Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Next »

What Went Well

Key Themes

We go it done!

Launch was super smooth

Everyone contributed their strengths

Began MoH Engagement



Ron

  • We got it done – team enthusiasm and conviction to get it done!

 

Vidya

  • Team welcomed new people onto the project, used their strengths
  • Daily stand-up

 

Sarah

  • People enthusiastically joined in and contributed their capabilities to getting the work done 
  • MoH engagement in training and roll-out

 

Tatenda

  • Trainings – lots of support from Seattle, ron, josh, rachel
  • Field coordinators have mostly positive feedback
  • Pilot of tablets is going well

 

Rachel

  • People helped answer questions and get me up to speed
  • Good communication between HSG, ISG, MOZ
  • Translator resource was great

 

Josh

  • Go live went very smoothly

 

Emily

  • Project management, structure, and coordination was successful - good model for VR
  • Transition as an organization about how we see and think about the information system – from VillageReachMIS (vrMIS) to Mozambique MoH's SELV, from viewing the end user as VillageReach to viewing the end user as the field coordinator 
  • Tableau reporting solution – creative and worked!
  • Launch went great!
  • Under budget on second phase
  • Attitude and approach from MOZ office - excellent engagement with MoH and on the ground support


What Didn't Go Well

Key Themes

Lack of end-user representation in requirements

 





Ron

  • At project outset were told we had to replicate vrMIS exactly
  • No documentation on vrMIS 


Wendy

  • Budget constraints limited getting a solution that support field needs
  • Need ISG to do a better job managing expectations to budget
  • Delivered reporting solution didn't meet the original end-user needs that were identified (due to budget)
  • Need a format for requirements

 

Vidya

  • Insufficient local end-user representation in requirements defintiion

 

Sarah

  • Overemphasis on software development in budget, underresourcing on the resourced necessary to implement the solution (documentation, training, testing, etc.)
  • Integration testing was time consuming. Need more time in the plan next time for integration testing and UAT

 

Tatenda

  • Manual reporting process needs to be improved

 

Rachel

  • No comprehensive list or tracking of all the reference data that was needed  


Josh

  • Getting to go live was painful
  • Lack of understanding end user needs


Emily

  • No input from actual users in requirements process. Instead VillageReach users were seen as a proxy.
  • Saying that we should just migrate vrMIS to a new platform was a mistake  – missed opportunity to think about what could be
  • Challenges understanding and managing expectations about staff time, particularly field staff time
  • Roles – some overlap and duplication. Need to streamline the HSG point of contact on decision making.


  • No labels