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.

6 · Sampling frame for Phase 2 deep-dives

Owner: Charles Kwanin + Steven Uggowitzer · Editors: Pallavi Dani Effort: ~2.0 person-days · Due: v0.5 EOD Fri 2026-09-04 · v0.8 Fri 2026-09-11

What WHO expects here

WHO evaluators probe this chapter hard. Every included platform and every included country office must be justified, not merely named. The rubric behind the sampling must be legible so a reviewer can rerun the reasoning against a different candidate and see where it would land.

Ultimate contents

Selection rubric (platforms)

The 6–8 platforms selected for hands-on walkthroughs. Rubric dimensions:

  • SCORE-weighted (does the platform sit in a high-SCORE-weighting area?)
  • AFRO strategic centrality (named in AFR-RC74-7? in the RFP?)
  • Coverage breadth (does it touch multiple clusters or multiple Member States?)
  • Confidence / evidence density (do we already have documentation to work from?)
  • Difficulty gradient (mix of “well-documented, easy” with “shadow-layer, hard”)

Every selected platform justified in one paragraph against the rubric.

Selection rubric (country offices)

Sampled country offices for country-focal-point KIIs. Rubric dimensions:

  • Geographical spread across the five AFRO subregions
  • Linguistic balance (EN / FR / PT)
  • HIS maturity gradient (mix of “advanced” with “developing”)
  • AFRO-hosted vs ministry-hosted platform coverage
  • Practical constraints (WHO country office availability during the KII window; language-of-work of the focal point)

Named list — platforms

Table of the 6–8 selected platforms with rationale per row.

Named list — country offices

Table of the sampled country offices with rationale per row.

Deliberately excluded

Named exclusions with the exclusion reason. This is important — WHO reviewers look here for evidence that we made hard choices, not just easy ones.

Sample size defence

Why 6–8 walkthroughs and 13–18 KIIs (bid commitment). Statistical vs analytical adequacy discussion. Reference to standard evaluation-methodology conventions.

Evidence to draw on

  • Chapter 5 preliminary inventory
  • AFR-RC74-7 pillar weights
  • Country-office contact list (Boucher briefing + Ndayiziga)
  • Prior AFRO evaluation sampling frames (as convention reference)

Complementary effort triggered

Justification of every included and every excluded platform + country. Rubric weighting decisions written out. Rerunnability check: could a different analyst apply the same rubric and land in the same place?