210 likes | 223 Views
Learn about the development and implementation of a minimum set of quality indicators in the Mercosur NSIs. Explore the agreements, dimensions of quality, application of indicators, and future actions for enhanced statistical quality management.
E N D
Minimum Set of Indicators Quality Standard Mercosur R. Muiños, I. Valdivia, INDEC – Argentina R. Vallejos, M. Soares, S. Albieri, Z. Bianchini, IBGE, Brazil F. Segui, J. Taulé, INE – Uruguay N. Torres, C. Sosa, DGEEC - Paraguay
Contents: • Background • Minimun set of indicators • Application of indicators • Future actions
Historically, all the Mercosur NSIs have applied some measurements of quality: • Precision measurements in the surveys • Levels of fulfillment of publication schedules • Applied in an asystematic way • With different level of development among countries.
First agreement Project of Statistical Cooperation EC-MERCOSUR and Chile • Methodologic study “System of quality indicators as bases for the planning and management of the quality at the NSIs of Mercosur and Chile”. May 2002 - March 2003 • To develop a unique quality language, a common culture of quality management • To develop a scientific management of quality
Results: • Agreement on the quality concept • Definition of the basic principles of total quality • Identification of the qualitydimensions • Analysis of the product quality through the analysis of the processes
Second agreement Project of Statistical Cooperation EC-MERCOSUR II • Task group – GT 8 – Total Quality of Statistics Mar 2007- Sep 2010 • International Technical assistance on Total Quality • Training Courses • To define and apply a set of common indicators referred to Total Quality in Statistics
Results • Diagnosis of the situation in member countries • GT 8 decided to adopt the quality dimensions proposed by Eurostat (reference) • Minimum set of quality standard indicators
Quality dimensions • Relevance • Accuracy • Punctually and opportunity • Accesibility and transparency • Coherence
Two kind of indicators: • Indicators of immediate application (1) • Optional indicators (2)
Relevance • R1. User satisfaction index (2) • R2. Rate of available statistics (2)
Accuracy • A1. Coefficient of variation (1) • A2. Unit response rate (1, 2) • A3. Question response rate (1, 2) • A4. Imputation indicators (1) • A5. Over-coverage rates (1) • A6. Missclassification rates (1)
Puctually and opportunity • Punctually in the publication calendar (1) • Time lag between the end of reference period and the date of the publication results (1) • Accessibility and Transparency: • Level of accessibility to information (2) • Web accessibility (2) • Completeness information rates of metadata for the available statistics (2)
Comparability • Length of comparable time series (1) • Coherence • Statistics coherence between different periodicity (2) • Statistics coherence in the same socioeconomic frame (2)
Pilot experience of application of the indicators • Definition of a survey for the implementation of the pilot experience. • Presentation and discussion of the results of the process of implementation of the indicators in the survey Deadline: september 2010
Survey for the implementation of the pilot experience • INDEC – Argentina • Encuesta Permanente de Hogares (Labor force survey) • IBGE – Brasil • Pesquisa de Orçamentos Familiares (Survey of family expenditures) • DGEEC – Paraguay • Encuesta Permanente de Hogares (Labor force survey) • INE - Uruguay • Índice de Costo de la Construcción (construction price index) • Encuesta Continua de Hogares (Labor force survey)
Experiencies so far in the application of the indicators (Brazil, Uruguay) • Difficulties • People in charge of surveys have as exclusive objective, the fulfillment of schedules • Data files are not prepared to perform the calculation of some indicators.
Difficulties • Changes in the state of informant units are not registered systematically • Edited /imputed registries are not marked systematically. • The non-response by questions is not registered systematically .
Experiencies so far in the application of the indicators in a survey (Brazil, Uruguay) • Positive • This project has made possible to start the implementation of these quality indicators in the NSIs. • The fact of implementing a system of quality management in a survey, facilitates the calculation of quality indicators • Collaboration from technicians and managers belonging to the supporting areas, has been detected.
Future actions • Evaluation of the implementation of the quality standard indicators in each NSI. • Harmonization of the acceptable quality levels in the proposed standard indicators • Spreading of a minimum set of quality indicators associated to each statistical product • Elaboration or adoption of a Standard of metadata documentation for Mercosur. • Implementation of Systems of Quality Management in the Mercosur NSIs
European Union Mercosur Eurostat Mercostat