May 17, 2016

Gaurav - Any update on donor funding for migrations? Ministry feels it's important to have some kind of commitment for an upgrade path. Is that something that the re-architecture would consider? Resources will be required to actually make that upgrade happen. Did you talk to Gates about that in light of the re-architecture? Anything from USAID or Gates for that kind of support?

Jake - We would support 2.0 to 3.0 migration. We have a call tomorrow with the CHAI and TW teams to discuss. Some of the existing grant is to support these existing implementations. If Mozambique were to deploy 2.0 then we would support that migration path. In terms of funding, the .9 or eLMIS implementations, Lindabeth and Kaleb can comment about what their respective organizations are willing/not willing to do.

Kaleb - We've had many conversations about this. We have settled clearly that we wouldn't see our funding going into the upgrade pathway. It's on further enhancements for 3.x. We haven't wanted to get into the country level migrations - would be happy to think about other funds, Gavi Access grants etc., but it's not a priority.

Lindabeth - Had a conversation last week with Jake & Tenly, USAID is interested in assisting existing implementations (Zambia, Tanzania, Cote d'Ivoire), making sure that the functionality that they have would be upgraded. I'd like to see the final list of functionality of what will be in 3.0, find out what is in TZ and Zambia that's not in the plan, and make sure that those countries can upgrade easily. I will write an email asking that you all work together to identify the gaps, and help develop a SOW - I will be funding this through the BAA Global Development lab. Need addl information in terms of administration. Would like the SOW by end of this month or early June.

Jake - All the features that are in the OL JIRA backlog came from the eature landscape document. All features are accounted for, including those for TZ and Zambia. If they were only in TZ and Zambia, they were de-prioritized and put into 3.1 and 3.2, which are scheduled for release in May and August 2017 respectively.

Gaurav - To clarify, is the focus on ensuring that there is a software upgrade support available from 2.0 to 3.0, but that other transition support may/may not be available? In terms of migrating data from earlier version to the new one, trainings that will be required, etc. The priority is TZ, Zambia, CI, Benin?, but not necessarily other implementations (Moz, Malawi).

Lindabeth - Our focus right now is on the countries that USAID has implemented. Malawi - we don't know the timeline. Might have to do an upgrade. CI is already in the middle, would have some upgrade need there. Don't have a great picture. Not interested in funding everything, interested in helping countries get a little further so they don't have to fund everything on their own.

Jake - Had a convo w/Lindabeth and same with JSI. It's too early to estimate LOE. Could turn out that it's not a huge effort. UX is not changing in order to preserve training/materials, just underlying tech and architecture are changing. Could hire a hotshot scripter. Systems running in parallel, pending some acceptance testing. May not be as bad as everyone is assuming.

Karl - Concerned about customizations from the 2.0 branch. May be addl work that's needed for custom changes. That may need to be revisited.

Jake - Once data is ported, there would be a need to rebuild the reports using the new framework. Good news is that you may not need a developer to do that, and could possibly use Tableau service core.

Kaleb - Tim has been leading from our side to push VR and the broader group for a better and more aggressive timeline so we could mitigate the potential number of deployments for the awkward 2.0 customize, 3.0 transition. Expectations, we'll see a beta version in 2016, with the stable version in early 2017, understanding timelines can go up/down. Want to get the most realistic information about when Malawi or Moz going to deploy? Starting next month? Will they be deploying prior to 3.0?

Jake - We met with Shane from with Chemonics. Current state in Malawi is that they say they'll be ready to begin technical operations in July, but really wouldn't be ready to discuss OL implementation for a little while. Entirely feasible that we could just go to 3.0. Run from piloting (UX is the same on 2.0, but when it's ready to go live, we could switch to 3.0 at that point).

Wendy - What we have heard from ministry and medical stores people from Malawi is that they have to get their supply chain in order. Some people on the border are getting drugs from this side of the country. Will be some time until they get the electronic system working.

Gaurav - Data migration, not sure but would anticipate that to be a pretty intense piece. Would like to have donors think about what support they're willing to put to words, for supporting the transition.

Karl - There's two aspects to migration. One is ensuring that there are automated scripts that have been tested and that work. That would take existing 2.0 database and migrate to new version and make changes necessary for 3.0. If there's some sort of custom functionality, migrating that. Then actually doing the work in the country. minimal level of ask , as part of re-architecture, donors agree to pay for migration scripts from 2.0. then with USAID money that LB is talking about, could work for the in-country work.

Jake - We currently do have in scope that, should someone go on 2.0, we can do development and testing of these scripts. The vanilla 2.0 to 3.0 is in scope, We hoped that people wouldn't actually deploy on 2.0.

Karl - if you customize, you're on your own. You're signing up to support that yourself.

Marasi - You mentioned a May, August date, is this for 2017? 3.1 and 3.2. 3.0 will have a beta release in October of 2016.

Jake - During the design workshop we went through and took all the features that exist in the 6 implementations today and tried to figure out a minimum viable product. Features that were used only in one country or others were dropped into different buckets. Making a distinction between the global product and the in-country product. The landscape document and 2.0 itself was done in December. For the VIMS work that's been done, it's ongoing. All the features that we pulled into JIRA were based on JSI up until December. If there's been additional feature development, obviously that development is not in the backlog now. We're going to need JSI to confirm that we're not missing anything.

Wendy - When you say you collected all the features in all the countries that were implemented, for the 4 JSI countries, those are the same feature sets. Are you trying to develop something else? Or what will the gap in features be? Would be great to understand that.

Jake - Kevin was working wit the various organizations on the feature sets. Features of those features that were toggled off, and those have been put into the backlog.

Karl - Important point. The re-architecture effort is based on an understanding of the current state of the 2.0 platform. If people are continuing to add features to the 2.0 platform, then that's not in line with the re-architecture.

Jake - Correct, and not just 2.0, but the eLMIS branches as well. If those haven't been merged into 2.0, which hasn't happened since December 2016, then it's probably not represented in the landscape document. In the case of Zambia and TZ, it may be 3.1 or 3.2. Some features that were used by those. Can we get a list of all the various features that they're in and match these up to the countries. Do some of these need to be pulled in, how can we start executing to get you on the 3.0 path.

Wendy - Who determines what goes into 3.2? Say we will have all the features that exist, but say I'm Zambia and I want a particular, customized feature.

Jake - Right now that would be the purview of the product and governance committee. Everything is publicly available, everything is a negotiation. As of the design session, that's when we went through as a group. If you haven't been part of the conversation then your voice won't be heard. Everything is available on the wiki.

Tenly will continue to work with the charter working group to determine best path for committee charters. May have two types - one for specific decision-making within the committees themselves, another for the overall sustainability of the OpenLMIS initiative at large.

All

ThoughtWorks

Bahmni product, OpenERP, used for stock management, heavyweight and used at a specific hospital. Could look at some point at OpenLMIS interacting with an electronic patient record.

VillageReach

We've been talking with BAO and Akros around linkages between DHIS2 and OL. Both have been asked to make DHIS2 into an LMIS. They've been looking at ways to find synergy. One of the questions that came from Gates is around the sustainability of OL in the long term. Synergies between products, companies working with ministries, could provide Tier 1 support. These are areas we need to explore. We talked about Governance charters, something we should probably put on the agenda are ideas for the sustainability of OL, so donors can see a light at the end of the tunnel, for their support.

JSI

From Zambia: We have all health information systems exchanging information here, may have some opportunity to integrate OL and DHIS2.

RFIs and Conferences

Please see OpenLMIS Opportunities page for RFIs and conferences

Please remember to complete the committee effectiveness survey

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/G5KNDBQ