journal of the
Danish State
Statistics Denmark
Danish Working
Environment Authority
Danish Labour Market
Authority
Local legal
units
Self registration
via Internet
Six recent challenges to our SBR
1) Change to a key administrative source
2) Change to the underlying business model
3) Adaptation of the SBR to 1) and 2)
4) Challenges to content from political strong users
5) New supra-national requirements
6) In-house requirements for improved productivity
Challenge 1: Change to a key source
Cause:
• e-Income from CCTA register replaces old source
• Obligatory monthly employment data at LKAU level
Effect:
• Re-design of process and IT system (1 man-year)
• Improvements to timeliness/frequency, relevance and
accuracy
• Increased usage of SBR
Conclusion:
•
•
•
•
Pro-active communication at an early stage is key
Data definitions must comply with statistical needs
The CCTA must have self-interest in data quality
Follow CCTA’s project all the way to implementation
Challenge 2: Change to the business model
Cause:
• “Web-reg” due to new administrative usage of CABR
• Cost reductions in the CABR
• Change in the underlying perception re BRs
Effect:
• LLUs were no longer followed over time – fundamental
change to the business logic
• High quality potential, but also high risks. We will see …
• So far, it has meant more work for SD
Conclusion:
• Keep statistical concepts and needs on the agenda – try
to give as much as possible in return
• Exploit the advantages and avoid the disadvantages
Challenge 3: Adaptation of the SBR
Cause:
• Necessary response to challenge 1 and 2
Effect:
• Functionality re LKAUs had to be built-up in SBR instead
• Less tight relation with CABR – more freedom …
• Work processes changed from administrative to
statistical units
• Extremely costly compared to available resources
Conclusion:
• Keep it (more) simple – it is very hard to get resources to
change very complex systems that only benefits SD
• I.e. we need to be more realistic and modest when we
define requirements
Challenge 4: Strong political pressure on ABR
Cause:
• Pressure to re-use data in order to reduce burden
• Digitalisation and productivity of the public sector
• Data must fulfil more purposes – also from strong players
Effect:
•
•
•
•
Data will have direct effects on data subjects
The relative weight of statistical needs will diminish
New incentives and sources of errors are introduced
Net quality effects are difficult to assess
Conclusion:
• Monitoring of new initiatives
• Proactive communication and advice to admin. users
• The overall system must remain sustainable
Challenge 5: New supra-national requirements
Cause:
• New EU Regulation with additional requirements (EGs)
• Data needs are not covered by the CABR
• No other administrative source (share holder register)
Effect:
• We must rely on commercial data
• Data on EGs and MNEs are already in high demand
Conclusion:
• Ensure that new supra-national requirements for the SBR
are incorporated in a coming administrative register
• Avoid parallel systems becoming permanent
Challenge 6: How to do more with less …
Cause:
• Recurring cost reductions in the NSI
• Currently, our SBR do not cover all units in agricultural
surveys - a separate farm register is maintained
Effect:
• Integration of missing agricultural units into the SBR
• Actuality and accuracy of data on farms will increase
• Coherence will improve
Conclusion:
• The main sources/systems must be exploited to
maximum extent
• Redundant data and systems should be discontinued
• Traditions and “cultures” are difficult to change
Pros and cons … summing up
Benefits / advantages
Costs / disadvantages

High coverage (depending on
requirements for legal registration)

Administrative definitions can deviate
from statistical needs and definitions

High quality (if data are validated by the
administrative body and updates are
well coordinated)

Problems regarding match and
consistency

Use of different classifications (and
different use of the same classifications)

Limited possibilities for collecting
supplementary data (because of burden
considerations and division of
responsibility/competence)

Reluctance among enterprises regarding
data exchange (necessitates assurance
of confidentiality and “documentation” of
positive cost/ benefit ratio)

Dependency on providers

Vulnerable to political and/or
administrative changes

Potentially less timely data

Reduces costs

Reduces administrative burden on
business

Supports frequent statistics (if updated
on a current basis)

Potentially more timely data (depending
on technical set-up and administrative
processes)
Key differences between SBRs and ABRs
Aspect
SBR
ABR
Purpose
Supports production and
dissemination of aggregate statistics
Supports binding legal or administrative decisions about individuals
Content
Focus on economic phenomena – at
institutional and productive level
Focus on legality and responsibility
of individual operations
Complex approach to units
(More) simple approach to units
Consequences
Neutral - no direct consequences
Defines rights and obligations –
direct consequences
Relation to
policies
Indirect
Direct
Political weight
“Light” – intangible benefits
“Heavy” – tangible implications
The SBR is a “bi-product”
The ABR is the “main” product
Time perspective
Basis for coherence and comparability over time – complex approach
Basis for decisions with effect from
date of registration – simple
approach
Quality
philosophy
Multi-dimensional approach
More simple approach
Data are accurate when equal to a
real value – which is often unknown
Data are accurate when equal to the
self-perception of the unit
“Sufficient quality“ is unclear
“Sufficient quality“ is (more) clear
Key learning points for SD
In order to better fulfil our role and objectives we must:
•
Manage our partnerships better – we are not strong
enough alone
•
Communicate proactively – we cannot wait for others
to contact us
•
Always be part of the solution – not part of the
problem
•
Manage our risks better – otherwise they seem to
manage us
•
Keep things simple – balance ambitions with abilities
Thank you for your attention!
Any questions or comments?