quality in the swedish business database the quality survey 2004 round table beijing 2004 swedish...
Post on 28-Jan-2016
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Quality in the Swedish Business Database
The Quality Survey 2004
Round TableBeijing 2004
Swedish presentation, session 5, 18th Round Table, Beijing – October 21, 2004
What is quality?
The different users of the register have different view of
what good quality is….
Q
What is quality?
The different users of the register have different view of
what good quality is….and the only thing they have in common
is that..
Q
What is quality?
The different users of the register have different view of
what good quality is….and the only thing they have in common is that..
non of them are satisfied with the quality Q
Another fact is that….
The Quality in the Business Register depend in big
extent on the quality of the administrative sources
Q
Quality work!
To have a good quality, you have to Have good knowledge of user needs
Q
Quality work!
To have a good quality, you have to Have good knowledge of user needs
Have good cooperation with the administrative sources
Q
Quality work!
To have a good quality, you have to Have good knowledge of user needs Have good cooperation with the administrative
sources
Have a register maintenance with focus on the user needs (Quality)
Q
Quality work!
To have a good quality, you have to Have good knowledge of user needs Have good cooperation with the administrative sources Have a register maintenance with focus on the user needs
(Quality)
You should be able to measure the quality and quality changes
Q
The Quality Concept in Statistics Sweden
Q
The Swedish Business Database
• Has a threefold purpose– Public Register
– Frame for statistics
– Part of the Register system
The Quality Concept in Statistics Sweden (1)
•Contents
• Statistical target characteristics
• Comprehensiveness (completeness)
Q
The Quality Concept in Statistics Sweden (2)
• Contents
•Accuracy
• Overall accuracy
• Sources of inaccuracy
• Presentation of accuracy measures Q
The Quality Concept in Statistics Sweden (3)
• Contents
• Accuracy
•Timeliness
• Frequency
• Production time
• Punctuality Q
The Quality Concept in Statistics Sweden (4)
• Contents
• Accuracy
• Timeliness
• Comparability and Coherence
• Comparability over times
• Comparability between domains
• Comparability with other statistics Q
The Quality Concept in Statistics Sweden (5)
• Contents
• Accuracy
• Timeliness
• Comparability and Coherence
• Availability
• Dissemination forms
• Presentation
• Documentation
• Access to micro data
• Information serviceQ
The Quality knowledge
1. No knowledge about the quality component.
Q
The Quality knowledge
1. No knowledge about the quality component.
2. Vague knowledge about the presence of errors
Q
The Quality knowledge
1. No knowledge about the quality component.
2. Vague knowledge about the presence of errors
3. Good descriptions of the processes, which make it possible to have a picture of the reliability
Q
The Quality knowledge
1. No knowledge about the quality component.
2. Vague knowledge about the presence of errors
3. Good descriptions of the processes, which make it possible to have a picture of the reliability
4. Vague quality indicators, which are based on remarks made by users.
Q
The Quality knowledge
1. No knowledge about the quality component.
2. Vague knowledge about the presence of errors
3. Good descriptions of the processes, which make it possible to have a picture of the reliability
4. Vague quality indicators, which are based on remarks made by users.
5. Quantitative indicators on example coverage and corrections made Q
The Quality knowledge
1. No knowledge about the quality component.
2. Vague knowledge about the presence of errors
3. Good descriptions of the processes, which make it possible to have a picture of the reliability
4. Vague quality indicators, which are based on remarks made by users.
5. Quantitative indicators on example coverage and corrections made
6. Estimated errors by means of systematic observations, evaluations etc. Q
Construction of a quality survey
• Purpose:
• Measure accuracy
Q
Construction of a quality survey
• Purpose: Measure accuracy
• Method:
• Sending out pre-printed information; the enterprises were asked to correct and make complements
• The information was later on coded at Statistics Sweden Q
Construction of a quality survey
• Purpose: Measure accuracy
• Method:
• Sending out pre-printed information; the enterprises were asked to correct and make complements
• The information was later on coded at Statistics Sweden
• Pragmatic approach Q
Construction of a quality survey
• Variables:
• State of activity (Active or not)
• Name
• Postal address
• Address of location
• Telephone
• Fax
• Number of Employees (Interval)
• Activity code (SNI2002, which are on 4-digit level corresponding with NACE rev1.1)
Q
Construction of the sample
•Sample:
• 1985 Local Units
•7 groups of activity (SNI)
•3 Size-classes (employees)
•A and B not included
Q
Construction of the sample
•Sample:
• 1985 Local Units
• 7 groups of activity (SNI)
• 3 Size-classes (employees)
• Response rate 81%, which gave
•Confident Interval on ca +/- 1,5 Percentage units if the answer was 95% Q
Result of the Quality Survey
• State of activity (98.7%)
• Activity code (95% incl. No code 87%)
• Size-class (94%)
• Postal Address (94%)
• Location Address (91% incl. No information 87%)
• Phone number (81% incl. No number 69%) Q
Evaluation of the method
•A cost efficient method
Q
Evaluation of the method
• A cost efficient method
•Reliability:
• High reliability of the result on the “contact” variable (and size-class)
• It could be questioned if the method was good enough for measure the quality on the activity code Q
Comparison with other results
•Service statistics
Q
Comparison with other results
•Service statistics•63.3, Travel agencies etc,
(12,8% vs. 1.8%)
•70, excl. 70.3, Real estate, (3.3% vs. 2.8%)
•93, Other services, (3.9% vs. 1.0%)
Q
Comparison with other results
•Service statistics• 63.3, Travel agencies etc,
(12,8% vs. 1.8%)
• 70, excl. 70.3, Real estate, (3.3% vs. 2.8%)
• 93, Other services, (3.9% vs. 1.0%)
•Occupation Register Q
Comparison with other results
•Service statistics• 63.3, Travel agencies etc,
(12,8% vs. 1.8%)
• 70, excl. 70.3, Real estate, (3.3% vs. 2.8%)
• 93, Other services, (3.9% vs. 1.0%)
•Occupation Register•A,B and F, Agriculture fishing
and construction, (12% vs. 5.6%) Q
Future quality work
More contacts with both users and the sources
Implement of short term and annual quality indicators
Making the Business Database quality survey to a annual survey
Making an annual publication based on Statistics Sweden’s quality concept Q
Number of LEGAL Units in the Swedish Business Register
1990-2000
0
200 000
400 000
600 000
800 000
1 000 000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Percent of enterprises and employees in size class of employees
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1-9 10-50 50-99 100-499
500-
Enterprises
Employees
From the VAT-register it can be read
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
< 1 Mkr 1-100 Mkr > 100 Mkr
Legal Units
Turnover
Export
Number of active units in the Swedish Business Register
• Legal units more than 800.000 27 % Limited enterprises
57 % Sole proprietorships
0,2 % public sector
16 % other legal forms
• Local units more than 900.000 28 % Limited enterprises
52 % Sole proprietorships
5 % public sector
15 % other legal forms
Comparability over time (1)
• Size-classes
Q0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
10+ anställda
1-9 anställda
0 anställda
Comparability over time (2)
• Activity code
Q0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
60-99
50-55
10-45
01-05
No activity
Comprehensiveness (1)
• LU with Activity code
80,0%
82,0%
84,0%
86,0%
88,0%
90,0%
92,0%
94,0%
96,0%
98,0%
100,0%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 J an Feb Mar Apr Maj J un J ul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dec
Utfall
Mål
Comprehensiveness (2)
• LU with Phone Number
60,0%
62,0%
64,0%
66,0%
68,0%
70,0%
72,0%
74,0%
76,0%
78,0%
80,0%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 J an Feb Mar Apr Maj J un J ul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dec
Utfall
Mål
Comprehensiveness (3)
• LU with Location Address
90,0%
91,0%
92,0%
93,0%
94,0%
95,0%
96,0%
97,0%
98,0%
99,0%
100,0%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 J an Feb Mar Apr Maj J un J ul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dec
Utfall
Mål
Cake index
0
200
400
600
800
1000
No SNI for LU with employees
2003
Today
Goal
0
200
400
600
800
1000
No phone for LU with >4 employees
2003
Today
Goal
0
200
400
600
800
1000
No location address for LU with >4 employees
2003
Today
Goal
0
100
200
300
400
500
Felkod=309 for LU with >4 employees
2003
Today
Goal
Q
top related