Data Innovation: Regulatory Compliance Monitor

1. Reason: Lack of oversight and insight into the impact of supervision and enforcement on management and accountability. Significant differences in measurement methods, disconnected from an overarching KPI model. Implementing organizations, regulators, and enforcement agencies are under increasing pressure to be accountable—for the impact and effects of their processes, including the allocation of resources and the setting of priorities (what you do, what you don’t do, and why).
2. –
   
   1. Standardize where possible and differentiate where necessary: uniform information products based on generic dimensions and cross-sections (legislation and regulations, target group, and object of supervision and enforcement are categories for each of the 20+ supervisory areas). Specific details for a particular supervisory area may be provided within that framework.
   2. Integrate with existing processes and systems wherever possible (SAS Analytics and dashboards)
   3. Implement the approach in collaboration with subject-matter experts from the supervisory areas and the department responsible for the management and maintenance of information products. Provide maximum support to the subject-matter experts.
3. Key elements applied from the Strategy Execution Method: compact and integrated design, starting small (1 of 20+ oversight areas), thoughtful scaling up (from 2—> —20+ oversight areas), stakeholder management, benefit management, an Execution Coalition for each oversight area, and intrinsic ownership through check-ins for each oversight area.

–

1. Implementation (change) through strategic scaling up: All 20+ supervisory areas within 24 months
2. Full integration into the line organization (run). At all levels: front-line operations, middle management, and executive leadership.
3. Example of a result in one area of oversight:
   
   1. A comprehensive overview of the information product was not previously available. This insight was used to deploy additional resources, in consultation with the client, to gain a better understanding of compliance;
   2. Insights into supervisory findings are up-to-date and readily accessible. The supervisory authority can immediately look up and respond to parliamentary questions (approximately 1–4 per month);
   3. Inspection results (compliance) are used to reprioritize activities within a calendar year.
   4. Increase in compliance from 10% to 25%.
   5. Insight into compliance across 10 target groups, leading to insight into compliance across 90% of the target groups (approx. 200)
   6. From 10 projects aimed at providing insight into compliance to 30 projects.
   7. And a measurable increase in focus on providing transparency regarding compliance. Through explicit integration into Key Processes and management, right down to the default calendars.
4. A foundation for success and innovation:
   
   1. Operational: “A closed loop between inspection data collection and the KPI dashboard” + all inspection data in a single source.
   2. Tactical: Moving from incident-based to risk-based and knowledge-driven supervision: sustained, substantial, and carefully balanced random sampling (a growth path toward 10–20% has been initiated) alongside risk-based, targeted inspections. And the possibility of consolidating regulatory topics/Building Blocks across all areas of oversight.
   3. Strategic: Data aggregation provides direction and support for policy decisions.
   4. Innovative: trend analysis makes forecasting possible. Traditional oversight is expensive: other methods of data collection are more effective: (1) horizontal oversight via social media, (2) data enrichment through, for example, drones, (3)^second- order oversight: do the entities (companies) subject to oversight have quality systems in place?