QuickTrack
See what we’re planning for QuickTrack, vote on the features that matter most, and suggest new ideas.
Planned
15Under consideration
Data collector identity & shared-device security
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Strengthen user identification where multiple data collectors share devices, where collectors do not have individual email addresses, or where an upstream survey/API route does not carry collector details through automatically. Options raised in the SIP demo include capturing stronger identity details such as full name and ID number, improving profile switching on shared devices, maintaining collector attribution separately where required, and exploring biometric or facial-recognition login where this is appropriate and compliant. Vote if this is important for your SIP. Comment with your current device-sharing setup and the minimum identity information you need for audit and continuity.
Evidence & media library with tags, captions and feed
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Turn approved photos, supporting evidence and programme context into a reusable content library for reporting, communications and learning. Ideas raised in the SIP demo include photo tagging, captions and metadata, easier media export, and a feed that helps teams find strong evidence and stories without searching through individual submissions. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the tags, metadata or export formats your communications and M&E teams would find most useful.
Automated narrative summaries
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Generate concise narrative summaries from approved structured and qualitative QuickTrack data to support management reporting and programme learning. For SEF use, any AI-generated narrative used for official reporting should remain subject to human review. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the reports or narrative sections your team spends the most time preparing manually.
Lower-level rule overrides
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Allow selected global indicator rules to be overridden at a lower level, such as a specific Locality or worksite, where operational conditions genuinely differ. This would preserve a common programme standard while allowing carefully controlled exceptions where they are justified. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with examples of rules that need to vary by geography, site or activity.
Indicator assumptions
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Store the assumptions and interpretation notes behind an indicator alongside its configuration and results. This would help SIP and IDC teams understand exactly how a measure should be interpreted, especially where reporting rules are nuanced. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the kinds of assumptions or guidance your teams currently keep outside the system.
OCR, AI and satellite imagery checks
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Explore additional verification methods for evidence-heavy indicators, including OCR, AI-assisted checks and satellite imagery where the method is appropriate and reliable. These tools would support reviewer judgement rather than replace human review. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the evidence types or indicators where an automated verification aid would save the most time.
Cross-checks across indicators
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Support automated checks between related indicators and other relevant programme data so possible inconsistencies are highlighted before final approval. This could include relationships between outputs, attendance, targets or other configured measures where a meaningful rule exists. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the cross-checks your M&E team currently performs manually.
Season-aware anomaly & outlier checks
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Add configurable rules that flag unusual output values before final approval. The demo highlighted that some indicators are seasonal, so the checks should not rely on one fixed threshold. The design under review includes seasonal settings, reporting-period context and indicator-specific thresholds so normal peaks and dips are less likely to be treated as anomalies. Vote if this would help your SIP. Please comment with examples of indicators where seasonality or expected ranges should be taken into account.
Confidence Score v1.0
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Introduce a simple confidence score for granular submissions based on the data and evidence provided. The score could help reviewers focus attention where evidence is weak or inconsistent and summarise confidence upward by worksite, geography, Partner or SIP. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the factors you think should increase or reduce confidence in an output submission.
Automated reminders and notifications
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Use configured reporting deadlines and status to remind the right collectors, reviewers or programme managers when action is due or overdue. Channel options under consideration include email, SMS and WhatsApp, depending on programme needs and delivery costs. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with who should receive reminders, how far in advance they should be sent, and which channels you would prefer.
In Progress
Actively being built
No In Progress issues
Done
1Recently shipped