Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


Since 2009 (when GSBPM V4.0 was released) the purpose, use and context for GSBPM has evolved significantly.  In 2009 there was no HLG for modernization, much less focus on Business Architecture, no Common Statistical Production Architecture (CSPA), and no GSIM.  The current GSBPM review (approved by HLG in Feb 2013) seems to recognize and seek to address the last of these points, but not the rest.  It will be hard to place the next version of GSBPM in context if some of these matters aren't clarified now.  Also, people will continue to have widely divergent views on the required scope and evolution of the GSBPM if we don't reach broad agreement on the "mission" for the GSBPM, four years on from the release of 4.0.  In addition, there should be discussion on what should be in scope for review and what should not.  We could also get some clarity around the extent to which we document the 'out of scope' concerns for future reference, so the good ideas aren't lost over time.  Addressing these questions may not change the scope of the updates to be applied in 2013, but it should provide clarity around the need for future reviews (e.g. well founded recommendations to the HLG Workshop in November 2013 for more significant updating of GSBPM in 2014, agreement across the community that the next round of broader work on GSBPM can wait until 2015 or later, etc.).

See further thoughts on how GSBPM could be integrated with a NSI's Business Architecture






  • No labels


  1. From Istat:

    After a careful reading of this current version of GSBPM, it emerges clearly that it is possible to extract a model that can be applied to Strategy activities from the so-called over-arching processes. For this reason, it is necessary to make this more explicit so as to use this “additional” over-arching process also for the alignment activity related to the Business Architecture model which is being implemented within different National Statistical Institutes/Organisations

  2. I fully agree that the scope of GSBPM needs to be examined. I also agree that if significant change is required as a result, a road map may be required outlining the proposed timing etc.

    I think that it is important to include within scope all the processes needed to fully explain generic aspects of statistical operations - all the things that consume and/or create statistical objects. This suggests that it is hugely important that GSBPM and GSIM coverage is equivalent. Every GSIM object should be an process input or output. And every GSBPM process should have GSIM inputs and outputs. I think this is probably a necessary precursor to the higher-order considerations of how the two models relate to broader architectural concerns.

  3. My feeling is that a general text is required that should also cover GSIM and CSPA in a coherent way. From this text we should steal the conclusion and add the link.

  4. Discussion 30/9:

    Useful for today's environment but not exclude the needs of the future. Biggest use of the GSBPM today is describing current processes. This is by developed countries but also many countries in the developing world. GSBPM used as basis for mapping processes.

    Too future focused will make it hard for developing countries to use. Use case or profiles for other future focused data sources are possible.

    We should have information about GSBPM, GSIM and CSPA fit together. This is not part of the GSBPM document but we should be able to refer to it. 

    Highlight new purpose and uses not around in 2009 - different emphasis now? Add links to other reference models (GSIM, CSPA)

    Circle back to this after discussing phases, sub process changes.