Skip to content
WHO/AFRO HIS Review

Search is only available in production builds. Try building and previewing the site to test it out locally.

1 · Executive summary

Owner: Steven Uggowitzer (Team Lead) Editors: Pallavi Dani (whole-doc editor), Stephanie Berrada (IQVIA release approval) Effort: ~1.0 person-day Position in draft cycle: written last, after every other chapter is at v0.9+ Hypothetical due dates: v0.5 skeleton by Fri 2026-09-04 · v0.8 by Fri 2026-09-11 · final by Wed 2026-09-17

What WHO expects here

A two-page bottom-line-up-front summary that a reviewer can read standalone and know: what this review is for, how it will be done, which platforms and country offices are in scope, what the ten-week calendar looks like, and what the top handful of risks are. WHO reviewers form their first opinion in this chapter. If it fails to answer a first-time reader’s five most obvious questions, the reader arrives at Chapter 2 already suspicious.

Ultimate contents

The review in one paragraph

Restates the RFP mandate in plain English: an independent review of WHO/AFRO’s Health Information Systems (HIS) platform landscape, commissioned in 2026 under RFP/AFRO/013/2026, delivered by IQVIA in association with eSHIFT over ten weeks, culminating in a Draft and Final Report with a target-state architectural recommendation.

Objectives, in one paragraph each

Three short paragraphs mapping to the RFP objectives: (i) inventory the AFRO HIS platform landscape including under-documented / partner-hosted / country-hosted layers, (ii) evaluate each platform along an eight-dimension maturity scorecard aligned to AFR-RC74-7, and (iii) propose a target-state hub-and-spoke integration architecture with a phased rationalisation roadmap.

Method in one paragraph

Mixed-methods: desk review of official documentation + HQ Modernization Task Force spreadsheet + shadow-IT DNS/CT-log discovery sweep (Streams 1–3); 13–18 key informant interviews (KIIs) with named WHO/AFRO cluster leads, HQ counterparts, country office focal points, and prior incumbents; 6–8 platform walkthroughs; scorecard aggregation to AFR-RC74-7 pillars.

Scope table

Two columns: In scope vs deliberately out of scope. Traceable to the RFP paragraph numbers. Names the platforms explicitly in scope (iAHO, Regional Health Data Hub, ESPEN, DPC Portal, EPR Hubs, Polio GIS, Mental Health, plus discovered shadow-IT platforms) and the exclusions (personal-scale spreadsheets; non-AFRO WHO regions except as benchmark).

Sampling frame headline

Two bullets: number of platforms deep-dived and number of country offices sampled, with the selection rubric summarised in half a line each.

Deliverable calendar

Compact Gantt or table: kick-off, Inception submission, KII window, Draft Report, validation, Final Report, executive presentation. Marked with the paycheck-gate flag on Inception.

Headline risks (3–5, no more)

Sanitised subset of Chapter 11: what’s the worst that could reasonably happen, and what’s our mitigation. Language deliberately different from internal Part M framing.

Evidence to draw on

  • RFP/AFRO/013/2026 (incoming/rfp/)
  • IQVIA Technical Approach (workspace/extracted/IQVIA_Technical_Approach.md)
  • Boucher briefing distillation (workspace/plan/phase1/boucher-briefing-distillation.md)
  • Every downstream chapter’s own summary paragraph

Complementary effort triggered

Coordinated with Stephanie because it’s what she will read into the delivery-review call. Written after everything else so it can honestly summarise; not written first as a placeholder to fill in later — that path always ships something incoherent with the body.