100 likes | 213 Views
This document outlines the methods and processes employed by Statistics Sweden to enhance data collection efficiency. It covers the roles within the data collection departments, including the responsibilities of the process owner and users. Key themes include the use of common tools like web data collection tools and interview systems, the impact of centralization on resource pooling, and addressing challenges such as declining response rates. The document also highlights ongoing initiatives, including the Triton project and the integration of administrative and survey data to optimize data collection practices.
E N D
Towardsefficient data collection at Statistics Sweden Johan Erikson Data collection, process owner johan.erikson@scb.se
Data collection today • Twomain data collectiondepartments • Individuals and households • Interviewsurveys • Questionnairesurveys • Enterprises and public sector • Enterprises and Enterprise relations – Örebro • Enterprises – Stockholm • Public sector • Coordination and Largeenterprise management • Process owner at process department • Register data collection at subjectmatterdepartments
Roles in data collection • Process owner • Establishcommonroutines • Build and maintaincommontools • Process users • Runcollection on a daily basis • Demands on commonroutines and tools
Commontools in use • Web data collectiontool • Interviewcollectiontool • Hand-heldcomputers for CPI collection • Scanning system • ”Funnel” for administrative data • Triton – commonproduction system
Effects of centralised data collection • Expert functions • Resourcepooling • Learning by experience • Implementation of new tools and routines • Addressingnon-survey-specificissues • Internal tension, ”us and them” • Resourceplanning in largeunits
Ongoinginitiatives • Triton project – expectedgains • Planning and metadata haveeffect on IT tools • Built-inqualityassuranceactivities • Easier to pool resources and work on manysurveys • Moreefficientinterview data collection • Contact strategies • Common set of cases • Data warehousing • EDI initiatives (XBRL)
Futurechallenges • Decliningresponse rates • Difficult to reach respondents • Pressure to reduceburden • Combiningsurvey data and administrative data • Data sharingbetweengovernmentagencies • More on EDI • New technologicaladvances • Social media? • Optimisingresourceplanning with new contactstrategies
Reflections / conclusions • Centralisation of data collection has beensuccessful so far • Internal tension tends to decline over time • Some of the futurechallenges that face us are meteasier with a centralised data collection • Demand for expertise on collection-specificissues – collection is a general knowledge, not onlysurvey-specific, e.g. contactstrategies • Demand for technicalexpertise • Demand for central roles (persons) to negotiate with data providers and othergovernmentagencies
Reflections / conclusions (2) • Some of the futurechallengesprobablyrequireevenmore of centralisation, and new thinking • Manyissues are the same for householdsurveys and business surveys – combinedexpertisenecessary (mixed mode, decliningresponse rates) • Technicalchallengessuch as direct data feeds • Combining administrative data and survey data • Administrative data are used for both registers and surveys • Are todayssurveys and their limits the mosteffectiveway to collect data? • A single ”data capture” departmentcould be an effectiveway to deal with data sharingissues