Global Goods Self Assessment
- Craig Appl
Owned by Craig Appl
The OpenSRP community performed a self assessment of the platform against the Global Goods Maturity Model in January 2018. This page reflects that self assessment and we anticipate performing another self assessment each year to see the progress of the platform over time. The current version of the Global Good Maturity Model Indicator Definitions can be found a this source.
Global Goods Self Assessment (Evaluated Jun 2019)
| Core Indicator and Calculated Score [0-10] | Sub-Indicator | Self Assessment | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
Global UtilityCalculated Score: 7 | Country Utilization | Medium | At least four countries or states actively use the tool for use as part of their health information system with at least 20% of total nation-wide or state-wide target users routinely using product/service as intended. |
| Country Strategy | Medium | The tool does fully meets digital functional requirements (as defined by WHO's Classification of Digital Health Interventions) without significant customization or configuration | |
| Digital Health Interventions | High | The tool does fully meets digital functional requirements (as defined by WHO's Classification of Digital Health Interventions) without significant customization or configuration | |
| Source Code Accessibility | High | Source code exists on a publicly accessible repository and licensed under an Open Source Initiative approved license. Software is structured to allow local customization and new modules and functionality without requiring forking of main code | |
| Funding and Revenue | Medium | Multiple revenue streams/donors exist across project implementations | |
CommunityCalculated Score: 8 | Developer, Contributor and Implementer Community Engagement | High | At least 30% of estimated total developers, contributors and implementers are engaged on a communication platform. community leadership includes representation from countries where the tool is deployed |
| Community Governance | Medium | Some informal processes for community management exist to direct continued development of the digital health tool | |
| Software Roadmap | High | New features and functionality are documented as part of a software roadmap as part of a release cycle. There are forums for community members to discuss new feature requests. A clear prioritization process exists and is utilized for the development of new features and functionality as part of a product backlog | |
| User Documentation | Medium | Some user documentation exists (training manual, demo videos) but only addresses a limited subset of common functionality | |
| Multi-Lingual Support | High | Software has been translated into multiple languages and fully supports internationalization requirements. There is an easy tool for new translations to be added. Significant parts of user and implementer documentation has been translated into at least one other language. | |
SoftwareCalculated Score: 4 | Technical Documentation | Medium | Some technical documentation exists of the source code, use cases and functional requirements |
| Software Productization | Low | No documentation available for deployment and configuration | |
| Interoperability and Data Accessibility | Medium | Some APIs are available for accessing and managing data. there are user facing interfaces to export core data and metadata in the system (e.g. in CSV format) for further analysis and data transfer purposes | |
| Security | Medium | Role based authorization exists, if appropriate. Guidance on encrypting all remote access (web interface, APIs) is available to implementers. | |
| Scalability | Medium | There is at least one jurisdiction (e.g. country, state) deployment for which 20% of all "entities" are managed within the software. There has been at least one evaluation of software performance / load testing |
This site is no longer maintained. Please visit docs.opensrp.io for current documentation.