...
On the Net Promoter Score question, "How likely are you to recommend the OpenLMIS Vaccine Module for countries/programs you work with," the average score was 7 on a scale of 10; attendees that ranked it higher than 7expressed 7 expressed that they were likely to recommend OpenLMIS Vaccine Module, while some attendees who were less likely stated that the limited scope of the discussed Minimal Viable Product (MVP) version was the key factor; a couple of attendees who gave a score less than 5 also stated that their score would likely increase after reviewing the final MVP. Graph below shows distribution of Net Promotor scores.
...
| Topic | Notes/Presentation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review and recap | Day 2 review and recap Participants took turns, global cafe/poster sessions style, to visit each domain's white board and quiz the facilitators on the discussions from the small group the previous day and the reasoning behind the core team's MVP line decision for that domain. | ||||||
| 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 that had been marked above the line, they were given an extra sticker to vote something up from below the line. 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 team is currently working on digitizing the effort and conducting a more detailed 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 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:
Brian Taliesin introduced the Digital Health Initiative with PATH.
A lively conversation ensued around program data collection and inclusion in OpenLMIS: The following opinions and points were raised by the group:
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. Josh Zamor conducted the other concurrent session, attended by Fesha Getahun and Kalkidan Kassahun, on the OpenLMIS technical committee as well as ways in which contributors can add code to the OpenLMIS software. | ||||||
| Overview of ways participants can engage with the OpenLMIS community. |
The last side highlights key discussion items which will need follow up and continued discussion. | ||||||
| Note of thanks and feedback forms |
