As a program planner and implementer, i have always been delved into this topic that only having access to data and that showcase in dashboard is not enough. Unless these data are not understood and translated to decision makers, the change is critical in any health system. Let us hear the different aspect of data personnel who have been using data and what are those hindrances that is affecting its usage in the decision making.
Hi @SherpaY
Welcome back to the community! 
I think this is a very important clue. Data needs to be understood so that it’s not merely a collection of bits without knowing why but an actual plan/strategy of what actually needs to be collected. Involving decision makers requires the understanding of what they need to know and why.
I actually think this is another clue, which is ‘implementation’ because no-matter what no design or plan is perfect until it is tested in the field. This is also where the CoP comes into play, a way to learn from all the implementations by discussing with other implementers. It is great when people share the challenges they are facing or that they faced because allows knowledge and experience to be shared and accumulated rather than lost and unknown.
What do you think of these two clues? 
Thanks!
Hi Sherpa, You are asking fundamental questions about a Routine Health Information System (RHIS). The AIM of a RHIS:
- The HMIS (Health Management Information System) is the cornerstone of information policy and planning in a country
- Health Management strives to translate health policy into practise
- District or the Health Management Information System (people and processes) provides the mechanisms to monitor the translation of health policy into action, and this cascades down from national, sub national, district and facility levels. And when collected on a routine basis, is called a RHIS
- Whatever is decided for the HMIS/RHIS, is then translated into data collection, collation, analysis and reporting into DHIS2.
- The HMIS/RHIS then enables districts (and any other levels) to assess where the goals, indicators and targets based on strategic/operation/annual plans are being achieved
Using the Information Cycle which starts with What are our objectives, indicators and targets we want to achieve? This defines what you need to collect as data elements.
Raw data is translated into indicators and measured against the targets.
Management needs indicators and targets to assess if their policies are working well. If there are no set indicators and targets, then why are you collecting data?
Using RHIS data is based on the Information Cycle and the Management Cycle that each provide the rationale for management decision making.
Should you wish to contact me, my email address is norah@hisp.org
I hope this helps you think about what and whay you are asking these questions
Best wishes
Norah
Building on @Norah_Stoops and @Gassim points, I think a key challenge lies in the space between RHIS design and the actual use of data at the implementation level.
DHIS2 may be well-structured with clear indicators, targets, and reporting processes, but the challenge can arise when this data needs to support day-to-day decision-making.
At the facility or program level, it’s not just about whether data is available, but whether it is clearly understood and consistently discussed in a way that leads to action.
From experience, two things often matter most:
- Understanding what indicators mean in the local operational context
- Having routine spaces where data is reviewed and translated into actions, not just reported
Without that link, data can remain well captured in DHIS2 but still underused for decisions.
I think this “translation layer” between RHIS design and practical use is often where the gap is.