GOVERNMENT WASH MANAGEMENT · GUIDE 02
A requirements checklist for governments.
To choose a WASH management information system, define the government’s essential workflows and test whether each option supports them under real working conditions. Assess data management, offline use, permissions, interoperability, administration, support, and long-term costs.
A useful evaluation shows how the system will work for the people responsible for maintaining it. Can a field officer update an existing water point without connectivity? Can a district manager review the submission? Can a national team use the approved information without manually combining spreadsheets?
This guide provides a checklist and a practical way to compare the answers.
Write down three to five tasks the MIS must support from beginning to end. For example:
Describe the users, data, expected outcome, and working conditions for each task. Use the same scenarios to evaluate every system.
Distinguish essential requirements from desirable features. An essential requirement should be necessary to operate the system or meet an applicable obligation. Agree on these requirements before demonstrations begin.
For every requirement below, record its priority, demonstrated evidence, limitations, and the cost of meeting it. Ask technical and governance teams to confirm requirements for hosting, data handling, and institutional policies.
These four requirements cover how information reaches the system and whether it stays trustworthy once it is there.
These five requirements establish whether government keeps authority over its own information.
These five requirements decide whether the system survives beyond the first funded phase.
Give each provider the same representative sample data and tasks. Use anonymized or synthetic records where appropriate.
A practical water point test
Run these seven steps in order, with the same inventory, on every system under consideration.
Include exceptions. What happens when two people update the same asset? When a record is assigned to the wrong district? When a field officer changes jobs?
These tests reveal the practical implications of claims such as “offline-capable,” “configurable,” or “supports government reporting.”
Document which capabilities are available now, which require configuration, and which depend on new development. Record the cost, timeline, and responsibility for additional work.
Use the same planning period and assumptions for every option, for example five years if that fits the government’s planning cycle.
Include in your budget
A realistic comparison covers nine cost lines, not the software alone.
State assumptions about user numbers, data growth, and geographic expansion. Ask how costs change if those assumptions change.
The mWater platform is free to use, including unlimited users, data collection, storage, visualization, and export. Optional implementation and support services are paid. Governments should still budget for staff, fieldwork, equipment, training, and ongoing administration.
Agree on weights before reviewing results. Record evidence and limitations next to each score so the reasoning remains visible.
Essential requirements come first
Assess mandatory requirements separately. A high overall score should not conceal failure to meet an essential requirement. Keep promised capabilities distinct from those the evaluation team has verified.
For requirements needing development, specify how and when the team will test acceptance.
Before wider rollout, ask field staff, district managers, and government administrators to use the shortlisted system under representative conditions.
Choose settings that expose meaningful differences in connectivity, workload, devices, staff experience, and existing data quality.
Agree on acceptance criteria in advance: successful completion of core workflows, reliable offline synchronization, correct permissions, reproducible indicators, and independent completion of routine administrative tasks.
Record the assistance users require. The pilot should establish the training and support needed for wider adoption.
The evaluation should produce a clear record of the chosen system’s scope, demonstrated capabilities, limitations, costs, and responsibilities.
Carry tested workflows and acceptance criteria into the implementation plan. This gives government and its implementation partner a shared understanding of successful delivery.
For each requirement, capture: priority · weight · score · evidence · limitations · additional cost · responsible person · acceptance date.
Keep one record per provider, using identical requirements and scoring rules.
Governments evaluating mWater can test its data collection, infrastructure records, dashboards, organizational controls, imports, and API against their own requirements.
Companion guide: How to design a government WASH management information system.
mWater · Government WASH management series
Ready to evaluate your MIS?
Bring three government workflows, a representative dataset, and your essential requirements. Use them to test mWater with your own team.