Case Study 3

Case Study 3: Changing the release dates and ´bundling´ releases

SCENARIO

An organisation responsible for two separate but interrelated datasets each of which generates its own (politically sensitive) release, made initial plans to publish both releases on separate but nearby dates.  They pre-announced these release dates accordingly.

As the date for the first release approached, it became apparent to the statisticians that the figures it contained could be open to misinterpretation if not viewed in the context of the second release. The demands of ´good government´ and ´the needs of users´ suggested that either a combined or coincident release would be more appropriate.

It subsequently became apparent that the statistics in the second release would become available earlier than originally envisaged.

The organisation was, therefore, given the choice of:

• delaying the first release;
• advancing the second release;
• some combination of both actions.

QUESTION

Which principles and protocols of the Code of Practice are relevant to this scenario?

SUGGESTED RELEVANT PRINCIPLES

The following principles might be considered to be the most relevant to this scenario:

• Relevance
• Accessibility

SUGGESTED RELEVANT PROTOCOLS

The following protocols might be considered to be the most relevant to this scenario:

• Professional Competence
  using professional judgement
  
• Release Practices
  Principle 5: Release arrangements will be open and pre-announced; orderly; as early as possible after compilation.
  Principle 6: Timing will not be influenced by the content of the release.

QUESTION

What recommendations do you have?  In what way does the Code of Practice influence your recommendations?

SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONS

First Decision

The organisation took the initial view that they should not delay the first release.  The rationale was as follows.

In order to present a ´coherent picture´, the Protocol allows for one set of statistics to be delayed to coincide with the publication of another.

In this case, however, if the first of the two releases was delayed, the organisation and its Ministers could be accused of withholding politically sensitive figures.

However, if the first of the releases was published on its own, and out of context, there was still the risk that the figures might be misinterpreted.

Second Decision

The organisation took the subsequent view that they should bring forward the date of the second release so that it coincided with the date of the first. They notified users in accordance with Para 6(b). The rationale was as follows.

Although the decision to bring forward the second release would mean changing a pre-announced release date, it was consistent with the principle of releasing data as early as possible after compilation.

Perhaps more importantly, a combined release would provide users with a more complete picture, and enable any apparent inconsistencies between the statistics to be reconciled at the time both were released.

This case study is not prescriptive.

Note: In normal circumstances, and in the context of the Protocol on Professional Competence, this sort of situation should have been foreseen. The lesson learnt should also persuade the organisation to combine the releases in future.

 Case study as word document