EUROPEAN COMMISSION – EUROSTAT ESSNET ON A … · meetings gave the opportunity to profiling...

EUROPEAN COMMISSION – EUROSTAT ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE

STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS – PHASE 1 (2014 – 2016) MBGA N° 11172.2013.007-2014.329

Deliverable No A2.8

Coaching Report

Final report on profiling coaching activities carried out by the ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1

Task: WP3, Block 2 Author: Statistics Finland (document owner) Date: March 2016

ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS (ESBRS)

WORK PACKAGE 3

1

Final report on profiling coaching activities carried out by the ESSnet ESBRs – Phase 1

Deliverable A2.8 ESSnet on ESBRs Work Package 3

Title: Coaching report ESSnet on ESBRs – Phase 1 Owner: Statistics Finland FI Version: 02.9 Authors: Mari Rantanen (FI), John Bryan (GB), Myrto Miltiadou

(GB), Agnes Topiol (FR), Maryse Fessau (FR), Hélène Fréchou (FR), Hannie Paulusma (NL)

Date: 07/03/2016

Revision history:

Date Version Description Authors 16/12/2015 01.0 First draft and plan Mari Rantanen 04/02/2016 02.0 Addition of UK coaching reports John Bryan 08/02/2016 02.1 Survey commentary and feedback John Bryan 12/02/2016 02.2 Addition of FR coaching reports Agnes Topiol 16/02/2016 02.3 Addition of recommendations & conclusion

& NL coaching report John Bryan & Hannie Paulusma

17/02/2016 02.4 Review and proof read John Bryan 24/02/2016 02.5 General review and complement on the

coaching activity part Agnes Topiol, Hélène Fréchou & Maryse Fesseau

25/02/2016 02.6 Review Hannie Paulusma 29/02/2016 02.7 Final proof read John Bryan &

Myrto Miliadou 03/03/2016 02.8 Final proof read Maryse Fesseau 07/03/2016 02.9 Add contents and graphs requested by AT John Bryan

ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016) DELIVERABLE A2.8 – COACHING REPORT

2

Contents 1. Introduction 3

2. Coaching Activities 3

2.1 Organizing training seminars 3

2.2 Organizing coaching visits 4

2.3 Providing continuous support to NSIs 4

2.4 Updating technical documentation 4

3. Reports on coaching visits 5

3.1 ONS (UK) coaching visit – May 2015 Sofia 5

3.2 ONS (UK) coaching visit – June 2015 Newport 5

3.3 INSEE (FR) and Statfi (FI) coaching visits – May 2015 Vienna & Prague 5

3.4 CBS (NL) coaching visit – September 2015 Heerlen 6

4. Coaching Survey 7

4.1 Survey Analysis 7

A. Training Seminars 8

B. Documentation 9

C. Coaching Visits 10

D. Helpdesk 11

E. General Feedback 12

5. Recommendation drawn from the coaching survey 12

5.1 Training Seminars 13

5.2 Documentation 13

5.3 Coaching visits 13

5.4 Helpdesk 14

5.5 General Feedback 14

6. Conclusions 14

Annex 1 - Questionnaire to NSIs in their profiling activities 16

Annex 2 - Comments from coached NSIs participating in the coaching survey 23


3

1. Introduction This deliverable reports on coaching activities carried out by the ESSnet ESBR members. Coaching activities are actions carried out by ESSnet ESBR members from four countries (FR, UK, FI and NL) to support the 12 EU EFTA NSIs that were involved in testing European profiling as part of the individual grant “Improvement of national business registers and testing European Profiling” 2014. Coaching activities covers four main actions:

i) organisation of training seminars

ii) organisation of coaching visits

iii) providing continuous helpdesk support

iv) updating the technical documentation

The coaching report is structured in four parts:

• Part 1 gives detail on the main actions carried out to support NSIs in their European profiling activities.

• Part 2 provides a short summary of the coaching visits which were organised by the ESSnet coaches.

• Part 3 presents the results of the coaching survey which was launched at the end of the coaching activities to collect feedback and suggestions from the NSIs.

• Part 4 makes recommendations that can be drawn from the coaching survey.

2. Coaching activities In the framework of ESSnet on ESBR, a method of initiating newcomers to profiling has been developed and piloted. This method was initiated first during ESSnet on Profiling (2009-2013). The objective has not only been to pass on the knowledge and skills in generating profiles of large and complex multinational enterprise groups in European cooperation, but also to maintain, continuously accumulate and critically revise the understanding in profiling. Coaching activities were organised around four main actions: 2.1 Organizing training seminars Three seminars were organised between September 2014 and October 2015.

September 2014 2 days Initial Training Seminar

Presentation of the European profiling methodology, focus on the desk work and information about individual grant 2014.

February 2015 2 days Follow up Seminar

Technical Information, information concerning ESSnet activities. Practical exercises on how to follow up a profiling case and what are the main specificities of Non EU GEGs. Cases presentations

October 2015 2 days Final Seminar Sharing main information to finalize profiling cases, information about IPT and ESSnet activities, profiling cases presentations and confrontation of GDC NSI proposal versus partnering NSIs answers.


4

The training seminars aimed to share technical knowledge and know how on European profiling and information about ESSnet activities. All involved EU EFTA NSIs were asked to present their cases and share their experiences. During each seminar, EU EFTA NSIs could meet their coaches and discuss face to face specific issues with them. The three training seminars enabled the creation of a profilers’ network and encouraged exchanges and sharing of good practice. 2.2 Organizing Coaching visits In addition to the three training seminars, coaches have organized meetings gathering small groups of EU and EFTA coached NSIs to work on specific cases and share experiences1. These coaching meetings gave the opportunity to profiling users (NBR experts, SBS experts, STS experts) to attend these meetings. A short report of these meetings including a list of participants is provided in section 3. 2.3 Providing continuous support to NSIs Every NSI testing profiling as part of the individual grant could approach his/her coach with any upcoming problem via e-mail or telephone. The questions raised concerned specific issues around profiling cases in progress or clarifications of the profiling guidelines. NSIs generally received an answer in less than a week. Emails were shared by coaches in order to ensure consistency between the answers provided. 2.4 Updating technical documentation Another coaching activity was the release of newsletters. The newsletters focused on topics which were insufficiently developed or missing from the current documentation produced by EU and EFTA NSIs. Two newsletters were drafted by the ESSnet ESBR:

1-ESSnet ESBR Profiling Newsletter No.1 November 2014 2-ESSnet ESBR Profiling Newsletter No.2 April 2015

The newsletters can be accessed at the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/essnet-esbrs-profiling-newsletter-no-1_en http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/essnet-esbrs-profiling-newsletter-no-2_en The profiling ESBR newsletters aimed to keep all EU and EFTA NSIs taking part in the profiling testing programme fully informed of developments and decisions relating to profiling and the related guidelines. The content of these newsletters was also used as inputs to update current documentation and tools concerning European profiling.

1 This relates to Germany, Latvia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Slovenia, Slovakia,

Switzerland, Belgium and Norway which have applied for topic 3,4 or 5 in individual grant 2014 and could benefit from coaching support. Latvia did not take part in the coaching meeting but Romania requested the possibility to attend one.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/essnet-esbrs-profiling-newsletter-no-1_en

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/essnet-esbrs-profiling-newsletter-no-2_en


5

3. Reports on coaching visits Four coaching visits took place in 2015 between the four coaching NSIs (UK, FR, FI and NL) and the NSI’s partnered with them for coaching purposes. A short report of each of those meetings is provided below. More detailed minutes were provided and can be accessed at the following links: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/essnet-esbrs-1-del-a242-profiling-coaching-reports-1_en http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/essnet-esbrs-1-del-a242-profiling-coaching-reports-2_en 3.1 ONS (UK) coaching visit - May 2015 Sofia A two day profiling coaching trilateral was organised for May 2015 in Sofia and was attended by the ONS profiling coaches and profiling representatives of the NSIs of Bulgaria and Croatia. An agenda was prepared to cover all likely topics of discussion including profiling guidance notes and methodology, profiling template and reports and contacting and visiting GEGs. Both NSI’s provided in advance of the meeting a list of questions and subjects that were of most interest to them. This was an extensive list that covered all of the aspects on the agenda and took all of the first day to address. The second day of the meeting was dedicated to reviewing specific profiling cases from both Bulgaria and Croatia. The profiling cases examined, were at different stages of completion with one case requiring more advice on the desk profiling aspects and another needing some guidance regarding an upcoming profiling visit. A shared topic of conversation relevant to both Bulgaria and Croatia was the issue of currency conversions, necessary when analysing the results of profiling. As the UK also does not use the Euro, ONS’s previous profiling experience of partnering countries with multiple currencies was utilised to answer questions on currency issues. 3.2 ONS (UK) coaching visit - June 2015 Newport A two day workshop took place in June 2015 at ONS Newport following a request by INSEE and DESTATIS to learn more about the UK national profiling programme and how European profiling would impact on it. The main topics covered were related to the human resources required to run a profiling programme, the processes involved in profiling and how European profiling was influencing the way in which national profiling is conducted. Other topics covered included the use of administrative data to enhance the business register, time stamps and reference dates (also heavily discussed in European profiling), frame methodology i.e. the use of frozen and current frames and how ONS split legal unit based ’enterprises’ into more GEG friendly ’reporting’ units. 3.3 Insee (FR) and Statfi (FI) coaching visit - May 2015, Vienna, Prague Insee and Statfi have coached 7 NSIs involved in individual grant 2014 (Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Slovenia, Slovakia, Switzerland and Romania). The coaching countries were split in two groups for

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/essnet-esbrs-1-del-a242-profiling-coaching-reports-1_en

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/essnet-esbrs-1-del-a242-profiling-coaching-reports-2_en


6

organizing coaching meetings in order to allocate to each NSI profilers enough time to raise their issues and to ask questions on their own cases. The first meeting took place on May 11th in Vienna (Austria). FSO (Switzerland), Istat (Italy) and Statistics Austria (Austria) attended this meeting. The second meeting took place on May 12th in Prague (Czech Republic). This meeting gathered NSIs from Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia and Romania. Coached NSIs were requested to send their issues, questions and cases in advance to draft an agenda for the two meetings and to have time to analyse in depth the cases treated. The coaching meetings were occasions to share cases and to discuss them in depth. Coaches made also presentations to share information with the coached countries, which included: 1) New context and implication on the work to be carried out in the individual grant 2014 2) Presentation of the changes in the new version of the Profiling template (PT) and profiling report (PR) (version released in December 2015) 3) Ongoing work on IPT 4) Plan to organize a blog/Q&A forum to share questions and experience on profiling Many questions were raised during these two day meetings. The main ones concerned profiling non EU GEGs, which was expected since less information, is available on these GEGs. Questions were also raised on the status of TEN (national unit derived from the GEN) and ENT (Statistical enterprise unit used by NSIs in structural business statistics) and why it may remain different, on the best way to determine GEN/TEN NACE code and how to treat ancillary activities, and R&D. Among the suggestions, NSIs have recommended that all profiling documentation is gathered (but only the most recent version) on one clear accessible spot, to create a specimen template (PT and PR) prefilled, based on a real case as a concrete example and to get an on-line handbook for profiling with a ‘find function’. The fact that the meeting was organized by two coaching NSIs was much appreciated since it provided a broader approach, one coach coming from a large EU country, the other from a smaller EU country. Practical experience was also slightly different and coached NSIs could benefit from both approaches. 3.4 CBS (NL) coaching visit - September 2015, Heerlen A trilateral meeting between The Netherlands, Belgium and Norway took place on 21 and 22 September 2015 at CBS in Heerlen. An agenda was prepared prior to the meeting. A request was made by the coach, to provide a list of questions and issues to be clarified or case studies to be discussed. About the questions to be answered and the issues to be clarified, we sent several papers on the subjects to aim on and to prepare the specific questions. Discussion on common profiling problems that are not totally clear from the guidelines, filling the PR/PT, case studies and preparation of the October workshop took a large part of the first day of the meeting. Belgium and Norway attended the first day. The case of Colruyt was discussed with Belgium. With Norway and Belgium the case example of Statoil was discussed and the presentation for the October workshop in Paris was prepared. With


7

Norway the case of Yara was discussed. Experiences on Okla ASA and Couche-Tard were mentioned briefly. Franchise and (non) consolidation of franchise enterprises were explained. The second day (only attended by Norway) was mainly spent on integration of profiling in the EGR and also on the Dutch working standard. Operating procedures were explained. This triggered a lot of discussion or questions that went into all directions i.e.

- integration of profiling in the EGR - What profiling information should be stored in EGR and what should be stored in IPT - The use of the IPT as an extended, central service, which is able to support the profiling

process (including profiling domestic groups). - Contacts between EGR – Dutch BR, FATS and the registration of foreign ownership - International centre of excellence for profiling - Information was given on how units which perform research & development are identified in

the Dutch BR and how they are used for statistical purposes.

4. Coaching Survey In order to assess the effectiveness of the coaching activities that took place over the full period of the grant, consideration was given to the most effective way of collecting feedback from the NSIs. The options considered included emailing all NSIs to ask for feedback or asking each coaching country to obtain feedback from the countries that were responsible for coaching. The preferred option was to send a survey to all participants of profiling including the experienced NSIs that did not necessarily benefit from face to face coaching during the current grant, but still had access to an experienced ‘coaching’ NSI. A survey was considered the best method to collect unbiased and honest feedback on their coaching experiences and to gather views on what could be improved for future coaching activities. The coaching survey was sent to the 18 countries that participated in profiling activities in 2014/15 in early January 2016 with a response requested by the end of January 2016. A single coordinated response was requested from each NSI. All 18 NSI’s responded to the survey and their responses have been included in the survey analysis detailed below. See annex 1 for a copy of the full coaching survey 4.1 Survey analysis The survey is split into five sections covering: Training Seminars, Documentation, Coaching visits, Helpdesk and General Feedback (covering all coaching activities). Each section has a series of statements where participants are asked to rate each one either as: strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree and strongly disagree. An ‘ideas for improvement/general comments’ box has also been provided at the end of each section to allow participants to provide further detail. All of the comments provided are available in Annex 2 and have been anonymised.


8

A. Training Seminars

In five out of the six statements on training seminars, over 83% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed. These statements covered the organization, usefulness and duration of the seminars and building profiling coordination between countries. A statement on desiring more training seminars saw 22% disagreeing and 61% either strongly agreeing or agreeing. Additional comments were provided from 66% of respondents. They were centered on either discussion of specific cases and training materials or dealing with the expectations of internal users. The comments include:

i. longer training sessions at the start of the profiling cycle to allow for an increased learning cycle for countries new to profiling

ii. less discussion on specific cases to allow greater time to discuss multinational coordination and how to deal with expectation from SBS and NA users.

iii. more real cases and help with communicating with internal users.

iv. Sharing of training materials before the meeting to allow more time for each NSI to discuss and make concrete proposals.

Note - The figure shows the actual number of responses. 4 countries answered that they disagree with the statement 5 (“I would have liked more training seminar”).


9

B. Documentation

The statements on documentation covered completeness, timeliness and usefulness with around 74% of respondents either strongly agreeing or agreeing. 7% of respondents disagreed with the statements on completeness and timeliness. There were no disagreements with the statement on usefulness although 22% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed. Additional comments provided by 72% of respondents focused on the profiling template and report and the newsletters compiled by the ESSnet and Eurostat. The comments include:

i. Too many versions of the documentation which should be fixed at the beginning of the project. During the grant only answers to questions and clarifications should be issued i.e. as a newsletter.

ii. There should be a single information point where all relevant documentation is stored. It would also be good to avoid different profiling template versions during one profiling grant/cycle.

iii. Create a template for the final report. At present NSI’s create different versions of final reports, which make it more difficult to compare those reports.

Note - The figure shows the actual number of responses.


10

C. Coaching Visits

The coaching visits section included statements on the timing of the coaching visits, whether they were considered helpful and if further meetings would have been preferred. 72% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with the statements, with only one respondent disagreeing with the need for more coaching visits. For the statement regarding helpfulness 100% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed. Additional comments were provided by 44% of respondents. The low response was due to a lower number of NSI’s that took part in coaching visits. The comments include:

i. Face to face meeting was a very good idea, it would be useful to have another meeting when all partnering answers have been returned

ii. The trilateral helped us to clarify uncertainties, and took place at the appropriate time i.e. in the middle of the project

iii. Use of technology i.e. webinars to allow more face to face meetings at less cost.

iv. It was helpful to meet both the coach and another partnering country at the same time.



11

D. Helpdesk

Three statements were included in the Helpdesk section covering timeliness of responses, ease of use and whether the helpdesk facility was helpful. There were no disagreements with the statements and 77% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed. There were fewer respondents to this section, primarily because some countries that completed other sections of the survey were in their second or third year of testing and did not use the helpdesk facility. Only 28% of respondents provided additional comments on the helpdesk function with the main theme being the usefulness of this service and whether it would continue in the future. The comments provided include:

i. The helpdesk was very helpful for spontaneous urgent questions arising and helped to clarify.

ii. Make use of FAQs for all users as similar questions may be asked by different NSIs

iii. Centre of Excellence for profiling is needed but would like to continue with the email support from coaches if possible



12

E. General Feedback

The General Feedback section was used to make some overall statements on the coaching experience, the support provided, whether clear instructions were provided and if a satisfactory conclusion was reached after a question was raised. There were no disagreements and over 89% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with the statements. For the statement covering whether the coaching experience was helpful over 94% strongly agreed or agreed. The comments provided include:

i. The idea of a web based profiling chatroom where questions can be raised is appealing

ii. Profiling newsletter and summary of coach meetings were helpful to explain questions raised during profiling and to share with all coached countries

iii. Inconsistencies with guidance notes proved frustrating. Perhaps a longer first training workshop, splitting the process into sections to avoid unnecessary questions later on.

iv. It’s difficult when Eurostat and other member states seem not to agree on definitions and rules regarding TEN, ENT and NACE.


5. Recommendations drawn from the Coaching Survey Using the comments provided by the respondents to the survey in each of the ‘idea for improvement or additional comments’ section, we can draw some useful observations and conclusions about what went well and what may need improving in any future coaching activities on profiling.


13

5.1 Training Seminars

Whilst almost 90% of countries felt the length of the training seminars were appropriate there was an observation made that perhaps the first training session could be a bit longer. Suggestions of sharing training material before the meeting and having a single information point where all documentation is stored would allow some countries that are new to profiling to have more opportunity to absorb the material and have direct access to the coaches for longer at the start of the learning process. It would also allow more time available to complete an in depth practical exercise on a real case study, which was also a suggestion. It was felt by some countries that greater emphasis should be placed on actual cases including providing a detailed work-through of one complex showcase. This was attempted to some extent at the first training workshop in 2014 but it was commented that the case was too complex for the time allocated in the agenda. A suggestion of allowing more time to discuss multinational coordination and how to deal with expectation from SBS and NA users could be addressed by scheduling some time at the training seminars to remind profilers about the relationship between profiling and the coherence of statistical data. Reiterating the benefits of coherent data for NA and the other statistical users may help the profilers in their relationships with their own internal users. 5.2 Documentation

The completion of the PT and PR was a major source of discontent for a number of countries with numerous comments about revising the content of the PT and/or PR during the period of the grant leading to confusion over versions to be used. This is fully justified and was a major source of queries to the coaches. If the IPT tool is to be used for future profiling testing then this problem should be minimalized. It is recommended that any required changes to the IPT identified during testing should be resisted and only made once the current individual grant is complete. However it should be taken into consideration that profiling is still testing along with other ESBR work packages and that a change of insight in those work packages could also affect profiling. There were a number of positive comments about the newsletters produced during the period of the grant. This was a useful way of getting detailed messages or instructions out to all countries participating in the testing of profiling. 5.3 Coaching Visits

Coaching visits were well received by all countries and some useful observations and suggestions were made. Suggestions included holding a second bi/trilateral after the majority of partnering responses have been returned to the profiling NSI. The thinking behind this option is that a large amount of queries to coaches were a result of partnering responses. At the same time profiling NSIs


14

are trying to finalise their cases. If finances allow, this would be a recommendation for future profiling tests. A suggestion to include more coach/coachee time during the year without the need for another visit would be to include some additional time at the training seminars. This would be a less expensive option than a second meeting towards the end of the partnering exercise and if the final training seminar is timed correctly it could still allow questions resulting from the partnering responses to be addressed. 5.4 Helpdesk

The helpdesk function was popular with most profiling NSIs, and particularly the new to profiling NSIs. There is support for it to continue but its function will be taken forward by the role of the Centre of Excellence (CENEX). There is also a desire to have access to a list of FAQs based on all of the queries sent to the three coaching NSIs. With the amount and variation of queries received by the coaching NSIs, and answers supplied this should be perfectly achievable and could be made available for future reference. An online forum/chatroom has already been proposed by the coaches and provisional plans made to develop the function which could also be used as a source for the FAQ. Once validated by Eurostat the coach’s proposal will be accessible at the following link:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/wp3-process-development-0_en

5.5 General Feedback

Most of the comments received in the General Feedback section are already covered elsewhere in the coaching report. However a comment regarding the lack of agreement between Eurostat and member states regarding the definitions and rules for TEN, ENT and NACE will need to be taken forward and addressed as part of the next grant agreement.

6. Conclusions The coaching process developed between September 2014 and December 2015 has been a success as can be seen by the answers to the survey. The overall percentage of respondents that either strongly agreed or agreed with the statements in the survey was 80% with only 4% disagreeing. A hands-on approach and having a direct relationship between coaching NSI and profiling NSI has benefitted all participants including the coaches themselves. The different experiences gained from each NSI and shared between coaches have greatly enhanced the knowledge and experience of all participants to profiling. In the interim it would be beneficial for the coaching relationships to continue, especially for any countries new to profiling, until all EU member states have profiling experience. This could work either alongside or incorporated into the CENEX depending on the level of experience. The long term

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/wp3-process-development-0_en


15

goal is that the CENEX will take over all coaching, training and advisory roles and responsibilities for all EU member states participating in profiling. As part of next steps, the ESSnet ESBR is in charge of delivering recommendations for a perennial system on profiling. The ESSnet should therefore make proposals for tasks to be performed on a regular basis at a central level. The organisation to perform these tasks along with a description of the potential players of this system will be an input for the center of excellence (CENEX) that will be launched soon. This coaching report will be the main input for drawing proposals for the perennial system on profiling.


16

Annex 1

ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS (ESBRS) WORK PACKAGE 3, PROCESS DEVELOPMENT AND DATA QUALITY PROGRAM

Questionnaire to NSIs supported by the ESSnet ESBRs in their profiling activities

Info on respondent: Country - Respondent name(s) - Respondent email(s) – Please note than one coordinated answer per country is expected.

Purpose of the questionnaire From September 2014 till end 2015 INSEE, the ONS, CBS and STATFI, on behalf of the ESSnet ESBRs, trained and supported NSIs in carrying out their profiling activities. Profiling activities were financed by Eurostat through the individual Grant 2014 “Improvement of National Business Registers and testing of European Profiling” (Topic 3 to 7). This questionnaire is designed to capture feedback from those NSIs about the support received from the ESSnet. The individual grant itself and the contact between NSIs and Eurostat are out of scope of the evaluation. This questionnaire is not mandatory. However, answers would be extremely valuable in the assessment of the support provided and would serve for any future development and projects. Results from the questionnaire will be summarised in the Coaching report that the ESSnet is expected to release in February 2016. Questionnaire length The questionnaire should take no more than 20 minutes to complete, depending on how much information you want to provide.


17

Completion Instruction: The questionnaire is divided in five parts: the first four aim at receiving specific feedback on targeted topics (namely A-Training Seminars; B-Documentation; C-Coaching visits; and D-Helpdesk); the fifth part aims at collecting more general comments (E-General feedback). All NSIs should complete parts A, B and E. Only NSIs having applied for topic 3 and 4 should answer parts C and D. For each question please tick the cell which best indicates the extent to which you agree with the statement. In each of the five parts of the questionnaire you also have the possibility to express in a more comprehensive way any idea or additional comment you may have in open boxes. Below you can find an example of how to fill in the questionnaire in practice. Strongly

agree Agree Neither Agree

or Disagree Disagree Strongly

disagree

1- I received all the documentation needed to complete my deliverable

X

2- The documentation was delivered on time

X

3- I found the documentation provided helpful

X

4- Idea for improvement or any additional comment

More concrete examples are needed in the documentation…..

Return questionnaire:

Return the completed questionnaire by email to [email protected] no later than by January the 27th 2016.

If you have any queries about this questionnaire, please contact

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


18

QUESTIONNAIRE

A. Training Seminars:

Three face to face training seminars of 2 days were organised by the ESSnet to gather all testing NSIs: Initial training seminar (2-5 September 2014, Luxembourg), Follow-up Training Seminar (17-18 February 2015, Paris), and Concluding Training Seminar (8-9 October, Paris)

Strongly

agree Agree Neither

Agree or Disagree

Disagree Strongly disagree

1-I found the training seminars well organised

2-I found the training seminars helpful for treating my profiling cases

3- I found the training seminar helpful to set up an international network that can ease profiling coordination.

4- I found the duration of the training seminars appropriate

5-I would have liked more training seminars

6-Idea for improvement or any additional comment (e.g. about the way of organising the content: discussion of specific cases & presentation of rules etc.)


19

B. Documentation: In testing profiling activities NSIs received documentation from the ESSnet (Training Seminar presentations, Methodological report, PT Guidelines, Newsletters) aiming at helping NSIs to fill in PT, PR, timesheet and final report to be sent to Eurostat.

Strongly

agree Agree Neither

Agree or Disagree


1- I received all the information I needed in the documentation to complete my deliverable

2- The documentation was delivered on time

3- I found the documentation provided helpful



20

C. Coaching visits (bi-lateral or tri-lateral meetings):

Concerns only NSIs which have applied for the grant call’s topics 3 and 4 and having beneficiating of 1-1,5 day coach visit organized either bilaterally or gathering a few NSIs and coaches : Sofia in May 2015, Vienna and Prague in May 2015, Heerlen in October 2015.

Strongly

agree Agree Neither

Agree or Disagree


1- I found the face to face meetings helpful

2- I would have preferred more face to face meetings

3- The face to face meetings took place at the appropriate stage of the process

4- Idea for improvement or any additional comment (e.g. about duration of the meeting, documentation (report, etc...))


21

D. Helpdesk (email or telephone):

Concerns only NSIs which have applied for the grant call’s topics 3 and 4 and have benefited from helpdesk facilities. Outside of training seminars and coaching visits, all along the profiling process, every NSI could address his/her coach with any upcoming questions via e-mail or telephone.

Strongly agree

Agree Neither Agree or Disagree


1- I found the helpdesk facility helpful

2- The responses I received via the helpdesk facility were timely

3- The helpdesk facility was easy to use

4- Idea for improvement or any additional comment:


22

E- General Feedback:

This section is about your overall experience of the coaching provided to you (concerns A, B, C, and D).

Strongly agree

Agree Neither Agree or Disagree


1- I found the coaching experience helpful

2- The support I was given met my needs

3- I was provided with clear instructions on what I needed to achieve

4- Generally when I raised a questions I received satisfactory answers


You reached the end of the questionnaire.

Thank you for taking the time to answer it!


23

Annex 2

Comments from coached NSIs participating in the coaching survey (see section 3)

A. Training Seminars

Less discussion on specific cases, more discussion on the implementation of general rules in the multinational coordination (rules to ease agreement in case of dissents) or of best practices in the application of profiling (do’s and don’ts) – including how to tangle the expectations from SBS and NA users An idea for improvement would be to include a Q&A session in which open questions regarding the profiling process, a particular case, consolidation, etc. can be asked. Training seminars were well organized, but at the beginning maybe they should have been longer, as there were many countries which have just started to profile. Discussion of specific cases or presentations of rules could also be a little longer and more detailed. I liked the idea of trying to work on concrete example cases at one of the seminars. It did however prove too complex – maybe much simpler examples should have been chosen. Profiling is very complex and for many of us a new task so the more we exchange experience the better. I believe that the existence and continuation of the network is important to ensure consistency and quality in the profiling. The papers on the seminars were generally very good and helpful. It was sometimes difficult to draw some general conclusions (and guidelines) from the papers – that is in terms of how to approach profiling and how to work with the operational rules. I know this is easier said than done because it is in many ways a question of building a portfolio of experiences from which to proceed. It will be helpful that all participants write a general report of its profiling cases. This general report could be presented at the concluding training seminar. The report could show the problems and challenges faced while testing profiling. It would be beneficial for all participants to know about the experience and conclusions of others. Some speakers speak too quickly during the training seminar. Most of the attendants can't understand them. The organisers should encourage all speakers to speak slowly and more clearly in order all can understand. In the frame of one of the training seminar it could be interesting to present a case from A to Z as an example of what one should achieve during the next training seminar. An example on which we could have referred to would have been useful during the individual grant 2014. Training seminars scheduled at the beginning and at the end of the process of profiling are sufficient together with a coaching visit in the middle of the year, to cover needs for discussion and information of the participating countries. Training seminars should include: 1) IFRS, 2) more real cases, 3) communication trainings with data internal users, 4) helpful advices and to persuade that it is useful in real life not just for Business register, but for example especially in national accounts; 5) more time for each item.


24

We think that the focal point of one seminar (e.g. the second) should be a step-by-step ex-cathedra demonstration of few chosen individual profiling cases, including the filling-in of the profiling reports and profiling templates. The method of working on some practical exercises in the groups we did not find satisfactory enough. We propose more seminars using “webinars” (like in EGR). When discussing /presenting cases there needs to be consistency across all countries e.g. delivery of cases, use of templates and content. Also ensuring timings of presentations are strictly monitored, some were too long, which resulted in cutting down in our exercises/talks scheduled that day. Better room facilities. Write down the purpose of the meeting, and evaluate to what extent the objectives have been fulfilled It would be crucial in the future to share the training materials before the meeting including methodological proposals which could be discussed in details and the advantages and disadvantages of the different options could be agreed and based on the results of the joint discussions concrete proposals for practical actions could be set. B. Documentation

We propose to create a template for the final report. Today, all NSI create different versions of final reports. It must probably very difficult to compare those reports Good: ESBRs Profiling newsletter No. 1 and No.2 To be improved: Developments in the project documented rather lately in the project (see Eurostat-E-Mail “Additional guidelines…” from June 19th 2015), Missing project documentation on “state of the art - overview” – maybe in the last ESSnet on Profiling (2012/2013) the effort was too big, but this time we definitely missed feedback on the workflow to be expected, especially in the critical time period (July to October 2015). There should be one particular place (‘single information point’) where all the relevant and up-to-date information, templates, guidelines are stored. Furthermore, it would be good to avoid different PT versions during one profiling grant/cycle if possible. The answers are provided on the base of the content of the documents and not on their availability and completeness. We have received all documentation needed from the ESSnet, but the problem is that the first documentation was just one of documentation version. PT and PR have been changed in the middle of the project, and some countries have already started to fill the reports in the “old” version, so they finished this way. As new version is easier than the old one, in some Groups that were profiled we have inconsistencies because two types of reports were used. There is a body of documentation in existence by now. However, as a new practitioner in the area I still feel that a lot of questions remain unanswered. Or, in any case, that it is difficult from the material alone to figure out how to proceed. PT Guidelines need to be more precise and to describe step by step via real examples the all process of profiling and filling of the appropriate documents. A full and detailed description of the work process is missing to achieve the cases:


25

-a document explaining the all process with a calendar for each step: initialisation of GDC, sending to the partner NSIs, Receiving partnering exercises, global assessment. Each steps have to refer to the specific parts relating to in the guidelines. The PT and PR Completion was very useful to fill in the requested documentation and to have common rules for the GEN/TEN variables to complete. We find really helpful profiling newsletters and the information that contain therein, so our suggestion is to provide them more often. Too much versions. The documentation should be fixed at the beginning of the project (grant). During the grant only answers to the questions and clarifications of some points should be issued, e.g. as a Newsletter. The documentation was out of date due to the continuing changes. In some cases, the template didn’t correspond with the guidance. The document was comprehensive, and changed during the project. The newsletters had information about the ENT which is very important to agree upon, but it seems that it is still a discussion going on about the ENT and Nace code (TEN=ENT or if the TEN can be # ENT). The document had very much information. Narrow it down to the basic? There is more issues coming up after a profiling meetings than we could solve. Therefore, the conclusion is that the aims of the project are far more overarching than it could be realized in a time frame of this ESSnet. At the moment at least the basics should be agreed to able to involve more countries.

C. Coaching Visits

The face to face meeting was a very good idea. It would be useful to have another meeting when all NSI’s get their partnering answers. (Questions in this stage of the process: How to handle the answers? How to analyse and complete the files? ….) It would be enough to make a chat / webinar with all questions. So the participants do not have to travel and it is less expensive. Our face-to-face coaching meeting was extremely helpful. More face to face meetings could for instance be included in the seminars having one day/half a day longer. This trilateral meeting really helped us a lot for clarifying the uncertainties that we had at that moment. It was just in the appropriate time (in the middle of the project). Duration of the meeting (2 days) was enough; preparation was also OK from both sides (coaching country and us, as well as the host NSI. In our opinion one coaching meeting was enough. The face-to-face meeting gives opportunity to spend more time to discuss the problems faced by NSIs during their profiling activites. Problems can then be discussed in details. Having a coaching visit in the middle of the year before sharing the PT and PR with the partner, allows at NSIs to solve the problems or questions regarding the groups under analysis. Coach visit was at the appropriate time. We got many useful answers for ours groups. It was helpful with both the coach, but also that the other profiling country (BE) was present. More face to face interaction with representatives from partnering countries.


26

D. Helpdesk

Very helpful for spontaneous urgent questions popping up. Suggestion for improvement: to have FAQs accessible (e.g. on CIRCABC) for all as similar questions might come up from different countries. Helpdesk from the coaching country was a very good idea, as it clarified a lot when we had some problems and questions and did not know “on how to continue, what to do, what to say to the statisticians, or to the group”. Centre of excellence for profiling is also needed, but we would like if the coaching activities or just a helpdesk via e-mail could continue. Discussing the profiling cases via email is sometimes problem, especially in case you need to discuss something in Annual Report and it not possible to send it via e-mail as it has too much MBs. It could have been useful for profilers to access to the Q&A from all other profiling NSIs. We benefitted from face to face help. E. General Feedback

We support the idea of a web-based profiling chatroom where different questions can be raised by different countries and users, and we are looking forward to such an implementation. Helpdesk from the coaching country or coaching activities could also continue in the future. Great work done by the coaching countries. It is not an easy task at all but I think that we have come a great deal further clearly as a result of their work. My answers to 2. and 3. Are in the middle category because we have not been a coachee but has only participated in the training seminars. The setting up of an FAQ and maybe a more formalised profiling network will greatly help us in our profiling work. The Profiling Newsletter and the Summary of coach meetings were helpful to explain the question raised during the profiling action and to share to all countries the relative recommendations/solutions. As we did not participate in Topic 3 and 4, we will give also general feedback also about couching visits and helpdesk according our previous project experience: 1) face to face couching visits/meetings are helpful especially for persons who are not participating in projects and for biggest cases and contradiction with internal users; 2) a necessity for one strong position from Eurostat; 3) support from coaches is very helpful for profiling. As in many cases there are quite different view on business, for example, when we compare big and small economics, it is really necessary that coaches have some knowledge about economic reality (system, legislation basis) of specific country or region. We are aware that coaches can’t solve every issue or question some NSI has on concrete profiling case. This is primarily a responsibility of the NSIs who know the UCIs on the domestic territory and data availability and their quality the best. We see the responsibility of coaches or any other party in charge of the project to set-up some consolidated methodological solutions, stable at least during one grant, without too much room for different interpretations and presented in one paper.


27

We also think that important role of the coaches is analysis of the past profiling cases. A selection of them can then be used as a mean for delivering the best practices as well as for cautioning on possible misinterpretations and mistakes, including those entered in the PT and PR.

Perhaps this comment does not belong here, but nevertheless, the PT and PR were very annoying, awkward and time consuming to be filled in and to our opinion the biggest weakness of the project.

As a result of the profiling processes still developing, there were inconsistencies within the guidance which proved frustrating on times. More time required at initial training to possibly prevent time spent during the process asking questions. Perhaps could have split the process into sections when instructions changed.

It makes it difficult when Eurostat and other member states seems not to agree on definitions and rules regarding TEN, ENT and NACE. Some difficulties to get clear answers from Eurostat, maybe due to the problems with consensus within Eurostat?

Date post:	14-Dec-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hakhanh
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

EUROPEAN COMMISSION – EUROSTAT ESSNET ON A … · meetings gave the opportunity to profiling...

Documents