This proposal is part of the 2.03 upgrade process, please comment by replying below.
Standard
Activity
**Schema Object** None
**Type of Change** Addition of guidance
**Issue** Publishers and users require clearer guidance on how hierarchical business models are managed.
**Proposal** Add a section on use of hierarchies to the standard guidance on [Establishing Publishing Policies](http://iatistandard.org/202/guidance/how-to-publish/establish-publishin…). This should include:
- The scope of use must not extend beyond the reporting of the activities of a single organisation.
- All types of transactions may be reported at any level provided that:
- There is no double counting across the activities of a single organisation.
- Transactions should not report disbursements within a hierarchical group. The flow of money down a hierarchical chain is implicitly assumed
- Incoming Funds can be present at any level but must be reported only once and at only one level
- Budgets & results can be defined at any number of levels
- All mandatory fields should be present at all levels.
- Hierarchical groups should be treated as a single activity for the purpose of publisher statistics assessments
**Standards Day** Proposals were accepted. There was a wider discussion in the room around different use of hierarchy, described as hierarchy of relationship as well as hierarchy of funding flows. However, there was confusion around the definition being used for double counting and how that relates to reporting hierarchies. It was clarified that as long as the flow of resources is reported correctly, there will be no double counting. However, a number of examples were given from organisations highlighting that that there is inconsistency in how they use hierarchies and their understanding of double counting. The issue of treating hierarchical groups as single activities for publisher statistics assessments was not discussed.
**Links** Previous discussions - https://iaticonnect.org/group/standard-management-consultations-0/discu…
I fail to comprehend the concept of ‘disbursement’ from programme to component, within one and the same reporting organisation. If the aim is to disclose how far the execution of a programme is, I would recommend to combine info on budgets (on both levels) with info on real disbursements (and expenditures) - i.e. outgoing flows from level 2.
As a parallel, from DAC-statistics: You don’t Count any ODA if you are just shoveling funds around between your own budgetlines or bank-accounts. So which type of aid were you considering to apply for such internal reclassifications?
I certainly don’t want to block your constructive effort. Would it be worthwhile to consider a specific ‘type’ of transaction to be used for such internal transactions? It’s hardly in line with the common-sense concept of ‘disbursement’ that we usually apply. I would find it problematic along several lines (which type_of_flow of type_of_aid applies to internal disbursements? And can we rely on simultaneous reporting of the out- and in-going amount of each transaction? (otherwise we can’t really clam that there is no double counting)).
If we came up with a specific ‘type’ stamp, I would have no problem. Then these transactions could be entirely ignored if you wish to assess an organisations overall incoming/outgoing flows, and you could instantly verify whether the sum of transactions of that type is zero. I do understand the interest in disclosing the origin of ‘incoming’ funds in any activity.
Yes, I am happy with that.
That looks ok.
Regarding the flows between activities within 1 organization: it depends on the use-case if you are interested in the internal commitment and/or disbursement flows.
From the double counting perspective: you can avoid double counting at data use time, by ignoring/excluding all the transfers between programme and project level. So even when the flows between programme and project level do not balance, you can avoid double counting. I would be reluctant to add the balancing rule for internal flows, since organizations do internal tracking in many different ways. This rule would lead to constructing data which might in reality not be part of an organisation’s administration.
What’s i.m.o. important though is that all flows (commitments, disbursements and expenditures) crossing the organization boundary (incoming and outgoing), are only reported once by this organization.
That looks ok.
Regarding the flows between activities within 1 organization: it depends on the use-case if you are interested in the internal commitment and/or disbursement flows.
From the double counting perspective: you can avoid double counting at data use time, by ignoring/excluding all the transfers between programme and project level. So even when the flows between programme and project level do not balance, you can avoid double counting. I would be reluctant to add the balancing rule for internal flows, since organizations do internal tracking in many different ways. This rule would lead to constructing data which might in reality not be part of an organisation’s administration.
What’s i.m.o. important though is that all flows (commitments, disbursements and expenditures) crossing the organization boundary (incoming and outgoing), are only reported once by this organization.
I can now see why we have confusion. The proposal as it stands suggests that intra-organisational disbursements (with matching incoming funds) can be made between a publisher’s activities provided that they are not part of an hierarchical group.
I suggest
Ole Jacob (OJ) Hjøllund are you happy that making the balancing incoming funds explicit deals with shoveling funds around transparently?
Are you happy with