Greetings everyone!
In need of assistance assembling pieces of evidence for the Mandatory Criteria.
I am a Software Developer working with a faith-based health service organization in my country.
I developed an electronic version of the national facility registers for reporting and monitoring HIV patients.
It has been adopted by the Ministry of Public Health as a national tool for monitoring HIV patients.
It is currently used by over 2,500 health facilities.
It is also utilized in scientific research and has been cited in published scientific journals.
Weaknesses:
All media publications mention the name of the organization without crediting the developer.
Due to internal regulations, I do not have access to the official document from the Ministry of Public Health validating it as a national tool. However, the information has been published on the Ministry of Public Health’s website, crediting the organization I work with.
Pieces of Evidence:
Git commits
Source code (which I cannot use)
User panel of the system that validates my role as Lead Developer
Hi @marietta-a this is a great work with national impact!
Can you get a strong reference letter from a senior exec in your organization talking about your specific contributions and national impact, crediting the recognition of work to your contribution?
In addition any news articles mentioning this adoption by national health org even if it doesn’t mention your name?
Hi @marietta-a It is clear you have worked on something very impactful with national relevance. However, for GT evidence purposes, there are some concerns you need to address
Context of the Organization
A faith-based organization is indeed understood as a religious/non-profit entity. While there is nothing inherently wrong with such an organization building software that is adopted by public ministry, reviewers may raise questions around procurement policy and governance. You may want to clarify how and why your organization solution was adopted by a public sector agency. A bit of the info, and the article that shows the Ministry credited your organization may be needed to address this.
Individual Contribution vs. Team Effort
Claiming to have developed a system for an organization now used by 2,500 facilities may raise credibility issues. Reviewers typically expect such projects to involve a team (developers, QA, testers, DevOps, etc.). If you were the lead developer, then you need to show clear evidence of leadership, not just technical contribution.
Lack of Explicit Attribution
Since media and Ministry documents credit only your organization and not you personally, the evidence as it stands lacks external verification of your personal role . For GT, this is a key requirement.
On the Evidence You Listed
Git commits / source code : These show contribution but do not establish leadership or external recognition.
User panel / reporting interface access : These prove you have access but don’t demonstrate authorship or leadership. An admin or developer ole within a system is not considered strong evidence.
Source code: if you have access, would still not count as external recognition, as anyone can have access to some part of an application source code by just clicking inspect on a browser.
In its current form, the evidence looks weak. However, with reference letter from your organization or the Ministry referencing what you have done and its impact, along side your pieces of evidence, then it may suffice.
Your work developing a national HIV monitoring system adopted by 2,500+ health facilities is genuinely impressive and shows exceptional impact. However, the evidence presentation needs strengthening since external recognition isn’t explicitly attributing your personal contributions. Focus on getting strong reference letters from senior executives at your organization and potentially the Ministry of Public Health that specifically credit your technical leadership and innovation in developing this system.
I’ve seen successful applications where developers faced similar attribution challenges but overcame them by combining technical evidence with compelling reference letters. Your Git commits showing substantial code contributions, along with system architecture documentation and user interface screenshots demonstrating your developer access, can work well when bundled with letters that explicitly state your role as lead developer. The key is having credible professionals vouch for your specific contributions rather than just organizational achievements.
Consider reaching out to ministry officials who interact with your system or senior health administrators who can speak to the technical innovation you brought to their operations. In past applications I’ve reviewed, candidates successfully used a combination of technical proof (like your Git history), organizational letters confirming leadership roles, and third-party testimonials about system impact to build compelling mandatory criteria evidence.
Thank you @Akash_Joshi
Obtaining a reference from a ministry official is challenging. Is it okay for an M&E Officer who utilizes the software to write a reference in addition to the letter from my organization