[OpenSpending] Follow-up to transaction standard call

[Dan Herbert]

Hi All
I've been following this discussion with interest. One of the issues that
seems to have come up is the need to relate anything done on this project
to the overall financial accounting systems organisations use. The
Institute of Chartered Accountants has a project on standards of data in
public life (that follows on from the lecture Rufus did for them last year)
and it seemed to me there'd be scope for some cooperation on these
complimentary projects. There's some detail
here<http://www.icaew.com/en/technical/information-technology/business-systems-and-software-selection/making-information-systems-work>(you
need to open the "What we're thinking about" dialogue). I've not
metioned this project to them but would happily act as a go-between if that
would help.
Regards
Dan


On 24 October 2012 17:56, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:

> I agree – thanks Lucy for bringing it together.****
>
> ** **
>
> I would agree to handle salaries and employee expenses separately, but
> with two provisos:-****
>
> ** **
>
> (1) the spending transactions should show a total* for salaries and for
> employee expenses in the period, so that there is a complete picture of
> spending in the period.  Often this is how salaries work through an
> agency’s systems anyway, with the payroll system just posting a total paid
> in salary to the ledger system.  (In some agencies this would include the
> components of salary including total basic pay, total bonuses, total
> allowances, total pension contribution etc).****
>
> ** **
>
> (2) singleton contractors and sole traders should not somehow slip through
> the net.  The UK Information Commissioner’s view is that data about them,
> although personal data, is not sensitive personal data if it is data about
> their business activities.****
>
> ** **
>
> * BTW I have been arguing in the UK that where transactions are redacted
> or where transactions are below a given reporting threshold then (at least)
> a total line should be given for these so that the grand total of the
> transaction file(s) is the same as the total expenditure reported by the
> agency in its accounts.  This principle is in the local government guidance
> but not in the central government equivalent.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards****
>
> ** **
>
> Andrew****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* openspending-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:
> openspending-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On Behalf Of *James McKinney
> *Sent:* 24 October 2012 14:30
> *To:* OpenSpending Discussion List
> *Cc:* Alistair Turnbull
>
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenSpending] Follow-up to transaction standard call****
>
> ** **
>
> Excellent start, Lucy. With the exception of "How does money move around
> inside and outside government?" I think the current list of questions can
> be satisfied by an augmented version of the UK's Payments Ontology:
> http://data.gov.uk/resources/payments#structure Payments are broader in
> precision than transactions, but lower-level and broader in scope than
> contracts.****
>
> ** **
>
> Salaries and employee expenses also came up in the discussion, but I
> wonder if these are better handled separately. I can imagine many
> governments being more open to transparency around payments than around
> salaries and expense accounts. I also expect the questions we'd like to ask
> of payments to suppliers are different from those we'd like to ask of
> payments to employees.****
>
> ** **
>
> My suggestion then as we develop the questions/use cases is to focus on
> suppliers.****
>
> ** **
>
> James****
>
> ** **
>
> On 2012-10-24, at 8:48 AM, Lucy Chambers wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Hi All, ****
>
> ** **
>
> So, my feeling is that to channel this debate, we need to come back to the
> questions people need to be able to answer with the data, I think that
> question 2. you indicate, James, is exactly hitting the nail on the head.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Summarising the discussion from above, trying to put [Question][Why?].
> Thank you Andrew, Gisele and Alastair for providing your input. I've added
> some thoughts from my research also:****
>
> ** **
>
> == What do people want to answer? ==****
>
> ** **
>
> === Understanding Internal Government Processes ===****
>
> ** **
>
> * Who authorised payments?  (*Could be useful for: - conflict of interest
> tracking, holding officials who made bad decisions to account.* )****
>
> * What was the date of supply? (*to track for instance speed of paying
> bills, a big problem for SMEs dealing with many public agencies*)****
>
> * How does money move around inside and outside government? (*Was a
> transaction to pay an external company, or was it an inter-departmental
> transfer?*) <- *Qs:* is this a means or an end question? Or is this just
> something that it is impossible to tell from current transaction data? Is
> this the same question as 'In some circumstances it would also be good to
> know the source of funding (eg is this general discretionary spending of
> the agency concerned, or is it a pass-through payment on behalf of
> another).'? ****
>
> ** **
>
> === Evaluating Choices, Efficiency and Value for Money ===****
>
> ** **
>
> * What specific goods is it for? (Not just category) (*Could be useful
> for: - answering questions such as 'how much did government X spend on
> [computers] last year. Often, this question is impossible to answer due to
> different departments coding identical purchases in different ways. To
> think about, how detailed would this get? Would 'Computer equipment'
> suffice? Or are we looking for information on thinks such as brand '1000 x
> MacBook Pro'?'. The latter I guess is the 'Checkbook' style option, but the
> former is also interesting and I know people always want to make
> calculations such as these.*) ****
>
> * What was the location of the work? + What was the location that
> benefitted? (*Very important question, both inside and outside
> government, I would say, to measure impact and efficiency*) ****
>
> * To highlight cost overruns (*Q.* *Presume this means comparing amount
> budgeted and amount actually spent?*)****
>
> * To highlight disputes, and mismanagement (*Q.* *Agree interesting, but
> how would you see this, either in transactions or contracts?*)****
>
> ** **
>
> === Information on Suppliers ===****
>
> ** **
>
> * Which supplier was involved? (*This is presumably the same issue as
> highlighting non-performance, but also things like whether a particular
> supplier is getting a large proportion of the contracts, maybe even good
> performance, so you can see who should be getting the contracts again?*)**
> **
>
> * What were the terms of the contract? (*For this you would need links to
> the contract documentation, presumably*) ****
>
> ** **
>
> My suggestion would be to keep working on this list of questions, and we
> can build on the discussion from there, working out what kind of
> information is contained in which source. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Does that make sense? Please let me know if I have missed / misinterpreted
> anything!****
>
> ** **
>
> Lucy ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Lucy Chambers
> Project Coordinator, ****
>
> School of Data <http://schoolofdata.org/> & OpenSpending<http://openspending.org/>
> Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>
> Skype: lucyfediachambers****
>
> Twitter: @lucyfedia <https://twitter.com/#%21/lucyfedia>****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> openspending mailing list
> openspending at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openspending****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> openspending mailing list
> openspending at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openspending
> Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/openspending/drdherbert%40gmail.com?password=XXXXXXXX&unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/openspending/attachments/20121031/4e558ae6/attachment.html>