• I don’t really like the table format.  There is way too much text in one or two skinny columns.  After scrolling down a few times I forgot what the column headings were and then I got lost trying to go up and down. 
• I found the column headings on the left under Activity, Level 1, 2 and 3 to be too abstract.  I wasted a bit of time wondering what the levels were.  Maybe if the table was wider or if it was just in paragraph format you could use indentation or some other signal to the reader that there are indeed 3 levels, and not spell it out “Level 1, 2, 3” at the top.  I think it is only Production that has 3 levels anyway.
• Under 1. Strategy, 1.1 Position – maybe you could find a better heading than “Position”.  It doesn’t fit very well with the other headings (Govern, Influence and collaborate, ...).  The others are all verbs but for me the word “position” needs something with it to give it action.  Similar to Capability where the headings are about managing different things, maybe in 1.1 the heading could be crafted around establishing/enforcing/strategizing the NSO’s position within the NSS.
• I’m not sure about the column Includes.  Does it mean that the things listed there are the only things included, or just a sub-set, maybe the most significant ones?  Under Capabilities the things listed in the Includes column start to sound a bit motherhoody, such as Promote capabilities (what does that mean?  Awareness building seminars?) and Manage quality (of course, but in this context, what would that look like?).
• (Laurie Reedman, Statistics Canada)

Eurostat feedback:

• The first header of the model is strategy. In management terms, leadership should also be included and there are elements under strategy (vision, values for example) which are not really linked to strategy by rather leadership.
• Mission is missing in the model, as far as we can see at least. It is a very important statement explaining the raison d'être of the organisation, which is an important statement for staff and stakeholders.

• The terminology in the second line of headers in the model (position, govern and influence and collaborate) are not easy to understand. Maybe they could be reformulated in a more consistent and self-explanatory way

1.3

The description in GAMSO starts with reference to “liaison and coordination with other statistical organizations”.  SN BAM does not narrow the scope in this way.

1.3 should including Influencing, and collaborating with, agencies whose primary mission and identification is not as a “statistical organization” (eg administrative departments, industry bodies) to make by-product data available for statistical purposes.  1.3 can include strategic engagement with key users of official statistics to better address their needs.

If such strategic engagement activities are not in scope for 1.3 then they need to be supported elsewhere in GAMSO. 

Although this particular variation from the wording of SN BAM is not supported by ABS, the other additions to 1.3 compared with SN BAM (eg reference to local, regional, national, multi-national co-ordination) are understood and supported.

We note that the feedback from INEGI in regard to 1.3 makes the same point as this ABS feedback.