Eswatini CMIS/eLMIS Integration Options Comparision
Objective
The integration aims to streamline and automate the communication of dispensing information between CMIS (Dispensing System) and eLMIS (Inventory Management System). This will ensure accurate stock adjustments in eLMIS, reducing the stock on hand based on actual dispensed quantities.
See:
Implementation options
Comparison table
Option 1 | Option 2 |
---|---|
eLMIS have "Ibuprofen 10-pack" and "Ibuprofen 20-pack" products as separate product codes.
Development required - eLMIS only | eLMIS have "Ibuprofen 10-pack" and "Ibuprofen 20-pack" products as separate product codes.
No development |
For a stock of 7 packs of "Ibuprofen 10-pack" product, an eLMIS UI (and reports) show either - user chooses:
| For a stock of 7 packs of "Ibuprofen 10-pack" products, an eLMIS UI (and reports) show:
No development |
For a stock of 7 packs of "Ibuprofen 10-pack" product, internally, eLMIS stores it as "Ibuprofen 10-pack"=70 -
Development required - eLMIS only | For a stock of 7 packs of "Ibuprofen 10-pack" product, internally, eLMIS stores it as {"Ibuprofen 10-pack"=7} -
No development |
In NAV to eLMIS integration,
Development required - eLMIS only | In NAV to eLMIS integration,
No development |
In CMIS and eLMIS integration,
Development required - CMIS only | In CMIS and eLMIS,
Development required - eLMIS and CMIS |
Risk matrix
Option 1
Impact \ Likelihood | Low (1) | Medium (2) | High (3) |
---|---|---|---|
Low (1) |
|
|
|
Medium (2) | Performance | Cross-Organization Alignment Risk, | Integration Issues |
High (3) | Data Migration Failure, | Increased Regression Risk, |
|
Option 2
Impact \ Likelihood | Low (1) | Medium (2) | High (3) |
---|---|---|---|
Low (1) |
| Technical Debt Accumulation, | Technical complexity, |
Medium (2) | Cross-Organization Alignment Risk | Lack of Ownership | |
High (3) |
| Architectural Misalignment | Increased Maintenance Overhead, |
Considered risks:
Scalability Limitations - none of the solutions differ in context of scalability.
Single Point of Failure - none of the solution differs - both have Single Point of Failures - they differ in a scale of failure
Monolithic vs. Microservices Complexity - option 2 introduced new micro-service in an existing micro-services architecture
Code Maintainability/Versioning/Compatibility/Security - included in Increased Maintenance Overhead
Production Downtime - both solutions require downtime
Related content
OpenLMIS: the global initiative for powerful LMIS software