There is a grouping of the Level 1 processes GSBPM users will understand, but which does not form part of the model. GSBPM processes 4 through 7 (Collect, Process, Analyze, Disseminate) form what we might call the “work” process of the statistical office. Processes 1 through 3 and 9, in the order 9, 1, 2, and 3 (Evaluate, Specify Needs, Design, Build) form the “change” process. Process 8 (Archive) possesses sub-processes with characteristics of both work and change.
GSBPM contains a convenient fiction that the Evaluate process happens following each instance of a statistical process. The model paper hints at the reality, where “...in some cases, particularly for regular and well established statistical business processes, evaluation may not be formally carried out for each iteration. In such cases, this phase can be seen as providing the decision as to whether the next iteration should start from phase 1 (Specify Needs) or from some later phase (often phase 4 (Collect)).”
We think it more useful to consider the work process and change process as being fundamentally different. The work process produces statistics, directly creating value for society. The change process improves or degrades work processes, indirectly creating or destroying value by changing the performance and cost of the work process (or of the stock of work processes if adding or removing a work process). We realize value from the change process only when work processes improve.
Step one for the industrialization of official statistics is to use the change process to automate the work process. Our view is that it would be useful for the GSBPM model to explicitly support this.
For more context see our METIS paper.
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)