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)
AUS CAN HRV CZE NZL NOR PRT ZAF SWE UNIDO
Subject matter expert X X X X X X X X X
IT expert X X X X X X X X X
Statistician/ Methodologist   X  X X X X X X X
Dissemination experts X X X X X X      
Standards X X      X X X     
Project managers X     X       X    
Business analysts X X
Terminologist   X    
5
Metadata management team (5.2)
AUS CAN HRV CZE NZL NOR PRT ZAF SWE UNIDO
Development project   X X     X  
One organisational unit (plus IT) X X X X X X
6
Training (5.3)
AUS CAN HRV CZE NZL NOR PRT ZAF SWE UNIDO
Subsystems  X X X X X X  X X 
Business context X X   X X    
Intranet  X   X  X  X       
Manuals X   X       X X     
Workshops X X      X     
New employees X   X    
7
Partnerships and cooperation (5.4)
AUS CAN HRV CZE NZL NOR PRT ZAF SWE UNIDO
AUS       R 
CAN       C     
HRV             V   
CZE            
NZL
NOR Â
PRT V
ZAF V V
SWE C Â C
UNIDO                
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)
AUS CAN HRV CZE NZL NOR PRT ZAF SWE UNIDO
Data element registry x x   x x x x   x  
Classification management system x x   x x x x   x x
Classification coding system   x     x          
Questionnaire development tool x     x     x        
Questions and response choices x x   x   x   x      
Question modules/blocks x x   x              
Instruments (questionnaires) x x   x x x x x     x
10
System components (2.2 4.3)
AUS CAN HRV CZE NZL NOR PRT ZAF SWE UNIDO
Data quality component x     x x x     x  
Other survey metadata ("passive")   x X   x x x   x x
Business activity monitoring x x x   x          
Process metadata ("active") x   x x x         x
Dataset registry x x   x   x     x  
Data archiving ?         x     x  
Collection management system x   x              
Corporate metadata system   x x x x x   x    
11
Tools and standards (4.2 and 4.3)
AUS CAN HRV CZE NZL NOR PRT ZAF SWE UNIDO
ISO/IEC 11179 x x       x x   x x
SDMX x   x   x x        
DDI (Data Documentation Initiative)   x       x        
Oracle database x x   x   x        
.NET x  x x       x    x  x 
GSBPM x x x x
12
Architecture and development (4.1, 4.4 and 4.5)
AUS CAN HRV CZE NZL NOR PRT ZAF SWE UNIDO
Service Oriented (SOA) x       x x     x  
In-house development x x x mix mix x x   x x

• 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 delivery of 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
Dont expect to get it 100 right the first time