1) Need for clear separation of design (2, 3) and run (4-8)
Clarify better what is in quality and metadata management as compared to the quality and metadata that are part of the statistical process
3) Integrate data 5.1 contains many different things: national accounts, data linking, data matching, data integration. It requires more analysis, and probably some further distinctions
4) The split in 5.3 (Review, validate & edit) and 5.4 (Impute) feels unnatural to me. The more logical steps are detection of errors and correction of errors. Imputation is just one approach to correction. My feeling is strenghtened by the fact that Eurostat will spend efforts on detecting errors, but will usually report them back to the Member States and not start correcting the data originally received in order to avoid incoherence.
By the way, the term data editing is confusing to anyone not used to this terminology, and especilly to persons with an IT background. It gives the impression of opening a text editor and do undocumented changes to the data file. Data editing is not allowed!
An example of combined use is for instance the process of designing a statistical production process. The result of the process will be a document describing the designed process. This document is not only input to building the production process, but also to running the process (as it will specify the sequence, the parameters and process quality indicators and norms). In short, the specification of the production process includes the metadata system (this in addition to my point 2).
I have now checked with my dear colleagues. This largly confirmed my contribution with some further details and considerations. In general it was stressed that the GSBPM as such has been useful and the inherent need to change is low. The fundamental reason for change is that the GSBPM should be used in combination with the GSIM. This requires a high consistency in language.
Please indicate your support for this change using the stars and legend below