Improving Data Use and Participatory Action and Design to Support Data Use: The Case of DHIS2 in Rwanda

This article reports from an ongoing ‘evaluation for improvement’ action research and participatory design project in Rwanda, where the aim is to improve data use practices and the capabilities of the District Health Information Software 2 (DHIS2), an open source health information management platform, to support data use. The study of data use at health facility and district level showed that while data was used routinely at, for example, monthly coordination meetings, the DHIS2 dashboards and other analytical tools were in limited use because users preferred to use Microsoft Excel for data analysis and use. Given such findings, a major focus of the project has been directed towards identifying shortcomings in data use practices and in the software platform and to suggest, design and eventually implement changes. While the practical work on implementing improvements have been slow due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the suggested design improvements involve many levels of system design and participation, from the global core DHIS2 software team, the country DHIS2 team and local app development, the Rwanda Ministry of Health, and health workers at local level.

[1]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: the case of building internet , 2010, J. Inf. Technol..

[2]  Scott Russpatrick Understanding Platform Ecosystems for Development: Enabling Innovation in Digital Global Public Goods Software Platforms , 2020, IFIPJWC.

[3]  Paul Bate,et al.  Synthesizing Research and Practice: Using the Action Research Approach in Health Care Settings , 2000 .

[4]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[5]  Petter Nielsen,et al.  Making Usable Generic Software. A Matter of Global or Local Design? , 2019, SCIS.

[6]  Bendik Bygstad,et al.  The Generative Mechanisms of Digital Infrastructure Evolution , 2013, MIS Q..

[7]  Jørn Braa,et al.  Distributed Development to Enable User Participation: Multilevel design in the HISP network , 2009, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Xiaoyue Jiang,et al.  Platform Ecosystems: How Developers Invert the Firm , 2016, MIS Q..

[9]  Jannis Kallinikos,et al.  The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts , 2013, MIS Q..

[10]  Johan Sæbø,et al.  P for Platform. Architectures of large-scale participatory design , 2017, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Ola Henfridsson,et al.  Balancing platform control and external contribution in third‐party development: the boundary resources model , 2013, Inf. Syst. J..

[12]  Jørn Braa,et al.  Networks of Action: Sustainable Health Information Systems Across Developing Countries , 2004, MIS Q..

[13]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy , 2013 .

[14]  Annabelle Gawer,et al.  The Rise of the Platform Enterprise: A Global Survey , 2016 .

[15]  Magnus Li,et al.  An Approach to Addressing the Usability and Local Relevance of Generic Enterprise Software , 2019 .

[16]  Armin Heinzl,et al.  Knowledge boundaries in enterprise software platform development: Antecedents and consequences for platform governance , 2019, Inf. Syst. J..

[17]  Christian Koch,et al.  ERP a moving target , 2007, Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst..

[18]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing , 2010, MIS Q..

[19]  Mohanbir Sawhney,et al.  Orchestration Processes in Network-Centric Innovation: Evidence From the Field , 2011 .

[20]  A. Gawer Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework , 2014 .

[21]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Participatory Design that Matters—Facing the Big Issues , 2018, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..