1. Eurostat Julio.cabeca@ec.europa.eu
Seminar on ESA 2010 quality assessment Point 5: Quality assessment criteria and indicators
Eurostat

2. 1 NAWG November 2015 Comments by countries Reply / actions by Eurostat
General acknowledgement that quality assessment is needed and is in line with requirements of Regulation (EU) No 549/2013
Eurostat welcomes this supportive feedback.
Reduce workload, minimize additional burden on NSIs, avoid double work
The integrity of the ESQRS should be preserved as the standard is approved by ESSC.Workload has been significantly reduced (see below) but still the periodicity of the reporting shall be annual

3. 1 NAWG November 2015 Comments by countries Reply / actions by Eurostat
Reconsider and shorten the number of indicators
Number of indicators has been significantly shortened in the revised version
Reconsider timing and periodicity of the quality assessment exercise: do it less frequently than yearly
Annual assessment of a reduced number of quantitative quality indicators
Re-use of metadata

4. 1 NAWG November 2015 Comments by countries Reply / actions by Eurostat
Restrict quality assessment to National Accounts data transmitted to Eurostat; exclude data production process and other domains outside ESA 2010
Comparisons with other statistical domains has been dropped from the annual reporting

5. 1 NAWG November 2015 Comments by countries Reply / actions by Eurostat
Derogations and confidentiality are not quality criteria and should not be included
Quantitative indicators on Derogations and confidentiality have been dropped. Confidentiality is part of the ESQRS therefore it needs to be addressed in an appropriate manner and is considered for an in-depth analysis.

6. 2 Revised ESA 2010 quality reporting proposal
Strong reduction of the the number of quantitative indicators covered by the quality reports (see Annex 1) with a clear separation between:
Regular effort every year covering a strict minimum set of quantitative indicators covering the following quality criteria:
Relevance
Timeliness and punctuality
Accuracy and reliability
Coherence and comparability

7. 2 Revised ESA 2010 quality reporting proposal
When possible and appropriate, re-use qualitative information from the metadata to complement the country quality reports
Stepwise approach and distribution of the work effort throughout a fair time interval.

8. Table with changes to quality assessment indicators.docx
2 Revised ESA 2010 quality reporting proposal
Annual assessment:
Table with changes to quality assessment indicators.docx

9. 2 Revised ESA 2010 quality reporting proposal
In-depth analysis:

10. Work in groups Group 1: Proposed quantitative indicators
Group 2: Supporting metadata for quality assessments
Group 3: Complementary in-depth analysis and overall process