Narrative

The indicator is based on Paragraph 23 (c of the 2011 Busan  Outcome Document which called on endorsers to commit themselves to

Implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive
and forward-looking information on resources provided through development cooperation.

The indicator scoring is split equally between these three dimensions. There have been persuasive arguments that the quality of the content of the data should also be measured. The challenge of adding this fourth dimension is to devise objective logic that can be run by a machine to assess the quality of the data.

Current

Indicator gives equal weight to timeliness, comprehensiveness and forward looking

Proposed

Retain same rule, but consider adding a measure of quality

Discussion

Many comments referred to the need to measure data quality. Need to examine quality tests applied by CRS and IATI and see if there is a common approach that could be applied (e.g. on completeness of textual information, presence of key fields dependent on activity status). See if can arrive at a single score and consider adding it as a 4th dimension - perhaps with less weight than for the data-driven dimensions.