• Issue 19: Development of a common set of level 3 sub-processes
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

 

If a major review of the GSBPM was undertaken, consideration should be given to taking the Model down to another (third) level.   In our experience, this is the level that really resonates with business areas, as it is more tangible and facilitates project planning and scheduling activities.  Additionally, many statistical organizations have already, or are currently developing, their own third level in the hierarchy to enable standardization of processes and systems within their organizations.  Having common activities or processes at this level across organizations would provide even more standardization and help pave the way forward in the modernization program.

 

Please indicate your support for this change using the stars and legend below

  • 5* (We should do this)
  • 4* (Good idea, but need to discuss)
  • 3* (I am not sure, we need to discuss)
  • 2* (Should not make the change, but need to discuss)
  • 1* (Should not make this change)
Your Rating:
Results:
PatheticBadOKGoodOutstanding!
11 rates

 

 

 

 

  • No labels

3 Comments

  1. I am affraid to lose the generic character. Already now countries have implemented differently at the two digit level.

  2. Discussion 30/9: 

    Not a lot of support to have common level 3. 

    ABS has created a level 3 and they have found that very useful for planning and scheduling work. It has also validated level 2 for them. 

    StatsNZ have got a level 3 and 4,

    StatsCan have level 3 for business surveys

    Stats Sweden have level 5

    Thailand have level 3 which is organisation specific.

    Recommend against a level 3 because they are not generic. Perhaps we can collect these documents and put them on the wiki for future revisions.