Kaimoana catch records for a hapū
A hapū of 200 registered members wants to replace paper catch cards used at three boat ramps. Only 14 kaumātua are regular recorders; 3 have no smartphone and 4 say they will not use one. Cell coverage is patchy at one ramp. Cards are often lost or damaged. A developer quotes $5,000 for a custom app; a free spreadsheet and SMS form would cost $150 to set up. The hapū wants data to stay under its own control and to report to the local iwi trust. The chair says: 'An app looks modern - let's just do it.' The treasurer says: 'We cannot spend $5,000 on something half the recorders will not use.'
1. Recommend a digital tool approach and justify it against stakeholder needs, data sovereignty, and budget.
Read the worked answer
Do not buy the $5,000 app yet. The stakeholder evidence is decisive: 3 recorders have no smartphone and 4 refuse to use one, so an app-only tool excludes up to half the regular recorders. The patchy coverage at one ramp also means an app that needs live data will fail exactly where records are needed.
A better judgement is a hybrid: a simple SMS text form plus a paper backup card, with a free spreadsheet or database behind it. SMS works on any phone, needs no data plan, and can be received when coverage returns. Cost is about $150 plus volunteer time, leaving budget for training. For data sovereignty, the hapū should own the database and the phone number, not the developer; store data on a hapū-controlled account, and agree who can see it before collection starts. The app can be revisited after a three-month trial.
2. Describe how you would test the hybrid tool with recorders before full rollout.
Read the worked answer
Run a two-ramp, four-week pilot with 6 recorders: 3 kaumātua, 1 smartphone-only user, and 2 who normally use paper. Give each a one-page card with the SMS format and a paper backup. Ask them to record every catch and note any problem on the card.
At the end of each week, compare the SMS record with the paper record to find missing or duplicate entries. Test at the patchy-coverage ramp specifically. Check: can a recorder send a correct message without help? Does the message arrive when coverage returns? Can the coordinator export the data? Is the data visible only to authorised people? Record the time taken per entry. The pilot is successful if at least 90% of entries match and recorders say the format is usable. If not, change the form (fewer fields, te reo labels) and retest.
3. Explain what evidence would show the tool is fit for purpose after six months.
Read the worked answer
Fit for purpose means it does the job for the hapū, not that it is modern. Evidence should include: (1) percentage of catch records captured compared with the old paper baseline-target above 90%; (2) number of lost or unreadable records, which should fall; (3) number of recorders still using the tool, including the 3 without smartphones; (4) time from catch to data entry; (5) a data audit showing only authorised people accessed the data and the hapū controls the account; (6) a report to the iwi trust produced from the data without manual re-typing.
Also record complaints and fixes. If usage drops or a group is excluded, the tool is not fit for purpose even if the data look good. The decision should be reviewed at the six-month hui with the evidence tabled.