We are starting the steep DHIS2 learning curve for its use in the water sector and would like to benefit from your collective experience to get our implementation right.
We map all the points according to the national geo-administrative hierarchy of the country but the hierarchy is slightly different in Urban and rural areas.
Down to ward it is the same but then in urban areas it goes down to street one level only while in rural areas there are two level down, villages and and Hamlets as illustrated below.
We think we do best to duplicate the street as highlighted in the table but are not sure that is required. Anybody came across a similar problem and implemented an elegant solution?
What you are really proposing is a placeholder orgunit (to fill the gap in your hierarchy). We have also done that in South Africa and I would say it is a workable solution in your case.
We are starting the steep DHIS2 learning curve for its use in the water sector and would like to benefit from your collective experience to get our implementation right.
We map all the points according to the national geo-administrative hierarchy of the country but the hierarchy is slightly different in Urban and rural areas.
Down to ward it is the same but then in urban areas it goes down to street one level only while in rural areas there are two level down, villages and and Hamlets as illustrated below.
We think we do best to duplicate the street as highlighted in the table but are not sure that is required. Anybody came across a similar problem and implemented an elegant solution?
This message and any attachments are subject to a disclaimer published at http://www.hisp.org/policies.html#comms_disclaimer. Please read the disclaimer before opening any attachment or taking any other action in terms of this electronic transmission. If you cannot access the disclaimer, kindly send an email to disclaimer@hisp.org and a copy will be provided to you. By replying to this e-mail or opening any attachment you agree to be bound by the provisions of the disclaimer.
Thank you very much for your prompt reply and confirming that this could work. I was wondering if anybody has implemented another approach that does not require a double entry of the street name as a placeholder?
Kind regards
K.
···
On 31 May 2016 at 14:12, Elmarie Claasen elmarie@hisp.org wrote:
Hi Kristof,
What you are really proposing is a placeholder orgunit (to fill the gap in your hierarchy). We have also done that in South Africa and I would say it is a workable solution in your case.
We are starting the steep DHIS2 learning curve for its use in the water sector and would like to benefit from your collective experience to get our implementation right.
We map all the points according to the national geo-administrative hierarchy of the country but the hierarchy is slightly different in Urban and rural areas.
Down to ward it is the same but then in urban areas it goes down to street one level only while in rural areas there are two level down, villages and and Hamlets as illustrated below.
We think we do best to duplicate the street as highlighted in the table but are not sure that is required. Anybody came across a similar problem and implemented an elegant solution?
This message and any attachments are subject to a disclaimer published at http://www.hisp.org/policies.html#comms_disclaimer. Please read the disclaimer before opening any attachment or taking any other action in terms of this electronic transmission. If you cannot access the disclaimer, kindly send an email to disclaimer@hisp.org and a copy will be provided to you. By replying to this e-mail or opening any attachment you agree to be bound by the provisions of the disclaimer.
The other question you should ask yourself prior to implementing such a detailed hierarchy, is whether you will be doing analysis at all those levels. Other implementations I have been involved in have taken out a level or two (leaving out street and attaching the water point directly to the ward for instance) because it was too difficult to maintain the hierarchy at such a detailed level. Organization unit levels should be driven by an analysis requirement.
Otherwise, there is no requirement that you must have all water points at the same level. You can use organization unit groups to impart this distinction.
Regards,
Jason
···
On 31 May 2016 at 14:12, Elmarie Claasen elmarie@hisp.org wrote:
Hi Kristof,
What you are really proposing is a placeholder orgunit (to fill the gap in your hierarchy). We have also done that in South Africa and I would say it is a workable solution in your case.
We are starting the steep DHIS2 learning curve for its use in the water sector and would like to benefit from your collective experience to get our implementation right.
We map all the points according to the national geo-administrative hierarchy of the country but the hierarchy is slightly different in Urban and rural areas.
Down to ward it is the same but then in urban areas it goes down to street one level only while in rural areas there are two level down, villages and and Hamlets as illustrated below.
We think we do best to duplicate the street as highlighted in the table but are not sure that is required. Anybody came across a similar problem and implemented an elegant solution?
This message and any attachments are subject to a disclaimer published at http://www.hisp.org/policies.html#comms_disclaimer. Please read the disclaimer before opening any attachment or taking any other action in terms of this electronic transmission. If you cannot access the disclaimer, kindly send an email to disclaimer@hisp.org and a copy will be provided to you. By replying to this e-mail or opening any attachment you agree to be bound by the provisions of the disclaimer.