Yesterday a debate brewed on Twitter which I think is worth continuing in a less restrictive format.
It started with me, having skimmed UNDP’s RFP document for a new AIMS in Somalia, commenting
No mention in TOR of AIMS integrating with other budget, finance or line ministry systems.
Mark Brough
It’s mentioned on p54: “Export for budget process including relevant CoA coding and filtered by on/off-treasury”
matmaxgeds
Report choices best understood via p27-29 of the underlying study: http://bit.ly/2wMumOK includes budget, finance, line Mins + many others
Bill Anderson
I don’t think export and integration are the same thing. I see matmaxgeds that the underlying study refers to ‘budget integration’
Joshua Powell
Big challenge is integration requires 2-way collab. Often budget system/team either not ready/interested in integration. Politics matter.
And typically push for integration comes more from external partner (or AIMS team) w/out buy-in or resources twinned on budget side.
Mark Brough
Yes. Plus, there are conceptual / linguistic gaps. AIMS/IFMIS teams not always talking about same thing even when they use the same words
Bill Anderson
Using politics, capacity, ignorance as excuses for building unsustainable systems doesn’t wash
Joshua Powell
Respectfully, ignoring politics is often the biggest cause of unsustainable systems. 1st FMIS trip I took, budget team refused all mtings.
Incentives, ownership, ARE systems, tech can a tool w/in systems. Same tech can suc/fail based on the political system in which it operates.
Aria Grabowski
Trick is to find a way to get buy in and support for system integration so the politics shift. Nobody said it would be easy
It seems to me that Mark Brough , matmaxgeds and Joshua Powell - who are engaged in developing AIMS - take a pragmatic approach to system design. This approach is influenced by all the constraints they make above.
My view is that this matter has nothing to do with IATI, or aid, but with the development of sustainable systems. In my view the argument for building the architecture for the integration of AIMS (with budget, finance and line ministry systems) now is no different from the argument for the need of long-term investments in registry and administrative systems in general.
I see the reliance on standalone AIMS in the same light as the current reliance in many development countries on household surveys for all their socio-economic statistics: quick fixes diverting the limited resources available away from more sustainable solutions.
Hi Bill Anderson - I think we’ve reached a point of near total agreement This is why we’ve invested heavily in the AMP API over the past 2 years, in anticipation of great future demand - happy to chat more about that on a call.