Quality in the Swedish Business Database The Quality Survey 2004 Round Table Beijing 2004 Swedish...

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?


what good quality is….and the only thing they have in common

is that..

Q

What is quality?


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


• Contents

•Accuracy

• Overall accuracy

• Sources of inaccuracy

• Presentation of accuracy measures Q


• Contents

• Accuracy

•Timeliness

• Frequency

• Production time

• Punctuality Q


• Contents

• Accuracy

• Timeliness

• Comparability and Coherence

• Comparability over times

• Comparability between domains

• Comparability with other statistics Q


• 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



2. Vague knowledge about the presence of errors

Q




3. Good descriptions of the processes, which make it possible to have a picture of the reliability

Q





4. Vague quality indicators, which are based on remarks made by users.

Q






5. Quantitative indicators on example coverage and corrections made Q






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


• 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


• 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


• Variables:

• State of activity (Active or not)

• Name

• Postal address

• Address of location

• Telephone

• Fax

• E-mail

• 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


•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


•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


•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


• 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%


Utfall

Mål


• 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%


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

Quality in the Swedish Business Database The Quality Survey 2004 Round Table Beijing 2004 Swedish...

Documents

Transcript of Quality in the Swedish Business Database The Quality Survey 2004 Round Table Beijing 2004 Swedish...