2012-01-14 TSC WGM Minutes

From HL7 TSC
(Redirected from 2012-01-14 TSC WGM Agenda)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Saturday meeting for 2012January WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: San Antonio, TX USA

Date: 2012-01-14
Time: 9:00am - 5:00 pm EST
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
Bob Dolin HL7 Board Vice-Chair (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Freida Hall HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Tony Julian HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler (Chair) HL7 TSC Chair
x Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
x Patrick Loyd HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
regrets Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Chair
Don Mon HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
regrets Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate
x Helen Stevens Ad Hoc member
x John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Mead Walker HL7 DESD Co-Chair
Q4 Dave Hamill HL7 PMO, invited guest
x Jane Curry Tooling co-chair, invited guest Q4
Q3, Q4 Steve Hufnagel invited guest Q4
Q3, Q4 John Ritter observer
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: yes

Agenda Topics

Q1 - Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues: 9 am to 10:30 am

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  4. SAIF
    • Introduction to SAIF Governance - Jane Curry
    • SAIF Architecture Program - Risk Assessment and Governance for SAIF AP Project Scope Statement (30 minutes) - Jane Curry
    • SAIF Critical Success Factors - are they the same as Strategic Initiatives (30 minutes) - Austin

Q2 - TSC Strategy (continued) and Open Issue Review: 11 am to 12:30 pm

  1. Aligning Work Group Health to Strategic Initiatives
    • Replace some of the existing health measures such as Gforge and wiki presence with metrics tied to strategic initiatives and SI Dashboard
  2. Strategic Initiatives TSC Dashboard Criteria discussion
    • Ken (#2060 on industry responsiveness and implementation),
    • Austin (#2059 on Requirements traceability, cross artifact consistency),
    • Woody (#2058 on Product Quality),
    • Patrick (#2057 on WGM Effectiveness)
  3. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
  4. Review Work Group Health Metrics suggestions

Q3 - TSC Project Review: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

  1. Project Insight #478 Product Visibility Project - next steps
  2. Product Quality Plan PI#647
  3. T3F Strategic Initiative Review PI#749
  4. HL7 Strategic Initiatives Dashboard Project (PI# 799)
  5. SAIF Architecture Program projects - See Q4
    • Risk Assessment and Governance for SAIF Architecture Program (PI# 828)
    • SAIF Pilot Coordination #764
    • SAIF IG #763
    • SAIF AP #751

Q4 - Architecture and Tooling: 3:30 pm to 5pm

  1. SAIF AP - TSC co-sponsor EHR System Function and Information Model (EHR-S FIM) Release 2.1 PSS (30 minutes) (Pat Van Dyke, Steve Hufnagle)
  2. Tooling
  3. review of Project Approval Process Documents - Dave Hamill - (TSC projects and Work Group projects), at Project Insight # 835, TSC Tracker # 2146.


ArB update

Tuesday lunch

  1. WGM Planning - agenda setting next two WGMs - agenda links
    • Schedule:
      • (January) Review TSC Mission and Charter, Decision Making Practices
      • (January) Review TSC Decision Making Practices
      • (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan
      • (May) Review TSC Communications Plan
      • (September) Review TSC SWOT
      • (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)

Supporting Documents

  1. http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6612/9007/2012Jan_Decisions_sinceWGM.xls
  2. http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6615/9016/TSC-GovernancePrimer.pptx

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Q1 - Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues: 9 am to 10:30 am

Call to order 9:10 AM CST

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda: added discussion of PBS Metrics
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM at http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6612/9007/2012Jan_Decisions_sinceWGM.xls
  4. SAIF
    • Introduction to SAIF Governance - Jane Curry
    • SAIF Architecture Program - Risk Assessment and Governance for SAIF AP Project Scope Statement (30 minutes) - Jane Curry
      • Jane shows a slide show excerpted from the SAIF tutorial. Precepts need Governance points for the areas of identified risk.
      • Ron adds you need to identify the desired level of confidence that the governance will be sufficient to identify, escalate and deal with issues. Consequences of not adhering to governance are another consideration. Helen adds if governance isn't able to be used and understood then an alternate informal governance structure will emerge such as is in use today in HL7.
      • SAIF AP is getting involved with this, as must certain TSC members notes Austin.
    • SAIF Critical Success Factors - are they the same as Strategic Initiatives (30 minutes) - Austin
      • Jane thinks the critical success factors are in two areas; what must go right for things to occur, and the other is the values in adherence to driving principles or design principles. Collaborative culture of HL7 must not be hampered by the governance. We must have coherence in our product set. Need to coalesce our artifacts and our products around that. Coherence design principle was what blurred distinction between architecture program and SI. Ron adds we must be concerned with consumability in our products created with SAIF. Consumable, he notes, should be by someone who doesn't sit at the HL7 meetings. He'd like to see SI concerned around the consumability. Patrick notes that our requirements processes are not strongly defensible. Requirements expressions are one point of entry for people to recognize what we do adds Ron. Austin notes that Steve's discussion later will speak to that. Helen notes that the ability to cross leverage our product strains through the organization. EHR FM did not start out as an expression of interoperability notes Patrick. The market is backing us into interoperability because of the popularity of their use, the functional approach should be modeled and leveraged by the rest of the organization. Ron adds that the sponsorship of stakeholder meetings has not been adopted for other groups and the example has not been followed. Patrick notes that OO is making progress on that with Lab. He and Lorraine will be working with EHR for designing requirements as well as with MnM on Artifact Definition in 2012. They will then begin working with SOA facilitation will be developing RMIMs with service awareness.
      • The EHR FM representation in a model that interacts with our other products is a concern with Woody. Representation in MIF is important; Helen notes they first want to output as XML as they have been using Word in the past. There is a project with Tooling to develop EHR Profile designer and the project includes creating MIF. Discussion ensued with who defines MIF and the interaction between Tooling and MnM for MIF definition. Patrick notes that OO needs MnM and Tooling for the BF to also have representation in MIF. ACTION ITEM: Austin will also need to flag the Tooling EHR Profile designer as a SAIF Architecture project.
      • Mead notes that CDA like V2 creates a toolbox into which things can be placed. Ron adds there are opportunities to do something useful but if a sustainable artifact is derived from that one-off opportunity the work product should be gestated so that it can evolve to be re-consumable. We haven't figured out how to do that yet. He suggests we look at our Project Scope Statements, at the template, to instantiate the governance points and the vectors from those points. The PSS needs to elaborate those points so Work Groups can understand the nature of the responsibilities and what they need to do. PSS also identifies products that may need to gestate into a persistent state but not necessarily by the group that first defines or identifies it. Calvin adds that the formality and checkpoints have to be carefully considered with respect to the volunteer nature of the organization. You can get a deadlock between 5 or 6 Work Groups spanning one of these projects. We should start with an encouragement of best practice, and then build on that to set expectations for process.
      • Patrick notes OO needs to be able to go to these other groups like EHR and ask for resources. We may have taken some of these roles out of the project scope statement but Requirements Facilitators or SAIF Facilitators are still needed and we need a different engagement model. Helen notes that EHR is struggling with so many projects, so many initiatives, the four-and-a-half cochairs and volunteers are all swamped. Need to define what that participation of ten Work Groups on a project would look like. Some EHR initiatives and engagements are outside of HL7 as they're developing projects that will eventually come into HL7. Patrick notes that EHR needs to be represented as well as Services for the SAIF AP. SAIF stops if EHR can't play. Helen notes that the EHR chairs already have three hours a week committed. Calvin states the goal is to improve processes without tipping the apple cart. Look at best practices and initiate a few things rather than 5 things; should requirements already be put together and documented in a certain way. Austin notes the AP is experimenting on exactly what Calvin is talking about. All the little threads out there need to be pulled together. Fundamental predicates from the SAIF AP cannot yet be mandatory however. There is a role for the FM in any specification.
      • Woody notes that we can't have certain standards become "SAIF Branded" but the whole organization needs to be SAIF Branded instead of creating 'blue' standards and 'red' standards. We want to decrease silos not create higher ones. Helen notes that we need to take the structure of what the EHR WG does and move it into the OO group to produce requirements into that model for OO. Austin would like to see that move into the SAIF AP. FM architecture/infrastructure evolution to become consumable by other WGs - Austin notes that the FM becomes a type of artifact such as the Artifact Definition project might do. Freida adds that there was once a desire to create a FM for every product HL7 already produced. Austin notes that what Steve is bringing may feed into a requirement to produce such an FM for any product. Calvin would like to see an FM before going into the solution space for any area.
      • Helen notes she created a tutorial for the new EHR S FM and it was cancelled for lack of enrollment. Freida suggests it be narrated and shown as a webinar. We need to correlate the artifacts we already have to the EHR-S FM notes Ron. There will be a broader audience than HL7's core group. It also needs to be brought to Structured Documents notes Calvin. Perhaps we can have HQ sponsor the instruction of the tutorial for participants of the SAIF AP and OO for free to develop the EHRS FM knowledge for the SAIF AP. Woody notes the Tooling tutorial was cancelled for the same lack of enrollment that cochairs could benefit from. We used to offer co-chair training - so like a co-chair retreat on Saturday or Sunday afternoon. Helen suggests use the Monday Q1 and Q2 at the January WGMs for cochair training. Charge non-co-chairs but grant seats if you have need for these prerequisite skills and knowledge. Jane suggests you use the same approach to modeling and publishing facilitators. The TSC could decide which are the priority tutorials to attend. Point out that past attendance at the tutorials may be an element in a campaign statement for cochair position. Patrick notes that we have to be sure to encourage more participants rather than overtasking the cochairs or facilitators who already wear many hats. Jane notes it is leadership training. Patrick notes that attendees need some sort of role designation to receive discounted registration. Helen notes even running a meeting, effective collaboration, or other topics in leadership training would be helpful. Austin suggests we follow up with Education as well as HQ on the idea.
      • Lynn reminds the group that meeting requests by Project was suggested at one time in order to bring the groups together. Joint meetings have been used instead and projects scheduled by agenda at a joint session. Woody notes that any matrix organization form has its own difficulties. Ed notes that a scheduled meeting labeled Common Product Model or Clinical Statement would likely overflow a room.

Q1 recessed at 10:30AM CST

Q2 - TSC Strategy (continued) and Open Issue Review: 11 am to 12:30 pm

Convene 10:58AM CST

  • Continuing discussion on governance, noted Austin with Jane that we have governance inter-organization outside of HL7 that impacts our work products. Liaison work with external organizations also has challenges. Woody notes the TSC must understand the impact on what we consider internally to be our standards development practices. He offers the example of OMG, with our CTS2 functional model handed off to OMG and we get back a normative service specification without regard to whether they follow and retain our specification/data models with their differing methodology. Other examples include JIC, S&I Framework. QRDA is a sibling, not a subordinate to CDA will be another to regard. CIMI is another, yet informal, collaboration with virtually 100% membership overlap. TSC sponsors Activities with Other SDOs each WGM Sunday Q4, which will expand into Q3 Monday to discuss whatever arises on Sunday. Processes through the organization which extend out into other organizations, and vice versa, are not explicit. Jane notes that with the governance framework they need to be made explicit, along with appeal processes. S&I, notes Calvin, is vetted in the PSS process and reviewed here, already. Jane notes we need to still be collected up and understood as part of governance process. PSS started out informally and has tightened up to the understanding that you must have one approved to go forward to ballot. There is no single place where these are described. The processes, their rationale, the corresponding artifacts and precepts need to be identified.
  • Freida notes the individual agreements with other organizations may each have their own processes in them. Austin notes that SAIF governance is not only internal processes but may extend outside to things the Board is assigned to work on. Woody notes if we concern ourselves with the areas in which the risk is high; e.g. II has responsible for DICOM relationship where the risk is low, SOA with OMG has higher risk. The ORC is a Board committee with whom the TSC has a liaison without direct authority notes Lynn. If a Work Group is involved with that relationship then the TSC becomes involved notes Patrick. Calvin notes that on projects where external organizations identified that their roles are not well defined with relation to our Work Groups. Jane cites a project with OMG on MIF that has not had update in a year. This speaks to the critical success factor of resource availability.
  • SOA work with HSSP is more transparent John notes but the example of MIF with OMG leaves some asserting that UML can be extended with profiles and can do everything we need. Primitives such as code systems, value sets etc can not be represented as primitives in UML notes Woody and so cannot be represented. They want OHT to use the UML mapping process for CIMI but the person making the advocacy statement is not as knowledgeable as needed to represent the whole RIM. Woody notes that you can represent the RIM in UML with an HL7 profile but you cannot represent the terminology at the detailed level with the RIM in UML. IBM with the VA funded by ONC is putting some code overlay on the RIM; should John be worried? ACTION ITEM: Woody will send John his few slides on it; John asks if he'd speak with Galen this week. John and Cecil Lynch agree that clinical information modeling in their focus is more on dynamic modeling.
  • Calvin mentioned associating PSS with external orgs with MOU - need to verify external agreements with listed orgs and their interaction. Ed Tripp is our ORC liaison. Freida notes that the PSS doesn't currently indicate whether an agreement is in place with whatever organization is collaborating. ACTION ITEM: Freida will take it up with Dave. ACTION ITEM: Ed needs to draft responsibilities for the ORC liaison.
  1. Aligning Work Group Health to Strategic Initiatives
    • Replace some of the existing health measures such as Gforge and wiki presence with metrics tied to strategic initiatives and SI Dashboard
    • Where can we modify WGH metrics to achieve SI. For example most Work Groups already have a Wiki page; is this a useful WGH metric any longer? Helen notes she had gone to find a Work Group's work products and minutes and found it woefully out of date. Minutes publication is tracked separately and there are some work groups that are in the red. However the presence of the wiki page no longer contributes to WGH; we need to raise the bar or find a way to measure something contributing to the SI. Mead asks if we should evaluate how to manage the Work Groups that are always in the red. Austin notes that in Domain Experts they have used the metrics to frame the discussion with those that are in the red and it hasn't helped. At one time there was a need for a group of US agencies to discuss what was going on and its time ended 8 years ago. Austin suggests that any member of the work group can propose dissolution and some TSC members are members. Lynn suggests consolidation with EHR as with previous WG consolidations that adds cochairs to the target WG. Pat suggests we approach Mitra as a courtesy or Nancy Orvis who is mostly working with Emergency Care. Helen asks if Government Projects is meeting days this week and EHR could really use multiple rooms with different cochairs running separate meetings on the basis of multiple projects. Should EHR split into multiple Work Groups? We cannot have a single approach to red Work Groups so Austin suggests the Steering Division chairs should discuss with their groups. Patrick suggests that each Steering Division chair go through their WGH and review what they're doing with each of their red groups as a presentation to the TSC.
    • Model consistency is one initiative and model or pattern harmonization was piloted at the last harmonization successfully. Modelers for RIM and Vocab have dropped off since going to telephone harmonization. Pattern, Vocabulary, or RIM harmonization participation is a candidate WGH metric. Of the 16 hours of calls that are scheduled how do you know which parts one should attend? All three forms of harmonization feed modeling consistency as well as facilitation skill development. Austin suggests we replace the wiki metric with participation in one of the harmonization processes. T3SD is not appropriate for that metric. Mead asks how Structured Documents can be encouraged to participate; how will you get EHR to participate. Four silos in messages, documents, services and EHR - so how to get all four silos to participate. Helen asks if WGs will create profiles from the EHRS FM; EHRS and PHRS FMs are the current FMs, there will need to be an alignment between them for going forward. R2 of EHRS FM will cause PHR to be out of alignment and this needs to be addressed. Jane feels that Pattern Harmonization will be of appeal to EHR to encourage the need to define a pattern for creating new models. What would happen if in 5 years time there were 20 functional models (not profiles but models) asks Helen? Such a pattern would be needed. Calvin notes that SDWG is building a constraint profile for document IGs. Clinical Statement pattern as a pattern has been in the ballot for some years, notes Patrick and a new definition of Pattern might be useful in that context. Calvin asks who defines the meta-patterns that are harmonized, MnM or who, and how are they vetted or approved. Woody notes a group of three have typically initiated such patterns and that it then extends. Process to date Patrick notes it becomes a Hot Topic for MnM and eventually gets covered in Harmonization as a formal topic. Calvin cautions we need participation defined; Woody notes that Hot Topics as proposed are now their own collector on the wiki not just for MnM.
    • Helen suggests communication with the stakeholders should be on there with the WGH with responsibility for them with the Steering Division cochairs. Mead would prefer to leave the metrics mechanical. Ed suggests that we raise the bar so that update to the wiki is the new metric. Woody cautions that a busy WG wiki page starts with a static front page and the activity happens in the sub-pages. Woody notes that the SD cochairs didn't sign up to be babysitters for their WGs. MOTION: Calvin moves removing wiki and add participation in harmonization as a WGH metric except for T3SD. Patrick seconds. Discussion on meeting minutes where a WG that doesn't post minutes doesn't get meeting rooms ensued as a separate metric. Helen suggests an amendment that the importance of maintaining and keeping current a WG wiki page is emphasized when this is announced. Calvin and Patrick accept the amendment.
    • FINAL MOTION: Remove wiki presence and add participation in harmonization with the exception of T3SD, with emphasis on the importance of keeping a WG's wiki pages up to date. Ed suggests we see if there's some way to automate a crawl to check for WG web page updates. Consider for future use. ACTION ITEM: Lynn will add a tracker to follow up. VOTE: unanimously approved.
    • Austin suggests that the TSC members continue to think about how to establish metrics that relate back to Strategic Initiatives
  2. Review Work Group Health Metrics suggestions
    • SWOT, 3 year plan and M&C and DMP are all administrative documents that should be up to date. 3 year plan should be reviewed every year. Helen suggests that all the administrative documents be under one metric and the time frame for each document defined separately. Others discussed keeping it separate for transparency. Helen points out you can not post minutes, not vote in the TSC election and not have any calls and still be green? Calvin moves that if a WG doesn't have minutes they are automatic red. Patrick seconds. The posting of minutes is one mandatory requirement, since it is an ANSI requirement. That is raising the bar on minutes; the next step beyond this would be to tie minutes to the ability to schedule meeting room space.
    • MOTION: Work Groups not having posted minutes in the current Work Group Cycle are automatically marked Red on Work Group Health VOTE: Unanimously approved.
    • Lynn asks how to monitor what work groups represented at harmonization. They have a process where an individual can represent multiple work groups. Karen tracks who participates. Helen notes that this is better than nothing but will not solve the problem. It was generally agreed that there would be work groups that will ignore this new metric. Pat notes that it will be a learning process to see how this will evolve.

Recessed for lunch at 12:37 AM CST

Q3 - TSC Project Review: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

Re-convened at 1:35 PM CST

  • MOTION: Ed moves that the WGH metric for SWOT be reviewed within the last three years. Mead seconds. VOTE: Helen opposes. 5/1/0 motion passes. Helen would prefer to have all the documents coordinated.
  1. Strategic Initiatives TSC Dashboard Criteria discussion
    • Ken (#2060 on industry responsiveness and implementation), not at this meeting
    • Woody (#2058 on Product Quality),
      • Woody describes his changes to the dashboard wiki page, changing product quality to product development effectiveness and product ballot quality.
    • Patrick (#2057 on WGM Effectiveness);
      • Patrick will put in tracker and send to Lynn - what problem are we trying to manage and monitor. Questionnaire works to get information from Work Groups themselves. Need a way to evaluate the answers from the Work Groups. Different perspectives within the US or international, with threshold levels. % of WG registered who actually attend, % who get their agenda posted within x weeks of the WGM or by the deadline; the # of people who lose quorum during the meeting; # of US based attendees, # of international attendees, # of FTAs; are we losing money (Profit/loss criteria) may not be in the TSC purview. Please add questions comments and concerns to the wiki.
    • Austin (#2059 on Requirements traceability, cross artifact consistency),
      • Austin describes his updates to the wiki page. Jane suggests normative SAIF IG published occurs after SAIF AP trial ECCF; the list is not intended to be sequential at this time. The rollout is how we're going to get to requirements traceability. Calvin asks if requirements scope statement is contained within the project scope statement. What is the artifact for requirements to which that we can have traceability? Patrick notes that there is a huge list from the artifact definition effort. Those need to be encapsulated into the SAIF IG as the list is too large for a particular project. Registering things, fulfilling things, documenting things all have to be choices from a sort of menu. We're not there yet. Ed notes that a lot of requirements need to come from non-technical sources. Ron notes there needs to be a segmenting of contribution based on the leveling from the SAIF. The PIC project to define the various roles needs to align with this. Patrick notes of the current artifacts that have a certain process to produce those artifacts is weaker than it's been in years. Ron notes that conceptual artifacts may map to several artifacts further below on the matrix. Mapping of other artifacts up to conceptual level artifacts all need to be looked at as well. Decomposition of abilities based on skill sets is also required. To do something in Lab you shouldn't have to know everything about lab in HL7 from soup to nuts. Mead asks we need to look at it also in terms of what we'd like to see. Patrick notes that both CDA and EHR are both highly popular and neither are about exchange, and are simpler.
      • Austin asks if traceability to ECCF is the answer to this issue. We are only trying to "enable" requirements traceability, not that we're doing it well. Monitoring the quality of the traceability is something that may have to be established later with fuller implementation of the IG. We'll need to measure the progress as we see progress with the SAIF. Mead suggests we do some rules how to go from DAM to xyz specification to do that, DAM to DMIM etc. Some of that will come from the Artifact Definition project. DAM and informational spec, DMIM is structural specification notes Steve Hufnagel. Patrick shows three pages of candidate associations of artifacts they're working on. Ed notes that storyboards are not enough for gathering requirements, for example. Steve notes that he will have information on that in the next quarter on the EHR FIM.
      • Austin notes that the SAIF AP may need to go through these and agree what are the correct milestones. We the TSC need to say if this is the right approach. Jane cautions that we need tooling to support the artifacts; Patrick notes that the tool, like EA, may drive the artifacts rather than the need for the traceability. Jane suggests we need to prototype with the available tools for now but we need the tooling and education to support their use.
      • Cross artifact consistency measurement as moving average of participation in harmonization over past three cycles for DESD, FTSD, and SSDSD, and publication requests which note use of managed CMET's, harmonized patterns, or Common Domain Models. Evaluate whether standards approved over the past period, of how many standards were published, how many met these criteria. Understanding these measures as a way to represent how well HL7 is making progress towards the strategic initiatives; not to label an individual standard publication with the rating used for the criteria. One metric is measuring input, one is measuring output. Austin notes that Ken proposed the dashboard doesn't show at the criteria level, only at the top level. The TSC does not have responsibility for all criteria under the initiatives however. Ken's other idea is that we track this by projects; tying it to the PSS where the TSC would assign projects to the SI criteria for tracking instead of self-identifying. Discussion ensued where the feeling was that separate projects for requirements traceability, cross artifact consistency, etc would not each have its own project. Lynn suggests evaluating them on a case by case basis. Something may require a project but audit processes for counting don't require a project.
      • Next step; need to review the draft metrics and determine exactly how we count them. ACTION ITEM: Lynn will put them on an upcoming conference call. TSC members on Strategic Initiatives committee might lobby for a two-year cycle rather than annual change to SI since the ability to assess the initiatives isn't as fast as our ability to change the initiatives. Different measures for international venues are not necessarily a good idea, Helen says not to let the international folks off too easily. We'll invite Ken as the project leader on the strategic dashboard project to join us on the upcoming call.
  2. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
    • briefly reviewed issues; none for discussion today
  3. Project Insight #478 Product Visibility Project - next steps; when survey closes Feb 12th Lynn will bring survey results to TSC and we can close project. Next after visibility is Product Strategy
  4. Product Quality Plan PI#647 - rolled into SAIF Architecture Program; Austin still has something to write up for this.
  5. T3F Strategic Initiative Review PI#749 - Woody has no report.
  6. HL7 Strategic Initiatives Dashboard Project (PI# 799) - See earlier discussion.
  7. SAIF Architecture Program projects - See Q4; Austin notes that the SAIF AP seems to have stalled. Some projects have noted the Artifact Definition project as a bottleneck to their advancement. Austin will be talking with MnM and others Q3 Sunday to get the Artifact Definition effort moving again. Austin suggests an OOC meeting or funding someone to do it. Helen suggests framing the definition in such a way that external vendors might sponsor funding the tooling to generate and manage the artifacts. Lab won't attract that participation, medication might. They're not ready to change topics yet.
    • Risk Assessment and Governance for SAIF Architecture Program (PI# 828)
    • SAIF Pilot Coordination #764
    • SAIF IG #763
    • SAIF AP #751
  8. Review PBS Metrics and how we'll use them
    • Evaluation from Project Services on how to use the PBS Metrics reviewed
    • Ed suggests we put up a slide to remind cochairs we're using these, in the cochairs meeting. Ed also suggests you start by addressing those Work Group PBS measures that are red; later we can work on those that are in yellow. Freida also notes that Dave did a tip sheet on how to update project insight. Lynn shows the FTSD summary. Calvin suggests the Steering Division go through the dashboard (work group by work group).

Recessed 2:58 PM

Q4 - Architecture and Tooling: 3:30 pm to 5pm

Convened 3:25 PM

  1. SAIF AP - TSC co-sponsor EHR System Function and Information Model (EHR-S FIM) Release 2.1 PSS (30 minutes) (Pat Van Dyke, Steve Hufnagel)
    • Steve presents his slide show while Pat describes the project. They seek the TSC to cosponsor the project.
      • Patrick notes that OO has been identifying a need for just what EHR is doing, and is doing much the same thing with Artifact Definition. OO must get plugged in together with EHR for this and a separate project may not be the way to go.
      • Calvin asks what is the relationship of the base V3 work to the products that are being produced when we have domain committees each dedicated to work on their own areas.
      • Patrick's concern is that the conceptual models won't match what they've been doing for ten years. #**Ron adds a picture of set theory to represent lab, rx, OO, EHR and domain relationships.
      • OO may identify functional specifications outside of the current EHR model as Austin noted.
      • Ron describes FIM=>RIM and the notion RIM represents data in interoperability exchange but not necessarily data in persistence.
      • Woody notes that it has been previously observed that all Information models should be RIM-derived; if that theory still holds with this? Can EHR represent what they need in RIM-derived constructs, and if not can they come to Harmonization?
      • Steve describes the initial effort with Immunization Management, then Diabetes, and later continuity of care.
      • MOTION: Patrick moves to co-sponsor the project under the umbrella leadership of the SAIF AP. Pat seconds. Ron notes there is a value proposition for TSC sponsorship. Woody feels we should be helping it gain facilitation but not as cosponsor. TSC cosponsored MnM SAIF IG project, and Austin would be willing to go to the Board to seek funding to overcome roadblocks. Are we prepared to bring strategic resources to this project? If cosponsorship is necessary to do so, then Woody doesn't object. Patrick feels it will ripple change throughout the organization and that it is important but must be well understood and have appropriate oversight and management. OO and MnM are also cosponsors of the project. VOTE: DESD opposes, motion passes 5/0/1 as this sponsorship may dilute our support of other things. Woody moves they put conceptual in front of information model as part of the project name. He will address with the project team.
  2. Tooling
    • John narrates his slide show. Woody asks how soon the deadline for submitting? Two weeks after, like Feb 2nd for submissions and Feb 16th is selection. John Ritter adds that a pool of projects to choose from and an HL7 expert to work with for a student and a university advisor. John Quinn thinks that might be something for future consideration. We may be able to sell this to Sparx as a future effort. The contest should be a UML tooling based contest objective. Woody notes this does not preclude Eclipse EMF or others in addition to Sparx EA. Is the OID registry in Tooling's concern, asks Mead? Yes, notes Jane. The Fresh Look task force still has the rest of the Fresh Look list of items to consider; CIMI is a spin off of the Clinical Information Modeling item on the list that has Stan's attention. CIMI is not an HL7 project.
  3. Review of Project Approval Process Documents - Dave Hamill - (TSC projects and Work Group projects), at Project Insight # 835, TSC Tracker # 2146.
    • Reviewed TSC sponsored projects process. Prior discussion on ArB review was at issue on page 9. Governance really falls to TSC, and issues with a TSC-sponsored project may need review by the Architecture Program; not needed for the TSC. For Work Group sponsored projects, the TSC may consider it for inclusion in the SAIF AP in step 6 rather than step 3. Steering Divisions may also refer a project to the SAIF AP in step 5. This can be added under the bullets in the white area instead of the green area. Calvin asks if there's operational efficiency on having two projects for two ballot types; there's no real advantage but it does allow a work group to show progress and closing off the portion of the work that is complete. The list of SDOs with which SOUs exist will be updated with the Project Scope statement. If a DSTU needs to change release to go normative a new scope statement in needed; description is in the PSS FAQ but not in the project approval process.
    • Motion by Patrick seconded by Woody to endorse the documents VOTE: Unanimously approved

Adjourned 5:03 PM.

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Austin will also need to flag the Tooling EHR Profile designer as a SAIF Architecture project .
  • Austin suggests we follow up with Education as well as HQ on the idea of Monday Q1/Q2 tutorials for cochair and facilitator training topics
  • Woody will send John his few slides on primitives in UML for code systems, vocabulary and datatypes.
  • Freida will take it up with Dave that the PSS doesn't currently indicate whether an agreement is in place with whatever organization is collaborating.
  • Ed needs to draft a list of responsibilities for the ORC liaison.
  • Lynn will add a tracker to follow up on how to automate a crawl to check for WG web page updates. Consider for future use.
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • Lynn will put an upcoming conference call the review of the draft SI criteria metrics and determine exactly how we count them.