dhis2-devs team mailing list archive

[Jason Pickering <jason.p.pickering@xxxxxxxxx>]

I sort of agree with all of this, but the issue for us has been historical
reporting completeness rates. AFAIK, the analytics process does not respect
the "Closed date", but I could be wrong, and there is no history in the
dataset to remember when a facility was reporting, and when it stopped
reporting. As an example, maybe there are 11 facilities in a district
during 2013. If 11 reports come in during this period, then the reporting
completeness is 100%. If a facility closes in 2014, and deallocate this
inactive facility, then the current reporting completeness will be OK, but
the historical reporting completeness (i.e. for 2013) will now be
calculated as 11/10, or greater than 100%. It seems rather complex, so I
can see why it has not been implemented. However my suggestion would be that

1) Leave an inactive facility in the dataset.
2) The analytics process should respect the "Opening" and "Closed" dates
when calculating reporting completenes. If the facility is still allocated
to a dataset but inactive, you should not be able to enter data for it, but
it SHOULD be counted for reporting completeness for the time period for
which it was open.

I think that is a rather superficial analysis and I am sure it would need
to be developed better, but hope it helps to illustrate what the challenge
is when removing a closed facility from a dataset.

Regards,
Jason




On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Lars Helge Øverland <larshelge@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 4. Remove all associations between the org unit and data sets.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs
> Post to     : dhis2-devs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>