April 11 2017

AGENDA:

ACTION ITEMS:

ATTENDANCE: 

Chris George (Unlicensed), Brian Taliesin, Christine Lenihan, Nuran Idris (Unlicensed), Dércio Duvane, Shiyu Jin (Deactivated), Gaurav Bhattacharya (Unlicensed), Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)

NOTES: 

Software Development Update

• Released patch of end of last month - can find release notes under release section on wiki - mainly bug fixes, additional validations
• Plan on doing monthly releases - next one right at end of April - bug fixes, refactorings, proof of concepts
• Demo - still in progress - will be out there soon
• Key objectives for 3.1
• Open questions to DHIS2 - if any DHIS2 connections, let us know! (MJ in contact with Lars)
• Reporting - last week lots of conversations around that around users and research
• Stock management
• Core product - bug fixing + tech debt

Member Updates

• Brian: still working on gap analysis with folks in Zambia and Tanzania - hope to be ready by end of May
• Gap analysis work is looking at eLMIS version and see what we haven’t achieved in version 3.0, and finding features to put on roadmap to get to feature parity
• MJ: Governance committee has been sharing opportunities - please test out if you can see the ‘Opportunities (Community)’ pages, if can’t, let MJ know 
• Tenly: this is a section where we’ll keep updated with proposals - space just for community members to access - space for members to share proposals and documents

Update on Vaccine work

• Moving along with an upcoming workshop - with all the stakeholders identified
• MJ demonstrated Powerpoint which has a good timeline on it to give insights into where things are at / going - JSI and PATH are supporting on this initiative - gathering requirements for all of these systems - will be putting together a minimal viable product on the vaccine work looks like - will get feedback from folks after May workshop - then going into software development and MJ will keep PC familiar with this
• Vaccine work stream explanation - slide 7 has good high level features and doing workshop on this in May - chunked this into different domains (e.g. cold-chain, stock management, etc.)

Malawi

• Christine: the discussion on the batch view requisitions during the approval stage really helpful a few week back - looks like people were interested in this - Malawi tight timeline so moving forward with option that the Malawi team discussed vs. global team - if global team wants to be included then that can be contributed back to product
• MJ: great demonstration of an implementation doing something and then giving back - proving out the theory of the microservices

Stock Management

(Shiyu presenting) 

• Describing the process of the adjustment in stock management
• Assumption that the stock manager makes adjustments for his home facility programs - currently higher level managers doing this is de-prioritized
• Choose reason first - all products added here would be recorded as same reason
• Adding products to an adjustment
• Can also change adjustment quantity after submit in case of mistake

• Questions / Feedback
• Nuran: What do you expect user to put in signature? Will the system accept when a signature is placed who is not the logged in user?
• MJ: Do you think it would be needed or something that isn’t needed? We’ve heard folks want this additional thing of typing in their name
• Nuran: exactly for audit reasons is the reason for my questions - putting in someone else’s name on signature - since we are in the system, every user keeps own username and password, encourage users to use their own signatures
• Gaurav: in India, there was a requirement to have e-signing, particularly to be necessary when receiving stock (less so on adjustments) - other thought that since already signed in you are saying again who you are so seemed redundant - when system is running up at all times, may need more than one user per system
• MJ: another option could be instead of having a signature, could populate your username automatically
• Nuran: noticed that one of the products didn’t have a lot number, is that not mandatory, is that right?
• Shiyu / MJ: yes, more complicated on that and will discuss that soon
• Gaurav: is it possible to switch from reason first, products second to product first, then reasons? You could have a first product that has 4 damaged / 4 expired, so would be product focused - don’t think facility officers are reason focused, but more product focused
• MJ: this has been a deep discussion - we have heard both - is product first, or adjustment type first? Should we have either option?
• Brian: it is interesting type of model - seen people use the same type of reason for a batch - seems fine to do two adjustments for batches of products
• Dercio put in a note that intuitively selecting the products first seems more intuitive before applying a reason
• Shiyu: how about dates - will there be different dates for damaged vs. dates for expired
• Gaurav: yes, there is a question on the integrity of stock on hand - within month vs. exact date
• MJ: If multiple reasons at once, would you also need multiple dates?
• Gaurav: yeah, I agree - would be good to reach out to other countries to see if this should be configurable
• MJ: with our timelines, we can’t do configuration yet - will need to make a decision first - Lakshmi had initially put in a reason first - need to figure out what’s the first way to do this, then we can modify the experience later
• Nuran: I have seen people look to see a product’s overall view of what adjustments that have happened on that single product so agree with Gaurav’s point on India
• MJ: Date is a required field on the adjustment / transaction
• Gaurav: what about data quality on this?
• MJ: Facility Edition is doing it on each transaction - but don’t have enough information on 
• Brian: Are we assuming they are paper first and then recording this into OpenLMIS later?
• MJ: Probably depend on the implementation - observed that they’ve done a parallel process at beginning - but haven’t seen anyone remove the paper more quickly
• Brian: replicating the ledgers and copying those into the system, requiring double entry
• MJ: Facility Edition got closer to a transaction, which would improve data integrity - seems I’m hearing we are preferring to copy a paper process as opposed to being more transactional? Is that correct?
• MJ: Personally, I’d like to see this be an opportunity to be a transactional system, more daily vs. monthly - but we also operating in a unique world
• MJ: If anyone has any insights on who to talk to around this (transactional focus vs. paper based focus), please share.

• MJ: not enough time for lots, but please look through this and give input on this
• Shiyu will send out email on lot information

OpenHIE for LMIS

• Mary Jo will circulate an initial list on stakeholders to be a part of the conversation - please provide any more inputs on who should be involved in these conversations / confirm that this list is who would have good input into this community process for HIE
• Tenly: on the next Governance Committee call, Scott from InStead will talk about how to streamline HIE conversations - internal discussions on how to make those conversations more efficient - if anyone interested in Governance call next week,  you can hear more about this next week on April 18th

RECORDING

Video: OpenLMIS Product Committee-20170411 1256-1.arf (download the WebEx video player here)

ADDITIONAL READING: