|
|
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | *[[Field Reports and Current Views]] | | *[[Field Reports and Current Views]] |
| | *[[Reconciliation Process]] | | *[[Reconciliation Process]] |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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. IMSMA<sup>NG</sup> uses the status value of items to track where the object or process is in its workflow. Objects and processes in IMSMA<sup>NG</sup> 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 IMSMA<sup>NG</sup> 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."
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Understanding Mine Action Information Management - Example Workflow.png|center|''Example of a Traditional Workflow'']]
| |
| − | <div align="center">
| |
| − | ''Example of a Traditional Workflow''
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Understanding Mine Action Information Management - Example Workflow 2.png|center|''Example of a Spot UXO Workflow'']]
| |
| − | <div align="center">
| |
| − | ''Example of a Spot UXO Workflow''
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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 IMSMA<sup>NG</sup>, 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Understanding Mine Action Information Management - Progress Report Workflow.png|center|''Progress Report Workflow'']]
| |
| − | <div align="center">
| |
| − | ''Progress Report Workflow''
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Reconciliation Process==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Location Folder===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A location in IMSMA<sup>NG</sup> 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 IMSMA<sup>NG</sup> 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
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Understanding IMSMA Information Model - Using Locations to Link Mine Action Data to the Country Structure.png|center|''Using Locations to Link Mine Action Data to the Country Structure'']]
| |
| − | <div align="center">
| |
| − | ''Using Locations to Link Mine Action Data to the Country Structure''
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Two fundamental decisions to make when customizing IMSMA<sup>NG</sup> 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)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <b>Document the following decisions about locations:</b>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * what concept locations will represent
| |
| − | * what country structure level locations will be linked to
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Assigning and Linking===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <b>Assigning</b> refers to the assignment of an item to a location for the purposes of grouping information. All items must be assigned a location.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <b>Linking</b> refers to the association between items for the purposes of analysis. Linking is optional, for example, when linking clearances to minefields.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | IMSMA<sup>NG</sup> 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, IMSMA<sup>NG</sup> 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 IMSMA<sup>NG</sup>. 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Understanding IMSMA Information Model - Example of How Relationships Among Items are Created.png|center|400px|''Example of How Relationships Among Items are Created'']]
| |
| − | <div align="center">
| |
| − | ''Example of How Relationships Among Items are Created''
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Understanding IMSMA Information Model - Example of How Current View Statuses Change.png|center|400px|''Example of How Current View Statuses Change'']]
| |
| − | <div align="center">
| |
| − | ''Example of How Current View Statuses Change''
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The IMSMA<sup>NG</sup> 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 IMSMA<sup>NG</sup>.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Understanding IMSMA Information Model - Example Relationships Among Items.png|center|400px|''Example Relationships Among Items'']]
| |
| − | <div align="center">
| |
| − | ''Example Relationships Among Items''
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <b>Document the following business rules about assigning and linking:</b>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * which items will have links between them, for example, victims will always be linked to accidents
| |
| − | * rationale or logical meaning of the relationships between items, for example, a link between a clearance and a minefield means that the clearance was conducted on the minefield
| |
| − | * what effects linking has on the items, for example, a link between a clearance and hazard may indicate that the hazard status should change from "Open" to "Worked on"
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Understanding IMSMA Information Model - Adding Field Report Information to the Current View.png|center|''Adding Field Report Information to the Current View'']]
| |
| − | <div align="center">
| |
| − | ''Adding Field Report Information to the Current View''
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | For data quality purposes, it is important that the data is adequately checked at this stage. IMSMA<sup>NG</sup> allows information managers to control permissions for the Workbench and other areas of IMSMA<sup>NG</sup> 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====
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {| class="wikitable"
| |
| − | ! 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 IMSMA<sup>NG</sup> 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.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |}
| |
