MINT Implementation Checklist

Introduction

This page is currently only visible to team members, because it is meant as a guideline for starting a MINT implementation. It is currently at the brainstorming stage, but could be made public once discussed. Please provide suggestions/feedback/etc.

This is a collection of questions to ask prior to deploying MINT to a country/programme, in order to:

• gather detailed requirements,
• set the scope,
• derive an architecture,
• identify opportunities and possible obstacles, and
• be able to monitor and evaluate the MINT implementation itself.

MINT implementation checklist/questionnaire

Reporting requirements

1. What are the reporting requirements of your programme? Try to identify all of them, including reports that are already being produced and any additional reports required. For inspiration, areas can include:
   1. Legal reporting obligations (focus on the facts/evidence only, knowing that the legal reporting includes a lot of narrative that is out of the scope in this context)
   2. Reporting from regional centres to the national one
   3. Reporting from implementing partners to the national centre/national authority
   4. Reporting to headquarters (e.g. UNMAS, UNDP, etc.)
   5. Reporting to donors
   6. Reporting to management
   7. Reporting for planning purposes (e.g. weekly/monthly progress reports)
2. Do you already have defined indicators (on any level, output, outcome, etc.)? If yes, which ones?
3. For each reporting requirement, try to fill in the following table and be as precise and detailed as possible:

   Report name (tentative or real)	Main content (statistics/indicators/narrative/etc.)	Already implemented?	Automatic generation possible?	Audience	Frequency	Format	Data Source (And, is the data available?)	Comments
   ...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...

Current reporting

1. Is there currently a reporting system in place?
2. If yes:
1. Is the process "from data entry to reports" automated or are manual interventions required?
2. What data sources is the system querying?
3. Which technology is it based on?
4. Who is using it and who is maintaining it? Are enough people trained on it?
5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current reporting system? And what makes you request MINT?

Expectations and scope for MINT

1. What are your main expectations regarding the upcoming MINT implementation?
2. What main use cases do you intend to address with MINT?
3. Who is the expected audience and in which groups can the potential users be split?
4. If there is a reporting system already in place, do you intend to have both systems in parallel, or should the entire reporting be covered by MINT?

Since numerical/text and geographical reporting/analysis go hand in hand, it would be possible to add questions here about the needs/requirements for geo-analysis. To be discussed.

Data sources, data quality and security concerns

1. What data sources are available? IMSMA? Any others?
2. What is the level of confidentiality of the data?
3. With whom are you open to share the data? Implementing partners in the country? If yes, should they see all the data or only data submitted by them (e.g. activities carried out by the organization/operator)?
4. How big is the expected gap between the data (in IMSMA or any other system) and reality? What is the level of confidence in the data? Is there a major clean-up of data that needs to be performed?
5. For the indicators defined, is all the underlying data available in a structured way? Or does the data collection process need to be adapted?

Technical infrastructure

1. Are resources available to set up a server (or use an existing one) with a public IP address that can be accessed by MINT? This is the prerequisite for hosting the data in-country. The alternative is that GICHD hosts the data(base), but in this case a process needs to be set up to keep that copy of data up to date. Additionally, a MoU might be required in order to formalize who can access the data and who can't (making sure that the data is not made available to anyone without consent).

Monitoring of the MINT implementation

In order to be able to measure the progress of a MINT implementation in a programme/country, indicators have to be defined at the beginning of the implementation project. While the focus should be put on outcomes, there are also a number of interesting output statistics that can be gathered (for some, automatically) and provide some insight in outcomes as well. The following indicators have been identified (by VIE and GAR):

Indicator	Level	How this indicator works	Data Source	Data collection method	Who will collect data	How often will data be collected	Cost of collecting data	Difficulty of collecting data	Who will analyse and report	Who will use the data
Number of distinct users accessing MINT in a given time frame	Output	This is a basic indicator showing the level of activity, i.e. how/to which extent is MINT integrated into the IM/Ops procedures	MINT report (these stats can be gathered automatically)	Gathered automatically	Automatic collection set up by an administrator	Continuously	No costs	Easy and automatic	Primarily the local MINT administrator/focal point, who ideally should share it with the GICHD IM focal point	Primarily the local MINT administrator/focal point, as well sa the GICHD IM focal point
Number of distinct organizations accessing MINT in a given time frame	Output (Nb. orgs using MINT) and Outcome (indication on the extent of data sharing)	This indicator measures how broadly MINT is used among the actors in a country. This has to be put in the specific country context. Looking beyond the number, it gives an indication on the extent of data sharing, which in turn influences the communication and coordination.	MINT report (these stats can be gathered automatically). However, it has to be configured to the country context (how are orgs represented in MINT? Sub-organisations? Roles?)	Gathered automatically, once set up properly	Automatic collection set up by an administrator	Continuously	No costs, but has to be set up/customised at the beginning	Easy and automatic, given that a clear separation of orgs exists (either based on roles or sub-organisations)	Primarily the local MINT administrator/focal point, who ideally should share it with the GICHD IM focal point	Primarily the local MINT administrator/focal point, as well sa the GICHD IM focal point

• Activity/Output-level
• Number of distinct users accessing the MINT repository in a given time frame.

  Can be set up automatically

• Number of distinct organizations/operators/actors accessing the MINT repository in a given time frame. This gives an indication of the extent of data sharing (thus both output and outcome level).
• Number of reports/dashboards ...
• Outcome-level
• Number of distinct organizations/operators/actors accessing the MINT repository in a given time frame. This gives an indication of the extent of data sharing (thus both output and outcome level).
• (Corrective) actions taken as a result of reports/analysis in MINT

{{#switch:|subgroup|child=|none=|#default=

}}{{#ifeq:|Template|{{#ifeq:|child||{{#ifeq:|subgroup||{{#switch:mint implementation checklist

|doc
|sandbox
|testcases =
|#default = {{#switch:hlist
 |plainlist
 |hlist
 |hlist hnum
 |hlist vcard
 |vcard hlist = 
 |#default = 
 }}
}}

}}}}}}