Discussion #2874

Development of KPIs

Added by Vlado Cetl almost 4 years ago. Updated almost 4 years ago.

Status:New
Priority:High
Assignee:Vlado Cetl

Description

Development of KPIs

Initial questions:

Which Key performance indicators (KPI) should be implemented in Reporting 2019?
How is Reporting used in your country?
What and how should be improved in Reporting 2019?
Issues with existing Reporting?
What are the major obstacles in existing reporting?
Needs?
Do you agree to the principle of using metadata for monitoring (with the impact that metadata will have to be changed)?
Do you agree to the principle of automated reporting (as to uploading to Reportnet)?

 

2016.2 Monitoring & Reporting 2019_analysis.docx - Review of the indicator framework for monitoring and reporting (339 KB) Vlado Cetl, 29 Nov 2016 04:22 pm


Related issues

Related to MIWP 2016-2020 - MIWP-Action #2870: 2016.2: Streamlining the monitoring and reporting for 2019 Closed 01 Oct 2016 31 Dec 2018

History

#1 Updated by Vlado Cetl almost 4 years ago

by Erik Obersteiner:


•         Which Key performance indicators (KPI) should be implemented in Reporting 2019?
• tbd
•         How is Reporting used in your country?
• the report is put on our inspire website and I don't know who is reading it
•         What and how should be improved in Reporting 2019?
• reporting should be as simple as possible
• taking key indicators from monitoring
• adding necessary additional text for better understanding
• adding changes to the country fiche (if this is accepted by mig-p )
• text should be as structured as possible (keywords, predefined lists, …)
• but also free text, where reasonable
• reports should be comparable (with last cycle, with other countries?)
•         Issues with existing Reporting?
• big effort / small outcome
• not comparable with other reports
• not even EC sees need to translate the reports in English
•         What are the major obstacles in existing reporting?
• see above
•         Needs?
• tbd
•         Do you agree to the principle of using metadata for monitoring (with the impact that metadata will have to be changed)?
• I agree to the principle
o but I am not sure, if we should/can suggest the change of the metadata (at this time)
 these days the MIWP-Metadata should come to an end an I think there is no change suggested
 software (geonetwork) is finally adapted – can we suggest changes again – the community will kill us (an I will get no official commitment from AT?)
o so the question – for me – is, how to get most out of the MD without changing the profile
 does it make sense without changing the profile
 how to put the remaining necessary infos into the monitoring?
 could it be a mixed approach?
• conclusion: decision on possible change of metadata
•         Do you agree to the principle of automated reporting (as to uploading to Reportnet)?
• I agree, but we need a clear procedure every 3 years (monitoring and creation of indicators out of MD could be done permanently in principle)
o data/report must be quality assured
o clear responsibility of the member state

#2 Updated by Kai Koistinen almost 4 years ago

Some ideas from NLSFI:

Which Key performance indicators (KPI) should be implemented in Reporting 2019?
- reuse as much as possible monitoring indicators
- reporting indicators could be something that indicate the change (during 3-year period) in monitoring indicators
- avoid adding new elements to metadata or other manual work

How is Reporting used in your country?
- whole written report is available in national geoportal
- the main findings are communicated to the spatial data community
- positive trends in for example spatial data use are communicated more widely
- report is presented to the national SDI coordinating body
- a wide textual report is not really needed (nobody reads it), the key points of changes during the 3-year (and longer) period is the main thing in the report

What and how should be improved in Reporting 2019?
- less non-comparable text parts
- less repetition of the same information that has been given in the older reports
- better reuse of monitoring indicators

Issues with existing Reporting?
- lot of work in information collection and writing but not too much benefit in neither national nor EU level

What are the major obstacles in existing reporting?
- changes to the reporting have not been defined -> are they going to be ready and legible in 2019?

Needs?
- automate the information collection as much as possible
- get more benefit from the reporting results
- national need for more detailed indicators that make it possible to compare the INSPIRE implementation status in different national organizations

Do you agree to the principle of using metadata for monitoring (with the impact that metadata will have to be changed)?
- in principle yes but the changes in metadata need to be minimized

Do you agree to the principle of automated reporting (as to uploading to Reportnet)?
- yes some parts should be automated and be more based on the monitoring indicators (especially in changes in these yearly numbers)
- some parts of the report can't be automated but only the changes should be reported

#3 Updated by Simona Bunea almost 4 years ago

Romanian answer:

  • Which Key performance indicators (KPI) should be implemented in Reporting 2019?

TBD. We have to ask to other public authorities involved in INSPIRE activities and ENV reporting obligations.

 

  • How is Reporting used in your country?

Romanian State Report contains information provided by the public auhorities whitch are involved in INSPIRE activities. It is upload on our site (http://www.ancpi.ro/images/INSPIRE_Report_Romania_2016.pdf) and on ftp used only of CINIS members.

 

  • What and how should be improved in Reporting 2019?

I have no answer in this moment. We have to ask to other public authorities .

 

  • Issues with existing Reporting?

One issue with existing reporting is to complet the chapter regarding the cost. It is not quit posible to identify the right cost for INPIRE activities.

 

  • What are the major obstacles in existing reporting?

To get information from other authotrities for each chapter.

 

  • Needs?

TBD. We have to ask to other public authorities involved in INSPIRE activities.

 

  • Do you agree to the principle of using metadata for monitoring (with the impact that metadata will have to be changed)?

I have no answer in this moment. We have to ask to other public authorities involved in INSPIRE activities.

 

  • Do you agree to the principle of automated reporting (as to uploading to Reportnet)?

I have no answer in this moment. We have to ask to other public authorities involved in INSPIRE activities.

 

#5 Updated by Ine de Visser almost 4 years ago

·         Which Key performance indicators (KPI) should be implemented in Reporting 2019?

 

Beside the extisting monitoring indicators, indicators on use and benefits can be added, based  on the amount of e-reporting obligations or other EU policy, supported by the INSPIRE infrastructure. On the other hand also an indicator measuring, if the INSPIRE dataset is integrated in the national infrastructure.

Use based on requests to the services can be also usefull, but should be based on  comparable measures, the amount of hits is not working. Finding comparable measures,  is the challenge.

The contribution made, by providing dataset and services, by public authorities can be measured based on the responsible organisations providing data

Another possible indicator can be an measure on accessibility of the data, more than is there a link to a view or download available.

Something about datasharing arrangements is only possible if there is made use of an comparable licensing system like creative commons.

 

·         How is Reporting used in your country?

The minister of infrastructure and environment,  has to send it to the parliament as part of the three yearly information update on INSPIRE. She highlights the positive points and the lesser points and the actions needed to solve the gap.

The steering board of INSPIRE also defines actions based on the status described in the report.

 

 

·         What and how should be improved in Reporting 2019?

It should not (only) be an justification of the work done and laying down the coordination structure, but should be used as something where the strong points, the effectiveness and the gaps become easily clear.

All static information obliged to be reported, providing in the member state fiche is a good idea.

All other information should be obtained in the same way so it could be compared.

Preferably in an automated way, based on information in the metadata and services.

 

·         Issues with existing Reporting?

To  much work, not comparable with other member states, effectiveness of INSPIRE becomes not easily clear (only after some hours of reading), less benefit of it.

 

·         What are the major obstacles in existing reporting?

No clear indicator of what should how to be reported where, to much repeating,

 

·         Needs?

Comparable results, uncovering weakness and strength of the implementation of the member states, giving information on the benefits of INSPIRE

 

·         Do you agree to the principle of using metadata for monitoring (with the impact that metadata will have to be changed)

Yes, also for reporting

 

·         Do you agree to the principle of automated reporting (as to uploading to Reportnet)

yes

Also available in: Atom PDF