Feedback - Changes to stock management

Use Case

Currently OpenLMIS’s stock management is not program-based (as are all other major processes) which makes it difficult for non-speciality facilities to manage their SOH and product list. Smaller (and most served) facilities manage their stock despite the health program they belong to, I.e., a commodity such as Condoms is simply managed as a product, despite the programs it belongs to, in this case Family Planning and HIV.

Initial feedback from users show that:

  • As a HF logistician I want to be able to view and manage my SOH despite the program(s) the products are assigned to.
  • As a HF manager is want to easily submit program-based requisitions following the current MoH directives, looking at Mozambique,:
    • Malaria requisitions should be monthly, report only and collect program data;
    • Essential Meds and HIV should be monthly and result in fulfillment by my managing facility - district/provincial warehouse:
      • The quantities fulfilled should be added to my facility’s (general) SOH;

As a solution, the GHSC-PSM Mozambique team is considering to custom develop the available stock management module to comply with the requirements listed above, this would:

  • Ensure that despite the programs each product might be assigned to, the SOH would be a sum of received quantities (either from fulfillment or the stock management module) by retiring the concept of program-based management of stock;
  • With the use of SIGLUS Archive Product feature, the facilities will be able to independently enable/disable the products they use out of the national meds list;

Looking at the build of the stock management module would you say that this is feasible? Any thoughts?

CC: @mmegji @Antonio_Langa

Thanks @Dercio_Duvane,

In OpenLMIS v2 we actually did build stock-management without programs - and if I recall correctly the change to be program-oriented in v3 was in-part related to the need to base program-based resupply workflows (i.e. Requisition) on stock. If stock usage isn’t accounted for by program, do you know how to accurately translate the usage of a product to individual programs that product is used in? Or in smaller facilities is it the case that products are only used in one and only one program?

Before custom building/modifying the stock management service, I think we can figure out a way forward if we can understand how to make resupply workflows work and keep accurate reporting.


Thanks for the feedback @joshzamor ,

Looking at the case of the Moz supply chain, the product use is not program-based, at a facility level all commodities are used based on services provided.

In terms of requisitions, the products that belong to multiple programs may be reported based on their total consumption at the facility or based on programatic data (number of patients), being the later mostly used by all programs. Most programs requisitions are report-only, as their physical stock is requested through the overall facility requesition alongside the rest of the commodities.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, @Antonio_Langa and @mmegji

Thanks @Dercio_Duvane,

From chat I’m understanding that the idea is to be able to turn off progam-based processes, especially stock management, at the program-level.

With the interest of ensuring all of OpenLMIS features work as expected, I’ve had a couple thoughts:

  • Are we really turning-off program-based management? Or rather are we acknowledging for certain facilities, they only truly operate one program, and so we should “hide” the explicit program management?

  • I’m hesitant to turn off stock-management tracking by program as a program-setting. In OpenLMIS we’ve tended toward allowing flexibility between programs, and also between “levels” of the public health system. To keep that flexibility we might want the ability to turn off program-based stock management at the Facility Type level (which would therefore apply to all Facility Type Approved Products).

  • If someone wanted to configure an upper “level” of facilities using program-based stock, and a lower/lowest level of facilities that were program-less, it’d be easier in fulfillment from those upper levels to the lower levels if the program-orientation was “hidden”. That is the program would be implied.

Thoughts @Dercio_Duvane? Also wondering what you think @Chongsun_Ahn? @Klaudia_Palkowska? @Sebastian_Brudzinski?