STATEMENT OF THE CEB HR NETWORK AT THE 62nd SESSION OF ICSC:
REPORT OF THE TWENTY-EIGTH SESSION OF
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON POST ADJUSTMENT QUESTIONS
(ICSC/62/R.4)
Mr. Chairman,
The Network wishes to compliment the Secretariat for providing a clear and comprehensive report of ACPAQ’s 28th session.
Our comments will refer to the issues of methodology contained in section II and section XII of the report. The representatives from the different headquarters’ locations may wish to comment on the sections III to XI.
At the outset, let me recall the comments made 5 years ago in respect of the last round of surveys when we complimented your secretariat for the collaboration and transparency in which the exercise had been conducted. The same is equally true for the 2005 round of surveys. We also congratulate the Secretariat for having developed a computerized notebook application for the more efficient collection of data. Another innovation which organizations welcomed at the recent ACPAQ session was the manner in which those responsible for data collection at the different locations presented those data to ACPAQ. This is a positive team building approach which further enhances the transparency of the process.
The HR Network noted the Committee’s conclusion that the collection and processing of data from the 2005 place-to-place survey in all eight headquarters duty stations were carried out in accordance with the approved methodology.
The HR Network , however, wishes to point out three areas for particular consideration:
- the very low response rates for the household expenditure surveys at all eight duty stations (referred to in paragraphs 13 and 19);
- The need for examination of the way in which the new approach to optimizing the pricing coverage of outlets is working – or not working – in practice (referred to in paragraph 16); and
- The potential improvements to the methodology (referred to in particular in paragraphs 14 and 20).
1. As mentioned in ACPAQ, organizations said in ACPAQ they very much regret the low response rates to the household expenditure surveys. There are many reasons for this; the complexity of the questionnaire itself and the time it takes to complete; the technical difficulties with electronic completion of the questionnaire; concerns for confidentiality; lack of interest; lack of confidence and so on.
The HR Network supports the suggestion that the Secretariat revise the questionnaires with a view to simplifying them, both in terms of structure and content, and make the electronic version of the questionnaires more user-friendly. The Network also recommends that the Secretariat develop specific mechanisms to improve the response rates to the surveys. We all have to do better next time; and we do need to find a way of using national expenditure weights – presumably suitably adjusted – to determine common weights. The organizations can assure you that they will do all they can to assist the Secretariat and ACPAQ to find a solution to this vexatious problem before the next round of headquarters’ surveys.
2. In paragraph 16, there is a very good description of the concerns raised at ACPAQ for the new approach to pricing; this was used for the first time in 2005. We had all thought that this new approach – essentially to collect as many prices as possible in the same outlet even if that outlet had not been originally listed for some items – made good sense. Now organizations are concerned, however, that this may be introducing a bias, especially in those locations such as Montreal and Geneva where there are comparatively fewer outlets than in New York for example.
The matter is technical but – for those familiar with the North American market – it was described in ACPAQ as pricing a clothing item (say a ladies wool suit) in Sears in Montreal with the same item in Saks in New York!
We join others in supporting ACPAQ’s request contained in the last sentence of paragraph 16 that the Secretariat re-examine this approach to data collection.
3. Let me now turn to those areas in which the organizations consider that improvements might be introduced in the next round of surveys - that is to say in 2010. Although 2010 may sound as though it is a long way away, it is surprising how quickly these surveys come round; moreover, improvements to the methodology need time for further discussion in ACPAQ - they also may need time for testing.
The areas in which the organizations would welcome methodological changes fall into 5 areas:
a. keeping the specifications up to date - especially for electronic items
b. using internet pricing
c. considering using internet outlets
d. improving the way in which clothing prices are collected; and
e. the treatment of data which are deemed to be “out of line" - that is considerably above or below the average prices collected for the items in question
These matters were reported to ACPAQ in document ICSC/ACPAQ/28/CRP 3 and were the subject of considerable discussion at the Committee. ACPAQ has asked the Secretariat to consider these proposals and we look forward to receiving the secretariat's views thereon at the next session of ACPAQ.
Inter alia, we consider that some of these proposals will help alleviate the problem of bias to which I referred a few moments ago somewhat colloquially as the Saks/Sears syndrome.
But the main thrust of these suggestions for improvements in the methodology is that of keeping abreast of technological change - both in terms of keeping specifications up to date in a world in which electronic items (computers, digital cameras, and even televisions) are being introduced and withdrawn from the sales markets with increasing and sometimes bewildering rapidity. Most outlets in New York - or Vienna for that matter - consider that there will be four or even five new models of a given digital camera introduced over a 12 month period. That means that the model taken as a specification in January is unlikely to be available to price in June of the same year.
In the cost-of-living survey conducted in Paris in September 2005 by the ICSC Secretariat, the UNESCO representative raised again the concern relating to the specifications for education costs and suggested that the comparability of schools used for cost-of-living measurements should be further studied. The HR Network supports this suggestion.
In summary, we are grateful to the attention paid to the suggestions put forward by the organizations at ACPAQ and we look forward to the outcome of the secretariat's further review thereof in due course.
Mr. Chairman, I would be grateful if you would accord the floor to colleagues having questions relating to the individual headquarters' locations referred to in the report of the Advisory Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.