Community Vision, Mission, Principles (Plenary)

• Description: Read-out of results from one-text process. Group discussion of what these mean in practice.

Leads: Dykki, Edward

To Join Remotely: 

Join the call: https://www.uberconference.com/info3285

Optional dial-in number: 716-293-6106

PIN: 63498

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Sandy Hawley

Notes from Session:

Key Questions:

1) Customizable vs. Configurable (Extensibility)

2) Platform vs. Software

3) Sustainability

4) Technology principals AND community principals

Think about key themes:

• actionable items that align with principals
• split of community vs. software principals
• what are the teams/capabilities within the community:  knowledge sharing (internal comms) is a top priority, including documentation: how do we operationalize this?

What is missing/additional questions:

• need to better define process for integrating significant changes to core
• able to customize code for local implementation (this is a different concept than what is appropriate for last mile, i.e. bandwidth)
• sentiment behind reusable - have to build solutions that cost more with the reuse feasibility (community ensuring implies behavior). 
  • This is challenging  - making it available is different than ensuring its "easy for countries to adopt" - these are different principals. 
  • Having a group of people who have long term funding to focus on the core would help solve the issue- worth effort to have resources to ensure the community is represented
• can we define different paths at the start of implementation - either offer the "soup to nuts" ($$$)  or more custom solutions
• who manages the decisions, should we try to define governance?
• can we break down goals for next year- we commit to doing x,y,z - to measure what we do, what do each of these means to us? 
• lets be explicit about how we are making these principals actionable.

What is key to preserve?

• 1) CONFIGURABLE vs. customizable (product can be tweaked, but customizable is more of a platform) - OpenMRS vs. Bahnmi
  • OpenMRS prioritizes community, platform, software; ends up being backbone of software "platform for medical records whatever they may be"
  • Thoughtworks building on top of that (out of box), not as broad - install, configure, it is a product,an application - Bahnmi is opensource; not intended to be modular- makes it very easy for implementors, faster implementation
  • Do we want broad base logistics services or the full stack? Initially it was the full picture, but now, with time - seeing divergence, it's leaning more to a platform
  • Can we be both- should be both- most sell-able feature is configuration  (this is how it works for you) adds most value
    • what is the gap between product and platform
    • evaluating where to focus on product feasibility  
  • Offering the "soup to nuts" is important
    • borrowing from PSE, supply chain suite products- consider: do we want this to go into other processes?
    • suite of tools that work together 
  • Customizable typically includes: configurable, brand, multiple modules- lots of things to capture/define
    • a central repository of add ons that don't break the core, and vice versa
    • what goes in the core what doesn't? 
• 2) APPROPRIATE
• 3) REUSABLE
  
  
• Some of these principals  apply to community and some apply to technology - what are we trying to answer? Community vs. Software.Platform - should we split them up? Both are valuable, but different
  • technology principals AND community principals
  • principals of community follow under 
• Think about key themes
  • actionable items that come from principals
  • Split of community vs. software 
• Comments requested via email or one text end of day Wednesday. 

OPPORTUNITIES ACTIVITY (see Dykki's notes in PPT)

• LMIS is not everything (it can assist you, but can't fix broader supply chain issues, LMIS is a component) it's more about complete, accurate, timely data/information
• Gates VAN project- people and policy part should be included
  • people need incentive to use tools- if OpenLMIS implementation is to be successful; people are necessary component
• The people part is important, but should the community focus on this? Can it be translated, can people with varying skills use it/benefit from it? Technology implications vs. people implications.
• It is responsibility of community to design for easy usability regardless of end user
• Easy to use tool that allows (empowers?) implementers and stakeholders alike
• Reason we see value (reason community is here)  is because we want to reduce the overall cost of getting to high quality LMIS, AND  embed intelligence
  • MRS data model example- start with field-tested model
• We're the factory trying to help implementations develop faster, better, more cost efficient (long term) solutions -that is the responsibility of the community; support as much as we can - that countries choose this product and use it (faster, easier, cheaper, better)  

 AREAS FOR COLLABORATION- how do we have cross-org teams

• Communications
  • internal: knowledge sharing- documentation, training, information sharing, community support
  • external: general brand, messaging, awareness, shared assets (collateral, web, PR,)
• Product Roadmap
• Community Roadmap
• Sustainability thinking

CAPABILITIES / REQUIREMENTS

• fundraising/revenue generation
• logisticians
• experience design
• product management/owner
• evangelists
• should be a requirement to assess and communicate the value- actuarial
• systems integration, knowledge about other systems
• supply chain domain expertise
• academic partnerships- there are challenges because we are coming from very different worlds - trying to contextualize for us
  • PSE- its about $, for us, there is no revenue model for our world- when our people have better systems we cost MOH more
• development talent, health informatics, what systems can we use that are feasible with local workforce?
• advocacy with MOH - explaining value and making appropriate recommendations based on resources

Artifacts: