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.

9 · Scorecard / assessment rubric

Owner: Simon Adebola · Editors: Steven Uggowitzer (pressure-test) Effort: ~2.5 person-days · Due: v0.5 EOD Fri 2026-09-04 · v0.8 Fri 2026-09-11

What WHO expects here

A scoring rubric legible enough that a reviewer could take a platform of their own, run it through the rubric, and land within one score-point of what our team would land at. If a reviewer cannot reproduce our scoring, the whole Draft Report becomes suspect. Anchor definitions matter more than the scale itself.

Ultimate contents

The eight dimensions (from bid slide 7)

  1. Purpose and primary users — how clearly the platform’s purpose is stated and how well its users are known.
  2. Data model and core entities — coherence and completeness of the underlying data model.
  3. Hosting and infrastructure — hosting model, redundancy, cost transparency.
  4. Integration interfaces — API surface, standards adherence.
  5. Standards conformance — FHIR / ICD-11 / LOINC / SDMX-HD / ADX / other.
  6. Governance and ownership — named ownership, decision-rights clarity.
  7. Sustainability posture — funding lineage, maintenance-capacity durability.
  8. Strategic alignment — how the platform maps to AFR-RC74-7 pillars and SCORE.

The 0–4 scale

  • 0 — Absent. Not evidenced in any form.
  • 1 — Nascent. Evidenced but at ad-hoc / prototype level.
  • 2 — Emerging. Evidenced with some structure but material gaps.
  • 3 — Established. Evidenced with structure and durable practice.
  • 4 — Optimised. Best-in-class within the AFRO landscape.

Anchor definitions per level per dimension

The 8 × 5 = 40 anchor definitions. This is the core of the rubric — WHO reviewers read this table twice. Anchor definitions must be operational (a reviewer can point at evidence and say “yes, this meets Level 3 anchor because X”), not aspirational.

How scores aggregate

Per-platform: a single 0–4 score per dimension, no partial scores. Rolled up to the six-dimension bid rubric (T8 in the master plan Part E.2) and to the AFR-RC74-7 pillars. Rollup uses arithmetic mean unless a specific dimension is weighted (weightings named explicitly with rationale).

Worked example — DHIS2-AFRO

The whole scoring exercise applied end-to-end to one already-known platform. Every score with its evidence. Every rollup with its arithmetic. So the reviewer can see the reasoning fully, not just the summary.

Scoring adjudication + consensus

Two-analyst pass (Simon + Charles), then Steven review, then final score. Disagreements captured in the scoring log (T28 in the master plan) with reasoning per resolution.

Evidence to draw on

  • Bid slide 7 (eight-dimension inventory schema)
  • Bid slide 8 (six-dimension scorecard rubric — Technical Approach §2.3)
  • workspace/plan/00_MASTER_PLAN.md Parts B.4 + B.9 + E.2 T8
  • AFR-RC74-7 pillar definitions
  • DHIS2-AFRO documentation for the worked example

Complementary effort triggered

Anchor definitions per level per dimension (40 cells). Worked example on DHIS2-AFRO to prove the rubric applies. Simon leads; Steven pressure-tests to break the rubric before WHO does.