Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

TopicNotes/Presentation
Review of the MVP process and objectives for the breakout sessions by domainSee the following notes on the discussions which took place.
      • Stock Management

Attendees: Ryan McWhorter (UNICEF), Dorthe Konradsen (UNICEF), Teresa Ha (UNICEF),

Facilitator: Brandon Bowersox-Johnson (VillageReach)

Key Activities discussed

  • Dependencies & Configuration
  • Enter stock data
  • View stock data
  • Alerts and notifications
  • Barcodes
  • Questions
      • Forecasting

Attendees: Ashra Islam (JSI), Gemma Orta-Martinez (UNICEF), Jorgen Kofoed (UNICEF), Alpha Omari (JSI)

Facilitator: Chris Wright (JSI)

The group discussed a wide range of user stories, key activities, and scenarios. The following is a brief summary of the two day discussion.

Key Take aways:

Annual national forecast needs to be entered into OpenLMIS rather than building in the various forecasting logic required, especially because there are different methodologies and sometimes mixed methods for determining forecast. But some information must also be included as text to capture the methodology used, the assumptions, and any constraints that affected the final quantity forecasted (e.g. budget limits or storage capacity). Forecast should be the true "constrained forecast" on which supply plans and forecast accuracy are based. OpenLMIS should enable upload of forecast for all levels if the program follows the traditional WHO methodology.

  • If the annual forecast is used for allocation/push resupply to lower levels (the traditional WHO methodology), this process can be used for either routine or campaigns, since the target-based methodology is the same. However, campaigns are otherwise out of scope for MVP

If the annual forecast is used to determine resupply throughout each tier of the supply chain using an allocation/push system, then pipeline views (future stock position based on forecast, current SOH, AMC, and planned resupply) are MVP must haves at each level in order to predict potential stock imbalances that risk stock out or expiry due to overstock anywhere within the system. This will inform resupply decisions (timing and quantities).

If lower levels requisition, MVP functionality should provide each user a suggested resupply quantity based on: Max - (closing) SOH = qty to order. This is simple and takes into account any losses/adjustments due to transfers, expiry, damage, etc. However, this will work only if the MVP Max stock level is a dynamic figure (configuration) shown as months of stock (MOS) or weeks of stock (WOS), in which:

  • MOS = AMC (over most recent # months) X resupply period (e.g. 3 months) + # weeks safety stock (should include buffer for fluctuations in demand and lead-time stock consumed between order and receipt).
      • Cold Chain Equipment (CCE)

Attendees: Mitesh (NexLeaf), Michelle (UNICEF), Matt (PATH), (Josh (VillageReach) for part of the day)

Facilitator: Rachel Powers (VillageReach)

The group focused on the key activities:

  • Create CCE catalog
  • Add/View CCE inventory (specific CCE devices per facility)
  • Capture Temperature & Functionality status
  • Remote Temperature Monitoring (RTM)
  • Alarms & Notifications
  • Available Storage Capacity
  • Repair & Maintenance

Image Added

Image AddedImage AddedImage AddedImage AddedImage AddedImage Added

      • Re-supply

Attendees: Amy Roberts (CHAI), Justin, Fesha, Kaleb Brownlow (Gates Foundation)

Facilitator: Vidya Sampath (VillageReach)

The group focused on the key activities:

  • View critical information (prioritized list of elements in orange)
  • Review SOH or Requested Quantities of the facility(ies) to resupply
  • Set the 'fill'/'resupply' quantities
  • (potentially) Print a pick pack list
  • Confirm shipment amounts
  • Generate a ePOD
  • Notify the destination
  • Receive stock (into the destination storeroom/fridge)
  • Reject stock

VillageReach reviewed the activities and stories within each domain. An initial line of the MVP was drawdrawn.

Day 3

TopicNotes/Presentation
Review and recap
Prioritization

Participants voted on which user stories should be included in the Minimal Viable Product. They did this by placing their stickers on the user stories which fell below the line. If participants down voted items above the line, they were given an extra sticker to vote something up.

Updates on the outcomes and final minimal viable product will be communicated to the community once analysis and estimations are done. The following photos demonstrate what the voting process looked like. The OpenLMIS is currently working on digitizing the effort and conducting a more details estimation of level of effort in relation to the time and resources available.

Group discussion on sustainability, governance, and program data capture.

A majority of participants attended a break-out discussion on select 'bike rack' items: Sustainability, Governance, and Program data capture.

Kaleb Brownlow (Deactivated) started the conversation describing the governance structure and purpose of the committee.  Explained on how the community views OpenLMIS as a product and moving towards change and standards.

There was good conversation on the long-term sustainability of OpenLMIS. Folks discussed the following topics:

  • Spin off entity for OpenLMIS community/development
  • What is the minimum support package. What does that look like?
  • Cost and resources needed for ongoing support of the community and its members
  • What types of business models could work?

Brian Taliesin introduced the Digital Health Initiative with PATH.

  • How do you create the environment where global goods are sustainable/successful?
  • Key mechanisms of DHI:
    • Pooled funding mechanism
    • Global goods repository (what does this mean?)
    • Community support
    • Advocacy support

A lively conversation around program data collection and inclusion in OpenLMIS.

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated) proposed an approach of identifying all the key programmatic data points and where in the workflows the data is used by end users and when the data is consumed/reviewed by users. We would like to identify the key data points and when the data is needed and to whom (and in what way). The key approach is to identify the scope and value to determine the best way to approach the technical implementation.

The following opinions and points were raised by the group:

  • It is very important that the SMT is replicated if country EPI are going to take up the OpenLMIS
  • Desire to support current systems used in country and look for integration opportunities
  • Important to feed data into the WHO reporting standards
  • Country needs vary and we should take care of where they are in their system maturity
  • Discussion on integration with DHIS2 both at the global and country level 
Overview of ways participants can engage with the OpenLMIS community.

View file
nameOpenLMIS Version 3 Vaccine Workshop.pptx
height250

The last side highlights key discussion items which will need follow up and continued discussion.

Recap and thanks.

...