Course progress and additional readings
Course lessons · 3 of 8
You will make: A small connected history and an exception list showing what you can—and cannot—join.
Recorded walkthrough · from 8:05 · 3 min
The same walkthrough you saw in lesson 1, further in. It covers taking data in whatever form it already arrives — survey, spreadsheet, raw PDF, open text — and giving every member one identity so an event, a certification, a survey and a renewal thread to the same person. At 9:00 he returns to the lesson 1 question and answers it in a single prompt. Watch on YouTube ↗
A name or email is a clue, not the whole identity
Someone registers for a conference with a work email and completes a course with a personal email. Joining only on email splits their history. Joining on a shared name can connect two different people. Start with the member register’s stable ID and a reviewed map from each source’s identifier to it.
The practice pack separates the source IDs from membership IDs. Check the mapping before joining the event, certification and feedback files. Preserve the source row ID so another reviewer can retrace the answer. If a match is unresolved, record the reason and owner instead of selecting the closest-looking name.
Fictional member P101 · a checked connection
Each source maps to P101. The member ID connects the evidence; the original records explain the answer.
Anonymous response R5 stays outside this member history.
What does a persistent Contact ID do that an email or a spreadsheet row cannot?
In short: a persistent Contact ID is a lasting ID that belongs to one person and stays the same across every form, survey and wave. In Sopact Sense, every member you bring in from your AMS list receives one, so each later form adds to the same person instead of starting a new row.
| What people use | What goes wrong | What the Contact ID does |
|---|---|---|
| Email address | People change jobs or use two addresses, so the same person appears twice. | Stays with the person |
| Spreadsheet row | Rows move when someone sorts or pastes. | Does not depend on a row position |
| Name | Spelling differs between systems. | Identifies the person, not the spelling |
Keep the member number from your AMS export and each source’s own ID as columns in what you import. They let you trace any row back to where it came from. Files that arrive from outside, such as an event export, still need a checked map to the member before you join them.
Work through the question in the video
- Select unique members with a qualifying conference attendance. P101 appears twice in the attendance extract; count that member once.
- Keep those with a completed certification in the defined period.
- Read the linked feedback for an explicit, unresolved concern. Mixed praise and criticism still need review.
- Return the member IDs, relevant source rows and the reason each qualifies. Include the exclusions.
| Record | What the practice data supports | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| P101 | Attended; certified; R1 questions dues value | Include for a reviewed follow-up |
| P102 | Attended; certified; R2 values the certificate but questions renewal value | Include; preserve the mixed view |
| P104 | Attended and raised a concern; no qualifying certification | Outside this question, though the concern still matters |
| P106 | Certified and raised a concern; no qualifying attendance | Outside this question |
| R5 | Anonymous critical feedback | Analyze separately; do not infer a member identity |
The answer is P101 and P102 in this synthetic extract. It identifies two concerns to investigate. It does not predict who will leave, explain every renewal decision, or establish that attending caused dissatisfaction.
For a network, keep the organization distinct from its people
Member organization N01 submits a quarterly return through one representative. Next quarter a colleague takes over. Keep N01 as the continuing organization and date each representative’s role and access. Link the two returns by organization and period; do not create a new organization because an email changed.
A network report must also preserve the unit being counted. Our fictional N01 and N02 report 40 and 30 unique participants within their own organizations. Their sum is 70 reported participants across two organizations. Without permitted cross-organization deduplication, it is not a verified count of 70 distinct people across the network.
WorldSkills International’s published partnership story describes work toward a shared foundation across its Member network and event cycles. It illustrates why continuity matters; the story describes work in progress, not a completed tool switch or measured adoption across every Member.
Preserve missing periods and corrections
A missing survey wave means you do not have a new observation. It is not a zero score or evidence that experience stayed the same. Preserve question versions, dates and corrections so an apparent change can be checked.
The longitudinal analysis lesson explains matched observations and missing waves. Use its missing-wave check on your member timeline before writing that experience improved. In the network version, apply the same check to successive organizational returns.
Put it into practice
Build and challenge the connection
Use step 2 of the workbook. Complete only your chosen path.
Individual-member path: Reproduce P101 and P102 from the practice CSVs, list each supporting row and explain three exclusions.
Member-organization path: Map N01, its representative and its quarterly return. Show what remains connected when the representative changes and which access permissions need review. Do not invent participant identities from aggregate counts.
Check your reasoning before moving on
The individual result contains two distinct members. Duplicate attendance does not add a third. R5 has no permitted person-level link. For the network, organization identity persists while representative roles and access change; original submissions and explained corrections remain traceable.
The practice pack includes a fuller answer key and source-row references.