Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
-
Based from my working experience from previous (Non-Profit) organization, I ‘d like to discuss the following points from the Information System (IS). Recently, I worked for Southeast Asia One Health University Network, where the network is comprised of eight universities networks from Southeast Asia member countries. As a network, we support One Health higher education to strengthen professional capacity in addressing emerging diseases both nationally and regionally. To achieve this goal, each component of the IS framework plays an important role. While IS was in place, some components still needed improvement to achieve better outcomes. If we breakdown IS components from the highest to the lowest priority:
1. People: Although the network involved academics and professionals from various fields, there were gaps in capacity and knowledge, particularly in IT-related skills. Even though hardware and software were available, not everyone could use them effectively. Language was also a challenge, participants had different levels of proficiency, and many relied solely on local languages (e.g. Khmer, Bahasa, Laos, etc.). To address this, training should be provided in both technical areas and translating into local languages to help reduce communication barriers.
2. Data: Although the network collected both quantitative and qualitative data, much of it was not effectively turned into useful information. This was due to inconsistent data collection practices, low data quality, and the lack of standardized data management protocols across the university network. Data collection methods also varied. For example, some teams used paper-based tools in resource-limited settings, while others used digital tools with limited data security. To improve this, clear data collection guidelines should be introduced, along with regular monitoring and supervision to ensure reliable data that can be used to inform decision-making.
3. Process: Even though protocols were in place to manage collected data, we were not able to fully utilize it to create impactful insights. The procedures and technical capacity differed among university networks. To solve this, it is important to apply common protocols and procedures across the network so that the data collected can be turned into meaningful information for decision-makers and the wider public.
4. Software: Each university network used different softwares (e.g. Microsoft, One Drive, Google Drive, Box, Jotform, Canva, etc.), depending on their preferences. This created problems when working together, as inconsistent systems made collaboration less efficient. For instance, during the COVID-19 response, it was difficult to obtain real-time data on activities led by different university networks because of the lack of a unified reporting system. To improve future responses, we need to considers to streamline systems to support collaboration and allow faster and more accurate information sharing.
5. Hardware: Although the university networks face fewer problems with hardware compared to other IS components, we should consider upgrading performance and durability to ensure cost-effectiveness.
-
I agree with your points while we are talking about IS in Myanmar. Particularly, data quality issue is one of the most problematic issues in PHC referral and IS. Although the assigned staffs are provided series of training, we frequently encounter man-made errors/ignorance overtimes. This could lead to wrong/misinformation to the authorities who are directly involved in the decision making process.
-
