Meeting notes - April 18th, 2023

[InKyungChoi]

Participant: Zoltan Vereczkei, Juan Munoz, Florian Vucko, Cory Chobanik, Edgardo Greising, Kevin McCormack, Carlo Vaccari, Antti Santaharju, Michelle Moss, Elodie Kranklader, Jose Lujan, Andrea Petres, Federico Segui and InKyung Choi

Team welcomed Michelle Moss (Uruguay) to the task team

Issue #3: GSBPM Phase 8 Evaluate & Quality

• Are activities under "Evaluate" phase generic enough to be under different places (as opposed to being just in the "Evaluate" phase)? Do they have to exist in a separate phase?
• In GSBPM, we have two loops - inner loop when we run survey; outer loop when we revise or create new programs. When revising program, we need a stage to assess the process and decide how to update it. So Evaluate is needed as a specific phase
• It is important to remember "evaluate" is about statistical production process, not any evaluation (not generic quality indicator, not HR performance evaluation)
• There is no strong reason why we have to remove "Evaluate" phase, if we have doubts, it is better not to remove it. We could keep it but update descriptions in the phase, OP and in GAMSO to differentiate different charactersitics better.
• We are missing discsusion on the scopes of GSBPM and GAMSO.
  - Decision: for now, to keep "Evaluate" phase, to think about new name of the phase and update descriptions to better reflect the differences

Issue #9: Identification of phases and sub-processes: to use numbers or not?

• The numbered sub-processes give a wrong sense of linearity and is problematic in process modelling as some sub-processes appear multiple times in different places.
• Having some kind of unique identification system is important, but curent proposal is rather complicated.
• Does a sub-process under a certain Phase belong to that Phase only? For example, if we "finalise outputs", does it mean we are analyse-related activities (because "finalise outputs" is under "Analyse" phase) no matter where it happens?
• There are often many back-and-forth between "Process" and "Analyse" phase (e.g., going back to micro-level data after finding issues while analysing macro-level data). Then do we say we have multiple "Process" and "Analyse" phases?
• If we really see GSBPM as a collection / taxonomy of activities, the name "phase" and "sub-process" seem not right too.
• We need assess the impact more properly
  - Decision: to invite COOS colleagues to review the proposals, to think about any other alternatives