Archive for the ‘Index’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Google Price Index – a new KPI for mapping inflation trends using web data

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

According with a recent article published by Harding (2010) in the Financial Times citing Google’s Chief Economist, Hal Varian, Google is currently developing and testing a new daily measure of inflation using web data.

Google Price Index (GPI) is envisaged to provide accurate daily statistics of the inflation trends for the products and services transacted via web, and could one day provide an alternative to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), once with the generalization of the online shopping.

Currently, the Consumer Price Index data is collected manually from shops and published monthly with a time lag of several weeks. Alternatively, the new Google Price Index will be able to offer automated daily updated figures, a tremendous improvement in the current status of the inflation intelligence data provision process.

Even, if the Google Price Index is already considered by many as an extraordinary alternative for the Consumer Price Index, as Google Chief Economist emphasizes, GPI is not a direct replacement of the CPI and most probably will not be in the near future. This is mostly due to the differences between the mix in the online shopping basket and the mix in the wider economy one.

As an example, housing accounts count for about 40% of the US CPI, while only for 18% of the GPI at this point.

While promising, the GPI is still in development and Google has not decided yet if it will be released to the public. In the meantime, Google Product Search provides a product research and comparison service and gives a glimpse of the algoritm behind GPI.

For more details on Key Performance Indicators specific to the Online Presence – eCommerce or Sales functional areas visit the KPI examples section on smartkpis.com.

References

Additional resources

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Index, Library of KPI examples, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

Global ranking of countries based on sovereign debt risk

Saturday, October 9th, 2010

The most recent report of global sovereign credit risk for the 3rd Quarter of 2010 presents the country rating based on the Cumulative Probability of Default (CPD), indicating the probability of a country being unable to honour its debt obligations over a given time period. CPD is calculated using an industry standard model and proprietary credit data from CMA Datavision TM. Reference to ‘risky’ is purely in terms of the probability of default derived from the price of the CDS (CMA, 2010).

Source: CMA (2010)

Of the countries in the top 10, USA lost six positions, as the world’s largest economy fluctuates between growth and no growth scenarios, fueling the ‘double dip debate’. On the other hand, Australia had the best improvement of the countries in the top 10, in a quarter which has seen a new coalition government staying in power.

The report focuses on changes in the risk profile of sovereign debt issuers, with the intention to identify trends and drivers of change. The world debt risk is divided into eight regions: US & UK, Western Europe, Emerging Europe, Scandinavia, Latin & South America, Middle East & Africa, Australasia and Asia. In addition to identifying themes within these regions, the macro trends across the sovereign debt sector are also discussed.

References:

CMA 2010, CMA Global Sovereign Credit Risk Report, available at: http://www.cmavision.com/images/uploads/docs/CMA_Global_Sovereign_Credit_Risk_Report_Q3_2010.pdf (accessed 8 October 2010)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Government, Index, KPI, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

The Global Gender Gap Index

Monday, September 20th, 2010

The Global Gender Gap Index, first introduced in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2006, represents a framework for capturing the magnitude and scope of gender-based disparities and tracking their progress. The Index offers national benchmarking on gender gaps for economic, political, education and health based criteria, providing country rankings that allow effective comparisons across regions and income groups, over time (World Economic Forum, 2009).

Measuring the gender gap is realized in four fundamental categories:

  • economic participation and opportunity;
  • educational attainment;
  • political empowerment;
  • health and survival.

Each category is based on variables analyzed at the level of each country. The Global Gender Index 2009 includes a coverage of 134 countries, based on a set of 14 indicators, presented in the figure below:

Source: World Economic Forum (2009)

The 2009 report presents the detailed country ranking, the comparison with previous years,  regional classifications and relationship with other Key Performance Indicators at country level, such as the relationship between GDP per capita and the Glocal Gender Gap Index 2009:

Source: World Economic Forum (2009)

For the last four years, the World Economic Forum has been quantifying the magnitude of gender based disparities and their progress, through publishing the annual Global Gender Gap Reports. The rankings are based on a straightforward methodology and quantitative analysis, intended to serve as a base for raising awareness among a global audience of the challenges posed by gender gaps and designing effective measures for reducing them (World Economic Forum, 2009).

References:

World Economic Forum 2009, The Global Gap Report 2009, available at: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2009.pdf (accessed 20 September 2010)

Tags: , ,
Posted in Index, KPI, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

Country Brand Index 2009 – USA, Canada and Australia atop the list

Monday, September 13th, 2010

United States of America tops the list of the best country brands in 2009, followed by Canada and Australia. The Country Brand Index rankings revealed by FutureBrand for several years now is recognized as the most complete and thorough evaluation of a country brand.

Source: FutureBrand, 2010

How is the Country Brand Index put together?

A country brand is more than just a logo (Marazza, 2007). A country is a complex product, defined by far more than the land outlined by its borders. A country is a political, economical, cultural, historical and linguistic entity. Thus, a country brand can become hard to be defined and evaluated according with its true value.

FutureBrand has developed a three tiered methodology for examining and ranking country brands that permits data triangulation and minimal bias. The Country Brand Index incorporates:

- A global quantitative survey

- Expert opinions, and

- Relevant secondary sources for statistics that link brand equity to assets, growth and expansion.

Key methodology figures and insights:

- The survey tracks the perception of more than 3,000 international business and leisure travelers;

- Travelers were selected from 9 countries: US, UK, China, Australia, Japan, Brazil, UAE, Germany and Russia;

- Respondent perception of 102 country brands were quantified through questions about country perception;

- The country brands were assessed on 29 attributes and 7 measures of brand strength;

- Survey results were weighted and aggregated in proportion of regional volume of travel consumption, for assuring a minimal bias;

- 47 panel experts with no association with a specific destination were interviewed, to strengthen and give credibility to country brand evaluation.

Assessing country brands – The framework

Countries are multifaceted, complex products. In order to assess their strengths, weaknesses and opportunities, as accurately as possible, FutureBrand has developed a multilayered framework that crystallizes the way we look and perceive a country brand. The framework built on 8 dimensions, captures every important aspect of a country, from geography, to economy and ethos. It facilitates the development of a holistic country brand platform by allowing to discern between strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. Thus, it gives a good sense of what is the maturity and brand level of performance, identifying possible gaps that need to be addressed.

Source: FutureBrand, 2010

Measuring the brand strengths

One of the most important components of the country brand assessment framework is the measurement of the brand strengths. For assessing this important dimension FutureBrand uses the Hierarchical decision Model (HDM). The model based on 7 measures asses the country brand development in terms of the place a brand occupies in the minds of its audiences. The seven measures are:

% Awareness – Do key audiences know that the country exists? How top of mind it is?

% Familiarity – How well do people know the country and what it offers?

% Associations – What qualities come to mind when people think of the country?

% Preference – How highly do audiences esteem the country?

% Consideration – Is this one of the countries being thought of visiting?

% Decision/Visitation – To what extent do people follow through and visit the country?

% Advocacy – What is the visitors’ willingness to recommend the country to family, friends and colleagues?

In order to get the complete picture of the country brand performance, both rating and ranking of each measure were considered.

Overall, the FutureBrand report provides with a good sense of what are the best country brands in the world. The report provides also a wide range of interesting statistics and country brands’ performance evaluations according with different criteria. To download the complete report, visit futurebrand.com.

Smartkpis.com recommendations

To support the marketers’ needs smartkpis.com includes a wide selection of Key performance indicators for the Marketing functional area. A considerable number of articles addressing different key marketing performance aspects are also available.

References

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Index, Performance Management, Performance Measurement, smartKPIs.com | No Comments »

The European Life Long Learning Index (ELLI) 2010

Monday, September 6th, 2010

A recent study „The European ELLI Index 2010 – Making Lifelong Learning Tangible!“ presents the results of the European Lifelong Learning Index for 2010 and compares Europe’s progress in lifelong learning. The European Lifelong Learning Index (ELLI) is used on annual basis to measure the performance of learning throughout different stages and learning environments (school, community, work, home life).

This index measures learning in four domains based on the UNESCO framework completed by Jaques Delors:

  • learning to know -  formal education
  • learning to do – vocational learning
  • learning to live – learning for social cohesion
  • learning to be – learning as personal growth.

Source: ELLI (2010)

ELLI is a Composite Index that compiles 36 indicators that reflect learning perspectives. This measurement instrument combines indicators and statistics in order to measure, monitor and analyze trends at regional and international level. Some of the indicators presents learning activities, such as:

  • % Participation rate in formal and training courses
  • % Employees participating in vocational training
  • % Participation in active citizenship
  • % Participation in cultural activities etc.

Besides the country comparison, the study illustrates the ELLI concept and methodology, as well as how fundamental interrelations between lifelong learning, social and individual wellbeing are taken account for in the index (ELLI, 2010).

References:

ELLI 2010, The European ELLI Index 2010 – Making Lifelong Learning Tangible!, available at: http://www.deutscher-lernatlas.de/ (accessed 3 September 2010)

Tags: , ,
Posted in Government, Index, Measure, Performance Management, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

Gallup Potential Net Migration Index – Singapore – New Zealand – Saudi Arabia – Canada – Switzerland – Australia – Kuwait atop

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

A study recently released by Gallup, on the topic of the Potential Net Migration Index shows that nations such as Singapore, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Switzerland and Australia are atop the list of countries that could see the highest net adult population growth from international migration. In the scenario in which all the borders are opened and population can move freely from one country to another, following their wishes as expressed in the survey, some of these countries could double their population according with the study.

Source: Adapted from Gallup, 2010

At the other end of the table, the countries that potentially could lose the biggest population number, in some countries the values going as high as half of the current population size are: Sierra Leone, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ethiopia or El Salvador.

Source: Adapted from Gallup, 2010

Definition of the index

# Potential Net Migration Index (PMMI): “Measures the estimated number of adults who express their wishes to move permanently out of a country if the opportunity arose subtracted from the estimated number who would like to move into it and calculated as a proportion from the total adult population currently residing in the country.”

Calculation formula

[(A-B)/C]*100, where

  • A = # Estimated adults who express their wishes to move into it
  • B = # Estimated adults who express their wishes to move out from a country
  • C = # Adult population currently residing in the country

Methodology

The study is survey based and uses for the calculation Gallup’s Potential Net Migration Index. The methods used for the survey data collection are telephone interviews and face to face interviews.

Data collection

The survey takes in consideration 148 countries, which represent almost 95% of the global population and was conducted between 2007 and 2010 on more than 350,000 adults.

Survey questions

The survey data is subtracted from two questions:

• “Ideally if you had the opportunity, would you like to move permanently to another country, or would you prefer to continue living in this country? If Yes

• To which country would you like to move?

Study limitations

• The Gallup’s findings reflect people wishes rather than their intentions.

• Index scores are not reported for countries were the sample was smaller than 500, such as Belize, Cyprus or Iceland, due to the index volatility

• In Gulf Cooperation Council countries only Arab nationals and Arab expatriates were surveyed

• Index scores are not reported for countries such as Qatar or United Arab Emirates where the expat population make up more than 50% of the adult population.

• Most importantly, the rankings are powerfully influenced by the size of the current population. Countries such as USA, which is the most preferred country for immigration doesn’t show up in the top ranking spots due to its high population size.

Conclusion

Though is based mostly on the interviewed people’s wishes and on an ideal situation or hypothesis in which the population is free to move from one country to another without any restriction, the study raise important questions for the world countries leaders. A couple of them could be:

  • What would be the real implications if these desires become reality?
  • What future actions need to be pursued to keep a state of equilibrium in the world?

References

Gallup (2010),  Migration Could Triple Populations in Some Wealthy Nations, article by Neli Esipova and Julie Ray, released on 20 August 2010, available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/142364/Migration-Triple-Populations-Wealthy-Nations.aspx#1, (accessed 25 August 2010)

* data based on www.wikipedia.com, Country Reports

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Case Study, Index, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

University ranking systems – Academic Ranking of World Universities vs World University Rankings

Friday, August 20th, 2010

Source: ShanghaiRanking Consultancy, 2010.

Every year a world university ranking is released by a number of educational and commercial associations and bodies. And every year countless number of students, university officials and even politicians wait impatiently for them.

As one of the latest Nature Special Reports (2010) on educational topics reveal, these rankings have the power to put in action a whole mechanism. A position in the higher echelon of the rankings can influence policy makers higher education investments, determine which institutions attract the best researchers and students and trigger a race between universities to strengthen their position for the year to come.

Among them the most influential are the Academic Ranking of World Universities known also as Shanghai ranking and the World University Ranking released by Britain’s Times Higher Education Magazine in collaboration with QS ( a London base higher education media company).

While the Academic Ranking of World Universities was created in 2003 by the Center for World Class Universities of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in an attempt to benchmark Chinese universities against the top universities in the world, the World University Ranking released by the Times Higher Education Magazine is more the result of a commercial publishing exercise started in 2004.

Both however have attracted increased attention in the last few years, being as much appreciated by officials of universities that did well in the rankings as they were highly contested, probably by many more.

The criticism, which mainly comes from academics and universities, is directed towards the methodology and data gathering process used to compile these ranking systems. The main issues outlined are the narrow range of performance measures and criteria used which leaves out more than it includes.

The Academic Ranking of World Universities, compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China and generally known as the Shanghai index, focuses exclusively on research output and citation impact. The six performance measures used to calculate the index are:

• # Alumni winning Noble Prizes and Fields Medals

• # Staff winning Noble Prizes and Fields Medals

• # Highly cited researchers selected by Thomson Scientific

• # Articles published in journals of Nature and Science

• # Articles indexed in Science Citation Index – Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index

• # Per capita performance with respect to the size of the institution

On the other side of the bar, the World University rankings compiled by the Times Higher Education Magazine are generally based on composite scores that aggregate weighted indicators, being based mostly on reputational surveys. The indicators used in the assessment process are:

• # Peer review score

• # Employer review score

• # Staff / Student score

• # Citation staff score

• # International staff score

• # International students score

Unfortunately, none of these rankings can clearly picture what is the real value and performance of world’s higher education institutions. While the Shanghai Index concentrate too much on academic research, this being the field which can be most easily monitored, due to its internationalized nature, the other one compiled by the British THE Magazine is focused too much on peer review and reputational surveys.

This lack of homogeneity creates big discrepancy between the two ranking systems which can be easily observed if looking at the rankings. Only few university keep the same position in the two ranking system, the most known one being Harvard University. To better picture these issue we have picked three examples from both rankings, for the year 2009.

The need for improved and more nuanced assessment which to include a wider range of criteria and to assess more intangible qualities, like educational excellence, which will also allow a higher degree of homogenization between rankings, making them more accurate and relevant seems evident.

Fortunately, a new generation of ranking systems that addresses part of these issues started or are about to emerge. The new systems, as acknowledged in the Nature (2010) article “ The nature game” will be more multidimensional , comparing universities less on aggregate numbers and more on aspects such as research, teaching and industrial engagement.

Firstly the World University Rankings compiled by the Times Higher Education Magazine, will have, starting with 2010, a new look and will be based on a totally overhauled performance assessment system. The rankings will be drawn from the Global Institutional Profile Project, launched by the most renowned data analyst and provider “Thomson Reuters” . It will include details such as research funding, number of researchers and PhDs awarded as well as measures of educational performance. The system will continue to use reputational surveys but the number of reviewers will be increased from 4,000 to about 25, 000 for better accuracy. An audit procedure to guard against misinformation provided by universities was also set in place.

European Commission has also launched a new project in an effort to create a global database of universities, called the U-Multirank (Global Ranking of Universities), which will be run by the Consortium for Higher Education and Research Performance Assessment. This new ranking system will allow the comparison of universities with similar activities, missions and research interests.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is also trying to come into help, currently coordinating a pilot project for developing new metrics for assessing teaching and learning outcomes. The project is named the Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) and is intended to try to measure complex aspects such as ability of students to think critically or number of new ideas generated by students.

Finally, the European University Association, which represents more than 800 universities is currently in the process of developing an annual review of all international rankings by assessing their methodologies and scrutinizing why institutions rise or fall in the rankings.

Hopefully all these new initiatives will create a better, more accurate and homogenized performance assessment  and benchmarking platform for universities and other educational bodies in the years to come.

For more information on world academic rankings you can fallow the smartkpis.com blog posts:

References

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Index, Performance Management, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

Employee engagement and organisational performance

Friday, August 6th, 2010

Engagement is all about getting employees to ‘give it their all’. Various research studies show a strong connection between an employee’s level of engagement and the level and quality of work performance.

Elements of engagement

The concept of engagement has naturally evolved from past research on high involvement, empowerment, job motivation, organizational commitment and trust.

Dr. Paul Bernthal (2009) proposes that engagement comprises of individual value, focused work, and interpersonal support with the following sub-components that further define the meaning of engagement:

  • Individual Value - Employees feel more engaged when they are able to make a unique contribution, experience empowerment, and have opportunities for personal growth.  The perception of meaningful work is one of the most influential factors in determining employees’ willingness to stay with an organization.
  • Focused Work – Employees feel more engaged when they have clear direction, performance accountability and an efficient work environment.
  • Interpersonal Support – Employees feel more engaged when they work in a safe, cooperative environment.

Work related roles

“Role theory” reviews different roles that people engage in at work and explains reasons why people engage in certain roles and not in others (Welbourne, 2003). Engagement is about what people do at work.  The Five work-related roles differentiated are:

1. Job holder role – employees come to work and do the job that is listed in their job description.

2. Team member role – employees go “above and beyond” to help members of their team work toward common goals.

3. Entrepreneur role – employees come up with new ideas and processes and try to get those ideas implemented.

4. Career role – employees do things to enhance their career in the organization; they learn, they adapt new skills and more.

5. Organization member role – employees do things that promote and help the company even if it’s not part of their jobs or their team’s duties.

Employee engagement and performance measurement

Researches on employee engagement use different approaches.  According to the global workforce study conducted by Tower Perrins, only a fifth of the respondents can be categorized as engaged (Towers Perrin, 2008). The largest segment, over 40%, is the so-called “enrolled,” perhaps best described as capable but not fully committed. The four categories of employees engagement are presented below:

Source: Towers Perrin, 2008

The same  workforce study reveals that a spread of more than 5% in operating margin and more than 3% in net profit margin was observed between the companies with high employee engagement and those with low engagement. How  engagement affects financial performance and retention in companies is illustrated in the figure below.

Source: Towers Perrin, 2008 (click on the image for larger size)

Another employee engagement research approach was developed by Gallup Consulting, which uses 12 questions (Q12) to measure the employee engagement (Gallup Consulting, 2008). Gallup’s latest meta-analysis (an analysis of data from more than 152 organizations) shows dramatic differences between top and bottom quartile workgroups on key business outcomes, as it is revelead in the the figure below:


Source: Gallup Consulting, 2008, 2010

Answers to the Gallup’s questions (Q12) that measure employee engagement correlate with retention, productivity, customer engagement and safety.

Why is important to measure engagement?

Some companies use engagement scores as lead measures in their HR scorecards. When an organization can show the relationship between engagement scores and bottom-line outcomes, everyone pays attention to the engagement index. Establishing this critical link between people and performance helps HR professionals prove that people-related interventions are a worthwhile investment.

How do you measure the employee engagement in your firm?

For further examples of performance measures and reports explore the Human Resources KPIs in practice section of smartkpis.com (smartKPIs.com 2010). The employee engagement index is available at: http://www.smartkpis.com/kpi-key-performance-indicator/employee-engagement-index-1836.html

References

Bernthal P. 2009, Measuring Employee Engagement, Development Dimensions International, Inc., available at: http://www.ddiworld.com/pdf/ddi_MeasuringEmployeeEngagement_wp.pdf

Gallup Consulting 2008 -2010, Employee Engagement , What’s Your Engagement Ratio?, available at: http://www.gallup.com/consulting/52/employee-engagement.aspx and  http://www.gallup.com/consulting/121535/Employee-Engagement-Overview-Brochure.aspx

Towers Perrin 2008, Global Workforce Survey, Closing the Engagement Gap: A Road Map for Driving Superior Business Performance, available at: http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=HRS/USA/2008/200803/GWS_Global_Report20072008_31208.pdf

Welbourne T. 2003, Employee Engagement: Doing It vs. Measuring, available at: http://www.eepulse.com/documents/pdfs/HR.com-9-8-03.pdf

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Index, KPI, Performance Measurement, smartKPIs.com | No Comments »

Global House Price Index – 2010 Results and Trends

Monday, August 2nd, 2010

Knight Frank, a leading global property consultancy company, compiled official government statistics and central bank data from around the world, to generate a ranking based on the global house price index results in the first quarter of 2010.

The most noticeable trend in global house prices is the ease with which the performance of global housing markets can now be grouped by world region, the first four positions in the ranking being occupied by Asia Pacific locations, whilst Europe dominates the bottom half of the ranking.

Source: Knight Frank LLP, 2010

The key highlights regarding the global house price index and its results are:

  • At the end of March 2010 (Q1), the results of the price index increased with 53%.
  • The top performers remain China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia all recording an annual growth in excess of 20%.
  • The Asia Pacific region registered the highest growth of 17.8% on average.
  • For the first time since Q4 2008, the annual price inflation for all global housing markets recorded a growth, of 1.6% in March 2010.

References:

Knight Frank LLP 2010, House prices now rising in more than half of countries across the globe, available at: http://www.knightfrank.co.uk/news/House-prices-now-rising-in-more-than-half-of-countries-across-the-globe-0229.aspx (accessed 2 August 2010)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Index, KPI, Measure | No Comments »

Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization Performance

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

The statistical release of the Federal Reserve, Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: The 2010 Annual Revision, presents a thorough analysis of the industrial production (IP) index and the related performance measures of production capacity.

The industrial production index measures the real output of the manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities industries. The base year considered within this revision is 2007, this lowering the level of the IP index for most periods. For monitoring this performance indicator, data was gathered on a monthly basis, from two main types  of sources:

  • output measured in physical units
  • data on inputs to the production process.

Total industrial capacity increased moderately from 2006 through 2009, but is expected to decline in 2010. The rates of change in both 2009 and 2010 have been revised up somewhat from earlier estimates, but revisions to earlier years were smaller (Federal Reserve, 2010).

Total industrial production, capacity and utilization (Federal Reserve, 2010)

The annual revision indicates an increased rate of capacity utilization for total industry by 0.7% point higher in the fourth quarter of 2007. At 71.1% , overall utilization in the fourth quarter of 2009 was 0.2% point below its previous estimate.

Capacity utilization (Federal Reserve, 2010)

The main conclusions of the annual revision are:

  • Manufacturing production contracted sharply in 2008 and 2009.
  • The production index for final products and nonindustrial supplies indicates moderate gains from 2005 through 2007 and then fell between 2008 and 2009.
  • In 2006 and 2007, the capacity utilization rate for total industry was situated above its long-run average of 80.6%, registered before between 1972 to 2009.

The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used within this review are:

For further examples of performance indicators, explore the Production KPI examples section of the library of KPI examples available on smartkpis.com (smartKPIs.com, 2010).

References:

Federal Reserve (2010), Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: The 2010 Annual Revision, available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/revisions/Current/g17rev.pdf (accessed 25 June 2010)

smartKPIs.com (2010), Production KPI examples, available at http://www.smartkpis.com/kpi/functional-areas/production-quality-management/ (accessed 25 June 2010)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Government, Index, KPI, Library of KPI examples, Performance Management, Performance Measurement, smartKPIs.com | No Comments »

Google Internet Stats – the latest industry facts and insights

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

Google launched in the autumn of 2009 a new resource page called “Internet Stats” which “brings together the latest industry facts and insights” (Google Internet Stats, 2010).

The information is collected from certain third party sources, all specified on the micro-site, and catalogued into five categories, each with more subcategories:

  • Technology: Broadband; Devices; Mobile; Speed
  • Macro Economic Trends: Rest of the World; UK
  • Media Landscape: All media; Online
  • Media Consumption: Changes in Media Usage; Demographic Usage; Media Consumption Stats; Media Multi-tasking; Personalised Media Experiences
  • Consumer Trends: Community; Entertainment; Information; eCommerce

Visitors can also submit stats, which will be verified by Google’s teams before publishing (Google Barometer Blog, 2009).

Here is an image of the Macro Economic Trends Internet stats from this tool:

Source: Google Internet Stats (2010)

Currently, this initiative is available only on the Google’s UK landing page.

References

Google Internet Stats (2010), available at http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/landing/internetstats/ (accessed on 29 March 2010)

Google Barometer Blog (2009), “New! Internet Stats all in one place”, available at http://googlebarometer.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-internet-stats-all-in-one-place.html (accessed on 29 March 2010)

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Business Intelligence, Index, Measure | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Featured products

[no image]
$99 USD
 
[no image]
$39 USD
 
[no image]
$289 USD
 
[no image]
$99 USD
 
[no image]
$45 USD
 
[no image]
$999 USD
 
[no image]
$249 USD
 
[no image]
$35 USD