November 1st 2016

• there might be changes to roadmap this month
• tanzania this month - will do prioritization exercise / collaborative and open as possible for others to weigh in and knows its reflective of community itself
• beta released - release notes on the wiki - available for anyone to go through - long document, behind the scenes micro service architecture, new product call model
• Also how we do versioning is on the wiki

• we are on the next sprint
• lot of it is permissions tying up the role-based access role
• if ever interested to see what we are working on
• go to JIRA project - OpenLMIS general
• see the tickets of what teams are working on
• finishing up requisition template
• UI related to requisitions
• (can also look at in Kanban format)
• fixing some error codes and standardization on the backend
• lots of plumbing work
• If go through Beta, and see any bugs, notify the community

• Visually demo the roadmap - mary jo will send out emails and looks forward to more convos on listserv

F2F topics in Tanzania discussion

• In-person product committee meeting
• Initially would be Tuesday, but stakeholder meeting taking up a lot of time
• Mary Jo: What are people’s preferences for time?
• Brian: can make the Wednesday work or Friday (has a trip to Arusha?)
• Danni: early morning or outside of business hours works for Shiyu and Danni
• Ashraf: both options work for him (outside business hours or 16th / 18th)

• Mary Jo: if we can get a 2 hour chunk of time, what would people want to talk about / preferences:
• ashraf: stock management - what are parameters?
• mary jo: focus on OpenLMIS 3.0 / 3.1 for stock management
• ashraf: we should be cognizant of time
• mary jo: any others thoughts?
• ashraf: stock management is high in demand, but more complex; can it be fit into one of the release versions would be great; from country’s perspective, stock management higher priority than budgeting; the reason budgeting might not be as high in demand, b/c without that feature can still use R and R workflow to get done what they need without the budget component
• mary jo: any other comments on this?
• brian: would be nice to have a spot to look at backlog to keep the technical team productive; using the time to see what’s next in regards to epics
• mary jo: we won’t be able to cover everything on deck, so if there is specific things that people want to do we can focus; ideally, from my point of view, focus on stock management, a lot of work in this area but lots of areas of improvement; will look into things to pick off of stock management; stock management will be a part of 3.1, so we’ll still doing features in 3.0 - what is the MVP we want to do with stock management for 3.0, and then go from there for finishing it off in 3.1

Finishing Danni’s stock management discussion

Product Donation Discussion

• Kevin describes examples related to product donations (sorry, missed writing down these examples)
• Brian also says similar situations to Kevin around product donations (didn’t catch the 3 examples Brian gave)
• Mary Jo: are we seeing ministries wanting to allow this sort of flexibility?
• Danni: In Moz, requirement that these products go through DDM first before approval
• Ashraf: When product is not in the main system, it can cause problems as it might not be registered with the main system (product code may not be understood)
• Ashraf: examples that he’s seen - some vaccinations are performed, a surplus is given to a facility, that could be a transfer in - these are types of workflows inventory management can support; except when you have a product not in the distribution system, you cannot accept this product as it can pose problems
• Mary Jo: So when they want to go through the DDM/DPM, they have their own process in registering new products - is this a request that OpenLMIS allow this new product to get registered?
• Danni: We are not sure how they go about accounting (?) for these products when they are not in the master list

Facility Transfer Discussion

• Mary Jo: is there currently a current process for these intra-facility transfers?
• Danni: (Chris missed the answer)
• Mary Jo: what have you seen in your experience in requesting a transfer between facilities?
• Ashraf: This happens quite often. Especially for vaccines. One facility refrigerator not working - need to borrow from adjacent facility - or store their own stock in that facility - get stock from that facility and bring back within a week to replenish
• Mary Jo: Has there been an interest in tracking all of this?
• Ashraf: For VIMS, this is probably not widely tracked in the pre-test environment; feature that we have on VIMS, put in by CHAI, that would allow this type of workflows, these features exist on VIMS
• Mary Jo: look forward to asking more questions on VIMS when presented in Tanzania

Adjustment Reasons Discussion

• Danni: A lot of reasons are free text on paper; we made them in structured list to make it easier to report, and pick exact reasons; there are requests for adding additional reasons
• Kevin: Can you send us combination of what you’ve implemented vs what is requested? Anyting off the wall request?
• Danni: Everything they want is in the reason list; they want to add additional notes for existing reasons; now they make requests for stuff that is NOT on the list
• Danni: Is it necessary that we add these additional requests?
• Brian: Model he is seeing is the structured data with a comment on that data - as opposed to allow tracking
• Kevin: Negative of this is they might select ‘Other’
• Danni: No 'other' option currently in Moz implementation
• Kevin: So what do they do?
• Danni: They just request a change. So the question is whether it's necessary to allow htem to add in themselves as free text or 'other'? Would they always select the other option?
• Mary Jo: Ashraf, any comments on this?
• Ashraf: We have ‘Others’ we ask them to provide reasons - but no unstructured field - this can cause other problems - if lots of ‘Others’ can at least read the comment
• Mary Jo: Any other comments? (Nope)

Level / format of PC engagement on new features / prioritization discussion

• Mary Jo: What level of engagement does the PC need to have regarding new features? Any comments on what has worked in the past and what hasn’t? We have a really good list and need to make decisions on what should go in and what shouldn’t.
• Ashraf: After the country visits, and you get to see how stock management on VIMS and in Zambia will add more perspective on how it’s being used and be in a position of coming up with pool of use cases and prioritization discussions on what is in and what can go to future versions.
• Kevin: Agree with Ashraf and talking with users will be very useful; when we have these decision points, Mary Jo has a lot to decide at the moment, so Mary Jo needs a mechanism on what things we discuss and what is the granularity.
• Ashraf: Shaped by own frame of reference  - is this for zambia, or other implementation … if targeting that implementation then that should drive the prioritization of that product. So best to target specific implementations.
• Danni: Agree with Ashraf. Focus on use cases we have for certain implementations; how widely they are use on existing implementations
• Mary Jo: Releasing Feb for Malawi, which is a tight timeline - mainly centered on main cases on requisitions but also includes stock management and vaccines down the line; we unfortunately won’t be able to talk to users in time to come out in time with Malawi
• Mary Jo: trying to understand what we want to get out of this committee to get the most out of all people’s experiences; voting as an option, is that something that could be good; identifying critical components for stock management; I want to vocalize that I want your input, and how you can consume quickly, just let me know so we can maximize this group's time and involvement
• Mary Jo: should we stick to granularity that Danni was using?
• Brian: What Danni presented is a good level of detail;
• Brian: PC commits to reviewing and providing feedback at the beginning of the two weeks; a suggestion is to run these product committees as a sprint; make sure to give development enough info to develop and scope
• Mary Jo: my concern would be people’s time on this; not sure that this group would be able to look at the level of detail of tickets, but rather at Danni’s granularity.

Final comments

• Mary Jo: we do do backlog grooming; most in requisitions and UI; PC committee can take a look at this and give feedback
• Ashraf: offers support on budget work (forgot exact details of support here)
• Danni: does VillageReach have UX designers for the product? or is it VillageReach responsibility
• Mary Jo: PC is the largest pool of user research
• Danni: Would be nice to see other countries’ user research in a shared space
• Mary Jo: Agree and we are working towards this (missed exact details on this)