300 likes | 523 Views
Quality Review of Key Indicators at Statistics Canada. ICES-III, June 2007 Claude Julien and Don Royce. Outline. Quality Management at Statistics Canada Quality review process Recommendations Observations on the review process Conclusion. Quality Management at STC. 1997 Quality Audit.
E N D
Quality Review of Key Indicators at Statistics Canada ICES-III, June 2007 Claude Julien and Don Royce
Outline • Quality Management at Statistics Canada • Quality review process • Recommendations • Observations on the review process • Conclusion
1997 Quality Audit • Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) • Audit on 4 key surveys • Office of the Auditor-General recommended to examine a wider application of enhanced self-assessment
Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) • Quality definition • Fitness-for-use: relevance, accuracy, timeliness, coherence, accessibility, interpretability • Management of each dimension • Policies, standards, guidelines and practices • Five main systems: users liaison, planning, methods and standards, dissemination and reporting (Brackstone 1999, Survey Methodology)
Integrated Program Reports (IPR) • Quadrennial report and biennial follow-up • Quality, costs, management of HR and strategic direction • Self-assessment and user survey or consultation • Focus on quality of outputs • Review and feedback from Policy Committee
Initiating the review • Some serious errors in the preceding 18 months • International trade • Productivity estimates • Consumer Price Index • Questions from Finance, other key users and media • Policy Committee created Steering Committee of DGs to review quality assurance practices • Headed by DG-Methodology and assisted by head of Quality Secretariat
Objectives of the review • Identify “best practices” that should be promoted to other programs • Identify specific weaknesses where action is needed
Programs Reviewed • Monthly programs • Labour Force Survey • Retail Trade Survey • Manufacturing • International Trade • Consumer Price Index • GDP by industry • Quarterly programs • Income and Expenditure Accounts • Labour Productivity • Balance of Payments
Challenges – Types of programs • Labour Force Survey • Retail Trade Survey • Manufacturing • International Trade • Consumer Price Index • GDP by industry • Income and Expenditure Accounts • Labour Productivity • Balance of Payments Traditional Administrative data Mixture of data Derived data Mixture of types
Challenges – Program process • Process = complex series of steps • Set objectives, define population, create frame, select sample, collect data, etc. • Identify a reasonable number of recognizable steps • Focus on one or two
Challenges – Aspects of a step • Design • Implementation • Execution • Evaluation
Challenges – Dimensions of quality • Relevance • Accuracy • Timeliness • Coherence • Interpretability • Accessibility
Mandate of the review • Review the practices during production (execution) to prevent the release of erroneous data (accuracy) • Particular focus on the certification and data dissemination of data • Review of Dissemination and Communications Program • Identify the underlying risk factors and their importance.
Review Teams • Identify and “volunteer” 10 reviewers • 10 review teams • 3 reviewers + member of Steering Committee per team • Lead reviewer
Organization Policy Committee Mandate Directors General Recruitment Directors Program Assistant Directors
Introductory meeting • Program director, lead reviewer and head of QS • Introduce the review process • Introduce the program • Identify main steps of program process
Main steps of program process • Preparation for certification • Data collection • Editing and transformation • Imputation and estimation • Certification • Data release • Post-release
Gather information • Semi-structured questionnaire • Cover the topics of the mandate • Not to be completed • Interviews with review team and program director and managers • Available documentation • Meta-data • Program reports
Assessment • Individual reports • Report by lead reviewer • Reviewed by Steering Committee • Vetted by program director • One-day debriefing session with all reviewers • Summary report • Report by Steering Committee • Presentation to Policy Committee
Taking action • Disposition of recommendations by Policy Committee • Funding for corrective actions • Follow-up in Integrated Program Reports
Main recommendations • Program managers are well aware of the risks factors • The programs are well-positioned to identify the improvements • Some programs would benefit more than others from additional investment • Human resources concerns dominate all other risk factors.
Main recommendations • The existence of a research and analysis capacity separate from the production operation is a key factor in assuring quality. • There are numerous “best practices” in all programs that can usefully be shared within the Agency. • Statistics Canada should develop a formal Quality Incident Response Plan • Proposals to further increase the timeliness of the programs should be regarded with extreme caution • Statistics Canada should establish an ongoing program of Quality Assurance Reviews
Aspects to bring forward • Clear mandate from Policy Committee to focus the review • Participation at the DG level to assure legitimacy • Strong cooperation from program directors and managers • Concurrent reviews to assure attention and team work • Knowledge and experience of reviewers • Composition of review teams to assure some standardization • Excellent learning, development and networking opportunity for reviewers • Overall positive experience for the reviewers • Collection approach and tools • One-day debriefing session
Aspects to improve • Better assessment and reporting of level of various risk factors • Timeliness • 10 reviews in five months (Oct-Mar) • Reviewers spent around 15 days • More interviews than expected • Time to write, review and translate reports • More timely process and dissemination • More time to schedule meetings around production • More standard program reports
Conclusion • The review was developed and carried out very quickly • The review was a success thanks to all participants • The review was not thorough; it complemented other key quality management mechanisms • Mandate to propose an on-going review program • Build on recent review • Criteria for selecting surveys • Tool box / Flexible approach • Part of learning and development program
For more information, or to obtain a French copy of this presentation, please contact: Pour de plus amples informations ou pour obtenir une copie en français du document, veuillez contacter : Merci Claude Julien Email / Courriel: claude.julien@statcan.ca Phone number / Téléphone: 613-951-6937