1. CES Discussion on Internet Data Reporting

2. EDR discussion AgencySurvey Environment Statistics Finland 94% of gross data derived from admin sources 1% from EDR (business and local govt.) Direct data collection moving from paper to EDR Statistics Austria Wide variety of data collected Prime method has been paper Statistics Canada Basic collection method is CATI (some personal) Increasing proportion of business information from tax data (over 50% and growing)

3. EDR discussion AgencyEDR Environment Statistics Finland High usage of Internet by business E-government program generated positive environment for Internet use. Statistics Austria Statistics Act 2000 mandates provision of electronic questionnaires Statistics Canada “Government-On-Line” gave support to expand EDR – also a high level of commitment Was aggressive early adopter

4. EDR discussion Agency# of EDR Applications Statistics Finland 11 local government web applications with small # of respondents (100s) 8 monthly/quarterly and 6 annual surveys offer web option Statistics Austria EDR seems new: not clear how many EDR applications currently offered 12,000 questionnaire/month are sent with an EDR option for Short Term Survey Statistics Canada 37 business and agr. surveys offer EDR options Mix of monthly, quarterly and annual surveys Wide range of sample sizes (up to 22,000 per survey)

5. EDR discussion AgencyTake-up Rates Statistics Finland Sub-annuals: up to 70% (but these are large respondents) One annual business survey has only 15% Statistics Austria Introduction of e-quest/web in 2005; has 9% web take- up, 69% paper, 22% other electronic methods (single unit enterprises) Statistics Canada Annual surveys: about 10% Sub-annuals: average of 40%

6. EDR discussion AgencyData Security Statistics Finland Simple communication security: SSL (handled by external service provider) Firewalls, authentication, separate data bases; session can be interrupted and resumed But, for several hours collected data is only software protected from outside accessible Statistics Austria Appears to use SSL Periodic removal of “exposed” data to secure environment (How long exposure?) Solution audited and “blessed” by external experts Guarantee security in writing (novel idea) Statistics Canada Maximum security: separate staging area, public key infrastructure, very secure encryption Internet sessions can be interrupted and resumed later

7. EDR discussion AgencyApproach Statistics Finland Internal and contracted applications XCOLA an “application engine”; generic EDR approach One application, one data base Statistics Austria Generic approach to manage multi-mode collection Emphasis on on-line editing Statistics Canada Integrate EDR with pre-existing BLAISE applications Offer EXCEL and Web applications High level of security creates complexities

8. EDR discussion AgencyRespondent Motivation Statistics Finland Individual feedback of info. to respondents (positive) Viewed as quicker and more modern Pre-filled info. from previous surveys Statistics Austria Multi-layered help system No previous data provided Statistics Canada Structured respondent research currently underway: attitudes, preferences, experiences with EDR

9. EDR discussion AgencyCosts and savings Statistics Finland Current cost: (external): 5,000 euros per application Considerably better than break-even Statistics Austria Costs reduced by moving editing to respondents Better than break-even Statistics Canada Significant infrastructure required for high security and large # of not generalised applications Not breaking even yet

10. EDR discussion AgencyData Quality Statistics Finland 25% fewer edit failures for some applications Statistics Austria Expect improved quality Statistics Canada Fewer failed edits Improved timeliness

11. Chinese paper Development of electronic reporting underway since 1998 Special feature: sharing data with local statistical bureaux Currently implemented EDR for 5000 out of 180,000 enterprises (largest) These account for 40-50% of assets and revenues Excellent response rate: over 90% (monthly survey) Used EDR for high priority special surveys (e.g. SARS)

12. EDR discussion -- conclusions You pay for high security Generalised approach preferable EDR should not be “add-on” but should involve re-thinking of “questionnaire” and a multi-mode processing flow Interruption and resumption of questionnaire completion seems important (for longer forms) – but with design trade- offs involving security, complexity

13. EDR discussion -- conclusions Editing by respondents is helpful for quality – but too much of it can make EDR less user-friendly Understanding respondent motivation is still in infancy

14. Questions To all authors: –What approach to use to protect the data from interception in both directions? Experiences? –Experiences with provision of past data? –Any unreported experiences with respondent research? –Should we create an ad hoc working group on EDR?

15. Questions To Austria: –Why have you restricted EDR to single business enterprises? –Do you have plans to expand EDR to other types of surveys ? To Finland: –Why have you adopted both an in-house and a contracted approach? When do you use each? –Which one works better? To Canada: - What are the advantages/disadvantages of adopting a highly secure “public key infrastructure” security approach? -Why do you have 2 approaches for collecting data electronically-EXCEL and Web ? To China: what plans do you have to expand EDR to large number or respondents?