Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

 

 

Durning yesterday's meeting, there was considerable discussion on the usefulness of Phase 8 Archiving, particularly in metadata-driven systems. At Statistics Canada, we have the concept of a data service centre layer in the business process model. A data service centre  uses a common set of technologies and standards to store, organize and access statistical information as well as applying common information management practices.

 

One option to explore is to have an additional overarching "management" layer called Information Management of Statistical Information instead of Phase 8.

 

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)

 

 

  • No labels

9 Comments

  1. From ABS:

    In the future ABS Business Architecture, the archiving and disposal of statistical data and metadata do not have their own high level phase.  Processes aimed at delivering shared and re-usable standards and system components have been removed from the Statistical Production model, as they need to be managed as overarching capabilities (e.g. developing and managing organization level archiving/disposal policies, managing archival and disposal stores, etc.). Once these overarching processes are removed there are still a few processes which remain, but they can be added to the phases where they are most relevant.  For example, designing the archiving strategy/rules for the particular statistical production process/project fits under the Design phase, the act of archiving should largely be done automatically from implementing a range of activities, not just at the end of the project.  Preserving disseminated products & services to ensure they are automated and quality assured for 'long term' support by another area fits at the end of the Disseminate phase.

  2. Given its cross-sectional nature, Istat suggests to consider the entire Phase 8 as part of the over-arching processes.

    Moreover, in the initial description of phase 8 there are some sentences on the “disposal of data and metadata”. We think that those sentences should be moved in the description of 8.4 to make it clearer. Subprocess “8.1 Define archive rules” seems a “design” activity, and it can be moved under phase 2; however, it can remain here if Phase 8 becomes over-arching).

  3. Statistics New Zealand

    A key difference between the New Zealand BPM and the international GSBPM is the addition of two extra processes - archiving and evaluation. Statistics New Zealand treats these processes as activities within other processes and sub-processes, i.e. they are implicit rather than explicit and apply across the entire BPM. A strength of the GSBPM is its simplicity and ease of use; rather than add two extra processes, is it possible to simply add the sub-processes contained within each of the Archive and Evaluate processes to the relevant processes. For example, 8.1 “Define archive rules” would logically fit as a sub-process within the Design process, and so on. Including archiving and evaluation in the underlying infrastructure in this way encourages users to think about and undertake archiving and evaluation throughout the end-to-end process. In addition, whether the evaluation sub-processes are grouped together or added to each of the first seven processes, the evaluation sub-processes should align with, and reflect (via the wording etc), a Total Quality Management approach.

  4. The current phase 8 Archive is of a mixed nature. Step 8.1 belongs in my view to the design phase. I understand that the archive is usually managed 8.2 as a separate service, not as part of the production process, but I wonder whether GSBPM should be dependent on organisational solutions. I would prefer GSBPM to be organisationally neutral, so the management of the archive would be part of the overarching activites. I understand preserve and dispose (8.3 and 8.4) as real activities, I just wonder where the essential function of the archive is. The purpose of the archive is to reuse the information. The reuse can be triggered by the detection of potential errors, by the need for further analysis on new questions, by replication requirements or by integration with other sources.

  5. Statistics Sweden

    To be considered if process stays:

    • Simplify the name of sub-processes 8.3 and 8.4 by deleting the word ‘associated’.
  6. I would support creating an overarching process to cover the archive function, as well as integrating the sub-processes into other phases where it makes sense to do so, along the lines suggested by Wim. For the overarching process, I think it's important to emphasize the preservation of statistical data as an asset, so perhaps something like Data Asset Management or something similar. 

  7. 15/10: 

    We should remove it? 

    Consider it part of every phase. In some countries, archiving is automated through the process. It is a horizontal capability.

    We should consider it as an overarching process - just like metadata management and quality.  Need to highlight these. 

    We do not want to make people think that this is something that you only do at the end. 

    Developing countries have been encouraged to think about archiving in a serious way because it was a phase. Make sure we mention archive in some suitable subprocess.

    Do these arguments apply for phase 9? Archiving sort of happens at a corporate level, but each collection area does evaluation. Evaluation is part of quality. Evaluate phase is linked to the quality wheel, which was important at the time of developing GSBPM. The phase is about getting people to pause and think before starting a cycle again. Quality is about changing during the process but evaluate comes at the end.

    Action: Business case to be written for the removal of Phase 8 and the addition of an overarching phase, Gary, Eden, Mats - to read over the business case. 

  8. I do not think the proposal will be perceived a major change.

  9. Business case drafted and circulated to the HLG Project Board. This will be presented for approval on 24 October.

    GSBPM Change Proposal