Analysis of existing metadata case studies

1. Analysis of existing metadata case studies Alice Born (Statistics Canada), Jenny Linnerud (Statistics Norway) and Jessica Gardner (UNECE)

2. Existing case studies 10 existing cases studies from : Australia (AUS), Canada (CAN), Croatia (HRV), Czech Republic (CZE), New Zealand (NZL), Norway (NOR), Portugal (PRT), South Africa (ZAF), Sweden (SWE) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) Available from the METIS-wiki http://www1.unece.org/stat/platform/display/metis/

3. Organisational and workplace culture issues Case study template Section 5 • Overview of roles and responsibilities • Metadata management team • Training and knowledge management • Partnerships and cooperation • Other issues

4. Roles (5.1)

5. Metadata management team (5.2)

6. Training (5.3)

7. Partnerships and cooperation (5.4) V – visited, C – sent consultents, R- reviewed documents/plans, Â – Neuchâtel group

8. System and design issues • based on the following Case Study Template sections: Section 2.2 Current Systems Section 4 System and Design Issues 4.1 IT Architecture 4.2 Metadata Management Tools 4.3 Standards and formats 4.4 Version Control and Revisions 4.5 Outsourcing v.s. in-house development 4.6 Sharing software components and tools Section 2.1 Links to the GSBPM

9. System components (2.2 + 4.3)

10. System components (2.2 + 4.3)

11. Tools and standards (4.2 and 4.3)

12. Architecture and development (4.1, 4.4 and 4.5) • Sharing of software • Australia is looking for partnerships • Canada and Norway will share documentation on data model • Czech Republic will share but needs to check with partners • Others?

13. Links to GSBPM (2.1) Australia • ABS has adopted GSBPM as part of their Enterprise Architecture but implementation in their organization still under discussion Canada • No formal plans to adopt GSBPM at this time however current BPM in their EA is similar to GSBPM Croatia • Own survey processing model but similar to GSBPM

14. Links to GSBPM (2.1) Czech Republic • Uses its own model New Zealand • Basis for GSBPM however Archiving and Evaluate are embedded in subprocesses Norway • Modified version of GSBPM however Archiving and Evaluate are embedded in subprocesses and in quality management

15. Links to GSBPM (2.1) South Africa • Adopted Statistics New Zealand business process model Sweden and UNIDO • Prepared before GSBPM was adopted however similar except no Archiving phase

16. Lessons learned

17. Main themes • Top management involvement • Significant change • Quality • Complexities of metadata • Common language • People • Project management

18. Top management involvement • Business issue rather than IT • All high-level units given a role • Metadata strategy – official mandate • Good governance • Allocate sufficient resources • Continued management support • Regular reports

19. Significant change • Recognize that this is a major change • Communication strategy • Allow business areas to influence implementation • Integrate with business processes • Regular deliveryof functionality

20. Quality • Use standards • Accept non-standard classifications exist • Depends on cooperation, motivation and competencies of metadata authors • Continuous training

21. Complexities of metadata • Not one ideal structure/format • List of requirements can be endless • Be prepared for survey-specific requirements • Communication of complex metadata principles is a challenge • Other metadata standards provide opportunities

22. Find a common language • Harmonization between subject areas • Use a metadata framework as common language

23. People • Teamwork • Good IT staff • Multidisciplinary teams • Outsiders had trouble understanding • Provide incentives

24. Project management • Develop prototypes • Usability testing • Break project into manageable pieces • Stepwise approach

25. Don’t expect to get it 100% right the first time