Meeting notes - May 7th, 2024

[Chris-ECE]

Design of Evaluation (continued):

• In last call, we decided tasks from Task Task Team could be added as an annex to the GSBPM document.
• We also came close to agreeing that a task on “design of evaluation” could be incorporated into 2.6. However, at the end of the call it was said that further thought was needed about how it relates to overarching processes, so it was decided to revisit that question, but also to consider how this issue relates to GAMSO as well.
• InKyung suggested that “design of evaluation” should happen centrally, for example in a quality department, where procedures for evaluation of a survey cycle have been harmonized, but outside of production. She proposed this could be mentioned in GAMSO (Corporate Support: Manage Quality) rather than explicitly mentioned within the Design phase: Decisions on how to measure quality (or design evaluation) would be made within that part of GAMSO. A quality framework might be applicable to multiple surveys.
• Carlo agreed that you would define there the procedures to evaluate the quality itself. He and Cory suggested to avoid including the design of evaluation within the Design phase.
• Chris asked if we need to add text to GSBPM to signpost the fact that design of evaluation is already included in GAMSO: In fact, subprocess 8.1 already explicitly refers to GAMSO Quality Management.
• InKyung suggested:
  o Action: Revising the text in GAMSO Manage Quality to mention “designing of the evaluation framework to be used for the different programmes”.
• In response to a comment from Juan, Carlo noted that the design of evaluation is defined in QAF and similar, so in the quality part of GAMSO, the design of criteria/standards to evaluate processes is made, and then you run/execute the evaluation in the Evaluate phase. On this basis, we don’t need a separate Design of Evaluation subprocesss.
• Juan pointed out that developing countries may not well-defined quality frameworks, and evaluation may be more ad hoc.
• InKyung and Juan agreed that that aspect should be covered within the overarching processes. Closer examination of that text reveals that it includes aspects such as “setting quality criteria”, which seems to cover the Design of Evaluation. The link between overarching Quality Management, and the Evaluate phase, and with GAMSO is explicitly made.
• Juan noted that while there is a diagram of the lifecycle, we don’t have a description relating it to the Evaluate phase. He suggested working on that to make it clearer to say to design how to manage the quality, with a preference to refer to quality frameworks with examples. Be preferred to adopt quality framework with some examples.
• Action: To follow up with Juan about whether he wants to draft some text.

Design of Security (previously discussed in the context of the Build phase)

• For Build phase, no specific part could be identified where security is built, though some text was added to the introduction to the Build phase.
• The feedback suggested adding security to 2.6 (and 3.5 in Build)
• Juan suggested that IT management in GAMSO is one area where security pertains. He suggested that security requirements may be more important than the way that is achieved (in designing it)
• InKyung pointed out that the design of security itself would be covered itself, so the remaining issue is more designing (in compliance with) security.
• Juan highlighted that processes and information can have security characteristics of their own. For example business data might be inherently less sensitive than health data. For processes, CAPI interviewers having access to respondents’ personal data via the computers they use may necessitate encryption of responses, and secure transmission of data from their computers.
• Action: Chris suggested adding a description to the introduction of the design phase. To make a proposal.

Cartography

• There was a comment from Ecuador about where cartography sits within GSBPM, and this issue seems to be about making maps for use by fieldworkers.
• InKyung suggested it might be relevant to Design Collection
• Carlo noted that maps are mentioned in 4.3 Run Collection.
• It was suggested that the aspect raised in this feeback is covered by GeoGSBPM, and the mention of maps in Run Collection.