Contents
Data Types
Items
In the IMSMANG information model, items are the containers for mine action information. An item is an area, activity or event that a mine action programme records information about and stores in IMSMANG. There are six categories of items, which are described in the table below. Each category can be characterized by a type that reflects whether the item is designed to track process or activity information or the object or product of an activity.
| Item | Description | Type |
|---|---|---|
| Hazard | Information about an area affected by a hazard | Object/Product |
| Hazard reduction activity | Information about an activity to survey, clear, or reduce the threat of a hazard | Process/Activity |
| Accident | Information about an event involving a hazard | Object/Product |
| Victim | Information about a person injured or affected by a hazard | Object/Product |
| Mine Risk Education (MRE) activity | Information about an activity designed to inform or educate people about hazards | Object/Product |
| Quality Management (QM) activity | Information about an activity to control and monitor the clearance and/or reduction of hazards or hazard reduction activities | Object/Product |
Items are entered into IMSMANG by means of a field report. Typically, each category of items has its own field report template for recording information specific to that category. When entered into IMSMANG, all field report items must be assigned to a location, which is tied to the country’s gazetteer, or political or administrative structure. The items can then be traced back to the country structure so that users can easily report data such as the number and size of hazards within a particular province.
Part of defining and documenting an information model includes defining the useful information attributes for each IMSMANG item. IMSMANG comes with more than 1,000 data elements already defined as well as the capability to create additional custom-defined fields (CDFs). This makes it important to critically assess which data elements are useful to a programme for decision-making, analysis and reporting and to focus on those while ignoring data elements that don’t provide additional value. Limiting information to only that which is useful to the programme provides long-term benefits including reducing the data collection and data entry burden and improving system performance. And, while many data elements may be collected for each IMSMANG item, some elements may be more important for analysis than others. For example, whether a victim has been injured or killed may be more important for analysis than the victim’s nationality.
| Item | Subcategory Examples |
|---|---|
| Hazard |
|
| Hazard reduction activity |
|
| Accident |
|
| Victim |
|
| Mine Risk Education (MRE) activity |
|
| Quality Management (QM) activity |
|
Each of the six categories of items can be divided into subcategories or types so users can collect information for each subcategory. For example, users can specify different types of hazards such as dangerous areas, confirmed hazardous areas (CHAs), minefields and battle areas and manage each kind of hazard differently. Using subcategories, information managers can:
- create separate workflows for each type of hazard
- create and manage separate data entry forms
- differentiate between item categories on the map
Additionally, information managers can customise the subcategories so that unused subcategories can be removed and other subcategories added. The same is true for all top-level items within IMSMANG, which lets information managers specify their exact information model, including the relationships among item categories, and adjust the model as their needs change over time. To accurately map the information model for a programme, it’s helpful to evaluate the available item subcategories and determine if changes to the information model in IMSMANG are required. While these values can be customized after system setup, understanding the types of information for each item is critical to implementing an effective workflow in IMSMANG. Table 5 shows examples of the possible subcategories of IMSMANG items.
Document the following decisions about items:
- data elements to be collected and managed in IMSMANG
- data elements that are not predefined in IMSMANG and should be created as CDFs
- particularly important, or key, data elements for the programme
- relevant subcategories for each item
- status values for each item
Below is an example of a fully-documented item.
Example of Documented Hazard
Auxiliary Data
In addition to defining the required information for IMSMANG items, it is important to define the relevant information to be collected about auxiliary data. This includes defining and documenting the country structure, ordnance, organisations and places, such as military bases, hospitals and cultural sites; any additional CDFs that should be created; and any subcategories for each of the auxiliary data types.
Document the following decisions about auxiliary data:
- data elements to be collected and managed in IMSMANG
- data elements that are not already configured in IMSMANG and can be created as CDFs
- relevant subcategories for each data type
Below is an example of a fully-documented auxiliary data.
Documenting Auxiliary Data
Field Reports and Current Views
All mine action information is entered into IMSMANG via a field report, a data entry form used to collect information about an item. When a field report is completed, it is either reconciled to an existing item (that is, it is determined to be information about an item that already exists in IMSMANG) or it is reconciled as new (that is, it is determined to be information about an item that does not already exist in IMSMANG).
Field Reports, Current Views, and Reconciliation
With this approach, users can collect and store multiple field reports about the same item over time so that the entire history of the item is preserved in the system. The approach also provides a complete audit trail of all changes made to any mine action information so that information managers can answer the question, "What did we know and when did we know it?"
IMSMANG also provides a constantly updated current view of the item which represents the sum of information about the item at any given time. As subsequent information is collected about a specific attribute of an item, IMSMANG updates the item’s current view on an attribute-by-attribute basis. For example, Field Report #1 collects some initial information about a hazard. It sets the priority to "Medium" and specifies that the hazard contains AP mines and is 25,000 sqm. Field Report #2 updates information about the hazard after a subsequent assessment. The report sets the priority to "High" and specifies the presence of AP and AT mines, but it does not change the size or the status of the hazard. Field Report #3 updates the hazard’s size and status after clearance operations are complete. The figure below shows how the hazard’s current view is updated after all three reports are entered into the system.
Example of Updating Current Views
Current view calculations are based on the date of the field report, so it is possible to enter data into the system out of chronological order (that is, to collect past information about an item) without disrupting the current view. For example, if a fourth field report were collected and dated between Field Report #1 and Field Report #2, it would have no effect on the current view as all information in the example was updated with Field Report #2 or later.
Mapping the Workflows
The first element of mapping the hazard reduction workflow is to build a map of the relationship between the objects and processes involved in the hazard reduction process. Starting with the first representation of the hazard, the workflow map should describe the processes done to the hazard and the output of the process. The workflow map should trace the entire process from hazard identification through clearance and release of the land according to the operational process in use in the programme. In the example below, a confirmed hazardous area (CHA) is linked to a technical survey that was conducted on the hazard. The survey resulted in a minefield on which a clearance was done, and the clearance resulted in a cleared hazard. Finally, a completion survey was logged to close the hazard.
Mapping the Workflow
This workflow map identifies the hazard reduction process that is used within the programme and can be mapped in IMSMANG to track the clearance of hazards. Because IMSMANG supports customisable workflows, it can be used to track different workflows for different objects. For example, a programme may have a separate abbreviated workflow for spot UXO tasks that involve only the identification of the UXO hazard (object) and a clearance of the hazard (process) without additional surveys or steps. This process should also be mapped for implementing in IMSMANG.
Business Rules Updating Structure
Status Changes
Along with a workflow map that describes the relationship between the various types of objects and processes in a workflow, the status changes or outputs from the process are critical in adequately mapping the hazard clearance process. IMSMANG uses the status value of items to track where the object or process is in its workflow. Objects and processes in IMSMANG can have different status values. For example, hazards can be defined as "Active", "Worked On," or "Closed," while hazard reduction activities that are more process-oriented can be "Planned," "Ongoing," "Completed," "Suspended," or "Aborted." Defining a set of status values for each item provides the capability to:
- manage workflows according to status
- search and report on items based on a particular status
- display items on the map with different symbols based on their status
Some IMSMANG items may have many status values. For example, process-oriented items such as hazard reductions and quality management likely have many status values, but hazards and other object- or output-oriented items typically have only the three status values listed above. Some items like victims and accidents may not need status values depending on how information is used. Defining the possible status values for each object in the workflow as outputs of the processes conducted on them provides a set of business rules for information management that govern how information should be entered and analysed.
Example Workflows with Status Changes
The following figures show how each programme can tailor the system to support a specific hazard clearance/reduction workflow process for each type of hazard, from a traditional process for minefield clearance with multiple steps including a technical survey, clearance and completion survey to a simplified process for UXO clearance that includes only a clearance. Each example involves a single hazard on which one or more hazard reduction activities are conducted. At each step, information about the hazard’s status and type is updated as a result of the hazard reduction process.
In the figure below, a CHA is created and its status is set to "Active." A technical survey process is then conducted on the hazard which results in changing the subcategory of the hazard from "CHA" to "Minefield" and defining the hazard’s perimeter. Next, a clearance process is conducted on the minefield that results in updating the status of the hazard to "Worked On." Finally, a completion survey is submitted that updates the status of the hazard to "Closed."
Example of a Traditional Workflow
Simpler processes can be defined for other types of hazards. For example, a spot UXO task would likely not go through this complete workflow and instead start with a subcategory of "UXO" and a status of "Open." A clearance could then be conducted and the UXO spot status updated to "Closed," without requiring a completion survey.
Example of a Spot UXO Workflow
By documenting the entire process conducted on each type of hazard, including the changes in status and type that result from the hazard reduction activities, information managers create a complete map of the hazard/hazard reduction workflow that informs how linking and reconciliation decisions should be made and provide a guide to data entry personnel.
Progress Reporting Structure
Once the hazard and hazard reduction relationships and workflow are defined and documented for each type of hazard, the next step is to define how progress data for the hazard clearance processes is collected. Traditionally, incremental progress data is collected using progress reports. These reports are typically linked to the overall clearance operation and are used to collect the incremental progress for a reporting period, usually, the number of mines/UXO cleared, area cleared and hours worked. In IMSMANG, each progress report is stored as a new hazard reduction activity and linked to the clearance. As a result, individual progress reports can be queried to determine how much progress was made during a given reporting period. In addition, aggregate progress information can be queried for each clearance (for example, the total mines that have been reported cleared for a given clearance operation).
An alternative approach to storing progress information is to collect incremental progress reports and reconcile them as updates to the clearance using the combine option during reconciliation. Using this method, progress reports do not create independent hazard reduction items; rather, their information is combined with, and added to, the clearance information collected to that point. This approach simplifies the reconciliation step for progress reports as well as provides a simple summary of clearance data on each hazard in the current view. It may, however, become slightly more complicated to determine progress during individual reporting periods. Information managers should assess which approach better meets the needs of their programs when selecting an approach to tracking progress.
In the example below, progress reports were collected for three separate reporting periods during a clearance operation. Collecting and linking information in this way makes it easy to determine that in Period 2 (PR-2), 4,500 sqm were cleared and 25 AP mines were found and that, overall, 15,000 sqm were cleared and 61 AP mines were found. A defined, standardized approach to collecting and storing progress information simplifies querying and reporting of statistical information and is a critical element to supporting operational mine action information management needs.
Progress Report Workflow
Reconciliation Process
Location Folder
A location in IMSMANG is a grouping of information, whether logical, geographical or sociopolitical. Using locations, users can group data that belongs together or is associated with each other and handle it as a group, including facilitating data entry, searching and running reports. To do this, locations must link the mine action data to the country’s political or administrative structure (existing gazetteer), whether at the province, district or town level. This method also provides geographical context to the data. As shown in the figure below, locations in IMSMANG are governed by two simple rules:
- all mine action data must be linked to a location
- all locations must be linked to the country structure
Using Locations to Link Mine Action Data to the Country Structure
Two fundamental decisions to make when customizing IMSMANG is to decide what country structure level locations will be consistently linked to and what concept locations will represent, Typical concepts that a location is used to represent include:
- a work area (where hazards exist and hazard reductions are taking place)
- a community (a group of people affected by the mine/UXO threat)
- the nearest town (the town closest to where the activity is taking place)
Documenting Locations
Assigning and Linking
IMSMANG provides the capability to assign items to locations and create links between items, a function that shows the relationships between items and processes and that enriches the data collected. Assignments and links are defined during the field report approval process. An item is assigned to one location, which ties the item to the country structure and allows for reporting mine action data by area. The same item can then be linked to as many other items as necessary. In this way, IMSMANG supports the idea of linking hazard reductions to hazards, victims to accidents or any item to any other item. When used with item subcategories, linking adds a powerful capacity to implement an information workflow and create rich and useful data for decision makers. To ensure the integrity of this data, system administrators must clearly specify the kinds of links to track in IMSMANG. See Maintaining IMSMA for more on this topic.
The example below shows how users can build a workflow of complex relationships among top-level items and item subcategories to model the information management process for their programmes.
Example of How Relationships Among Items are Created
The next figure shows how the current view changes with each hazard reduction that is linked to the original hazard. The CHA starts with a status of "Open." When the technical survey is linked to the hazard, it changes the hazard subcategory to "Minefield." Then, linking the clearance updates the hazard’s status to "Worked On." Finally, linking the completion survey changes the hazard’s status to "Closed." The result is one hazard whose information is updated over time by the four hazard reductions linked to the hazard. This way to track information can be used to represent the information management process and status rules accurately for a land release, risk management or other process model.
Example of How Current View Statuses Change
The IMSMANG information model is flexible enough for each programme to customise the system to support its needs. For example, programmes that do not conduct MRE activities do not need to complete information about MREs, and they still retain full utility of the system. Similarly, programmes that conduct victim tracking and MRE activities only can disregard hazards and hazard reductions without any loss of utility. This flexibility, however, requires that programmes define the relevant uses of each item.
Although any item can be linked to any other item, not all relationships necessarily make sense for every programme. The diagrams below describe some of the more common logical relationships among items and can serve as the basis for an information model when implementing IMSMANG.
Example Relationships Among Items
The rationale for each relationship or link should also be documented so the meaning is understood. For example, a hazard reduction may be conducted on a hazard and an accident may be a result of a hazard or produce a victim. These relationships are used when entering data to ensure that the links between items are available for searching and reporting, like when searching for all hazards that have clearances linked to them.
Documenting Assigning and Linking
Workbench
Items, field reports, current views, assigning and linking come together at the Workbench. The Workbench is a holding area where users enter data into field reports and reconcile each item in the field report either as a new item or as an update to an existing item. Users have the ability to assign field report items to locations and to link items to other items (like linking a technical survey to an existing CHA). They then save the reports in the Workbench pending the appropriate quality checks and approvals.
Until a field report is approved, it exists only in the Workbench and does not update any current views. The report can still be modified or deleted. When a field report is approved, however, it becomes part of the current views and cannot be deleted.
Adding Field Report Information to the Current View
For data quality purposes, it is important that the data is adequately checked at this stage. IMSMANG allows information managers to control permissions for the Workbench and other areas of IMSMANG through the management of users and roles. With multiple permission levels for the Workbench, different users can be assigned different permissions, allowing programmes to implement a data-entry workflow that distinguishes between data entry and data verification roles. It is recommended to set up a permission structure that reserves approval authority for field reports for the most trusted users.
Roles and Responsibilities
| Role | Description |
|---|---|
| Data Entry | Users whose primary function is to enter field reports and other data into the system. This role may or may not include the ability to approve field reports. |
| Data Verification | Users who typically perform quality checks on the data entered by Data Entry users. This role is often responsible for verifying the accuracy of the data entered and approving field reports. |
| Operations | Users who typically browse for information within IMSMANG to make operational decisions. Operations users may sometimes be grouped by function (for example, MRE, clearance or victim assistance). These users often perform searches for data, generate reports and analyze the data to support operational needs. |
| Systems Administrator | Users who perform information management-specific functions such as creating field report templates, designing reports, backing up and restoring data and other technical functions. |
| Guest | Users with essentially read-only access to browse data. |