PC: April 10 2018

Last Meeting Notes: Last meeting was canceled due to the Version 3 Demo: Supporting Documentation

AGENDA

ATTENDANCE:

• Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)
• Parambir S Gill (Unlicensed)
• Amanda BenDor (Unlicensed)
• Douglas Khumalo
• Former user (Deleted)
• Ashraf
• Chifundo Chilivumbo (Deactivated)
• Joseph Mtenje (Unlicensed)
• Martin Lukac
• Sam Im (Deactivated)
• Former user (Deleted)
• Craig Appl (Unlicensed)

RECORDING:

Video:  

ADDITIONAL READING:

Geneva and Copenhagen Trip Overview

Jake, Vidya and Mary Jo traveled to Geneva and Copenhagen to demo the 3.3 features to the Gavi Secretariat and UNICEF Supply Division In addition, the team had one-on-one meetings with key Gavi Senior Country Managers representing 12 countries, and the Global Fund.

Key Trip Takeaways:

• The OpenLMIS standards-based approach and focus on integration does set us apart; in every interaction, this was something that needed a bit of initial explaining, but then people really caught on to the idea and its importance, particularly when we named actual systems that OpenLMIS could potentially inter-operate with if the other system is also using standards. Everyone saw that we cared about the long-term sustainability of systems and meeting a country's needs.
• Gavi operates at a super macro-level which means that all countries are painted with the same brush of infrastructure availability, people capacity, supply chain needs. We know this to be untrue and it’s on us to advocate for better automated solutions even when SCMs seem to only want a faster DVDMT-Excel tool because they assume anything more will not work in LMIC settings.
• We need to differentiate better when we talk about “the product” because we noticed confusion in the audience -- we use it interchangeably to talk about products in a supply chain (as in medical commodities) and about the OpenLMIS product (as in the software). One  recommendation is to be consistent -- when referring to OpenLMIS, say “software supports XX features, has YY functionality”  instead of “the product supports…” etc
• Integrated supply chains (in terms of Essential Meds with Immunizations): Stakeholders did not want to do that too much at this time, though we explained that they can run their own program on the same instance of OpenLMIS and keep it separate, thereby realizing some economy of scale in terms of hosting, support and maintenance, updates, etc. -- this is a key point worth repeating to any/all countries that cannot or do not want to have an integrated supply chain.
• There is a need for a succinct and clear of way of letting people know how they can implement OpenLMIS and how much it will cost.  How do we clearly say which partners are available and willing to support a deployment? How do we clearly clarify how they move forward with that conversation? 
• There clearly is quite a bit of opportunity to coordinate between Gavi, UNICEF, Global Fund and USAID. We were making connections and identifying places where the donors could potentially pool funds (Myanmar or Malawi).

Gavi Demo Notes and Feedback

Date: March 26 at 12:00pm

Attendees: The team did not pass around a signup sheet. The RSVP is here.

Summary: A full room of attendees that were engaged and asked many questions throughout the presentation. Overall seemed like participants followed the presentation. Folks were excited about the DISC indicators. There were a few questions on capturing data from paper and DVDMT. Similar to BMGF meetings, we weren’t really allowed to get past slide 3 before we the questions/bombarding began -- team had to be flexible in staying engaged and setting aside the script to go with the audience needs. Excellent post-demo follow-up conversation with the Gavi Country Performance Monitoring Unit team (Laura Craw, acting head and Carine Gachen, Sr Manager).

Rough Notes:

• Implementer Toolkit is going to be very important and should include system evaluations and M&E recommendations for implementations. Participants asked multiple times if OpenLMIS has been evaluated by a third party. They meant both the system and implementations of it.
• Participants would like to see costs broken down differently so they could be informed around costing models and ideas (ranges are fine). This is a consistent theme, people want to see more cost figures. 
• The question was raised around how you can evaluate digital transformations. BMGF indicated this is something they are very interested in.
• Participants requested Pre/post implementation costs and impact
• Comment made: 90% is paid by the donors so hard to see ownership and care taken around managing supply chains.
• Targeted partner profile will be key for Gavi.
• OpenLMIS team asked participants: How do the donors coordinate and influence or ask countries to be mindful of technology evaluation and selection?
• OpenLMIS team asked participants: Have you considered approaching “graduated” countries directly to see how your ToC/approach works in setting where countries have to pay for their own supplies and likely to care more about a good LMIS?

Follow-up: As if USAID could publish the third party evaluations of eLMIS in TZ and Zambia.

UNICEF D4M Team Meeting Notes

Date: March 28 at 12:00pm

Attendees: Gemma (tead lead), Innocent (works with Ken Legins and SCS Center and direct advising to country govts), (new) Theresa (forecasting focus), Modeste (D4M focus), ?? who is now the ViVa PM

Summary: Presentation very well received; Gemma in particular pleased with the data analytics portions of the presentation and what was possible. In general, between the two orgs, UNICEF SD “got it” more quickly than Gavi did, and are a wee bit closer to country supply chains than the SCMs.

• Follow up on coordinating around the implementer guide
• Gemma noted the toolkit is really more current for them than anything else -- doing similar work and advising countries on data systems
• Were interested in the standards and asked quite a few questions about GS1, e.g.
• can we provide more case studies of how/when/where to use GS1?
• Figure out who is on the MIS or technology team and follow up
• Can we train them (IT team + Program managers) on the use of OpenLMIS? Could be best practice users and train the trainers. May want to use the BI framework itself…