Re-Architecture Feedback
- Tenly Snow (Deactivated)
- Sarah Jackson (Deactivated)
The re-architecture process for OpenLMIS is ongoing, and the community is currently in a feedback period for the process. The OpenLMIS Core Team is actively soliciting feedback on the re-architecture plan as it has been put forth in:
Committee Meeting Agenda points (for all committees)
Members of the community are encouraged to actively participate in the process by providing feedback on the plan, vision, and approaches developed by the OpenLMIS Core Team. Community members are encouraged to clearly document their questions, concerns, suggestions, and feedback via this wiki page (by leaving comments at the bottom of the page); via the Google Groups Committee Forums (must be a member to comment); or by sending directly to info@openlmis.org.
Below are several of the key points raised by community members during the February 16 Governance Committee Meeting, the February 23 Product Committee Meeting, and via other forums. This is a living document, and will continue to be updated as further feedback is received.
| Category | Feedback | Raised By |
|---|---|---|
| Product Priorities | How do we align other development priorities (such as a mobile app) during the re-architecture project? Does everything have to go on hold while we wait for the new version? How do we manage dependencies during the re-architecture? Is any part of the VIMS code base being incorporated into the 2.0 OpenLMIS base? Is any part (vaccine functionality) being incorporated? What core features do we expect will be part of OpenLMIS 3.0.? What features (country-specific or otherwise) that are part of OpenLMIS 2.0. will not be part of 3.0.? How and what stage will this feature set be decided on? | ThoughtWorks CHAI VillageReach
JSI
CHAI |
| Legacy Implementations | What will happen to countries that have implemented OpenLMIS or earlier (ie. eLMIS in Tanzania and Zambia)? How do they stay on board moving forward? How do current implementations take advantage of new modules or features? What kind of support (Tier 3, etc.) can the OpenLMIS community provide, and how long with this be provided? The community was not sufficiently included in the creation of re-architecture alternatives (incremental approach vs. rewrite). They were presented as the only decisions/options Lowering migration burden should be a priority of the re-architecture | JSI CHAI |
| Prior Investment/ROI | Why is the OpenLMIS core team turning off features USAID paid to build? USAID's investment is OpenLMIS is being lost USAID doesn't have more money to invest in a new version of OpenLMIS USAID doesn't know what to tell countries that are evaluating LMIS implementation now – wary of implementing on OpenLMIS 2.0 when they will need to upgrade to a new version to retain support later Investment by USAID is not being lost, it's being leveraged. Many pieces of software that have been re-written several times. In the case of a new version of OpenLMIS, whether it's an incremental re-architecture, or a full re-write, there will be a cost for a migration. Main decisions countries would have to make is whether the migration cost is traded off against the new features and extensibility. What is the return on investment (ROI) for a country to upgrade? What is the total 5 year cost for the re-architecture? | USAID
ThoughtWorks
JSI |
| Timeline/Schedule | Rewrite sounds like a good plan, but the schedule could end up going significantly beyond initial estimates. Original OpenLMIS project was slated for 6 months, and took 18 Is a streamlined strategy for development being considered? More devs can mean more time and complexity Is there a way to go faster and further by going together with another project or new underlying tech? | JSI Independent |
| Strategy/Vision | This process is very disruptive to the community, ongoing software development, and potential new country implementations. Is there a way to make this less disruptive? A more generic open source logistics solution in the public/private sphere, but mobile first and aimed at developing country environments (low bandwidth, high latency, etc), would be quite useful and could provide a way to be more than LMIS for public health : is this being taken into account when considering the re-architecture or re-write of the "core" code? | JSI Independent |
| Funding | Where will countries find the funding to upgrade to the new version? | USAID All |
OpenLMIS: the global initiative for powerful LMIS software