Is it sustainable?
- actively developed (check commits on GitHub)
- adequately and sustainably funded developers
- compatible with Linux or other open source operating systems
- open source may have sustainability advantages over bespoke or commercial solutions but consider TCO (total cost of ownership, including hosting, implementation and maintenance costs)
- roadmap for future development
- scalable to national level; performant
Is it implementable?
- IT and laboratory input
- acceptable to users
- accessibility requirements met
- availability of low-cost hosting, Internet connectivity and backup power
- availability of metadata, reference data
- customisable, themeable, extensible
- ease of installation
- existing training materials or activities
- localisation requirements met
- other competing solutions
- quality of documentation
- stakeholder/user input
- successful in-house pilot
- supportive community of practice
- well-defined business needs
Is it secure, protecting privacy?
- OWASP principles
- data exchange mechanisms
- patch releases, upgrades, advisories
- permission-controlled data access
Is it interoperable?
- Does it adhere to common data standards e.g. FHIR?
- Does it have an API?
Does it provide the required functionality?
- Analytical functionality
- Compatibility with processes/workflows; process map would be helpful
- Compatibility with laboratory equipment: test machines, bar code scanners etc
- Flexibility of data collection
- Focus on data quality and QA
- For clinical data
- For different types of laboratory
- For any other requirements e.g. billing
- Incident/outbreak identifiers
- Migration of historical data
- Reporting; printing
- Specialised data: AMR, one health, typing/genomics, non-microbiological data
- Use of mobile devices or SMS
Is it credible?
- Does it have big name backers?
- Is there a track record of successful implementation in other countries?
- Is it listed in Digital Public Goods?