Difference between revisions of "2013-07-10 TRAC"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
'''From Melva's review of the TSC survey, she created a list of 12 ‘Associated Risks’.''' | '''From Melva's review of the TSC survey, she created a list of 12 ‘Associated Risks’.''' | ||
| − | *Austin commented the common SWOT item of ‘lack of availability of resources’ plays into the 12 risks listed. | + | *Austin commented the common SWOT item of ‘lack of availability of resources’ plays into the 12 risks listed.<br/> |
*The group walked through the risks, assigned a level of "criticalness" and came up with a few mitigation strategies. | *The group walked through the risks, assigned a level of "criticalness" and came up with a few mitigation strategies. | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
*Austin thought this risk might be focusing on those standards that have a small defined interested party. | *Austin thought this risk might be focusing on those standards that have a small defined interested party. | ||
*Melva has noticed that a lot of projects that come into HL7 that stem from 'outside of HL7'. | *Melva has noticed that a lot of projects that come into HL7 that stem from 'outside of HL7'. | ||
| − | + | <br/> | |
''RISK:'' The standards developed are not coherent. | ''RISK:'' The standards developed are not coherent. | ||
*The group labeled the risk as a critical risk | *The group labeled the risk as a critical risk | ||
''Discussion:'' | ''Discussion:'' | ||
*This risk is one of the principle drivers behind product family/product line | *This risk is one of the principle drivers behind product family/product line | ||
| − | + | <br/> | |
''RISK:'' The standards to not meet the needs of implementers | ''RISK:'' The standards to not meet the needs of implementers | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
''Discussion:'' | ''Discussion:'' | ||
*Many of the specifications are at the conceptual, logical or platform independent level. Implementers are interested in a platform specific standard. | *Many of the specifications are at the conceptual, logical or platform independent level. Implementers are interested in a platform specific standard. | ||
| − | + | <br/> | |
''RISK:'' Standards are not developed in a timely manner | ''RISK:'' Standards are not developed in a timely manner | ||
*The group labeled this risk with a low level of criticality. | *The group labeled this risk with a low level of criticality. | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
*The composition of membership of the work groups may not include a balance of membership categories. | *The composition of membership of the work groups may not include a balance of membership categories. | ||
*Some work groups have specific focuses and will not appeal to a broad spectrum of members. | *Some work groups have specific focuses and will not appeal to a broad spectrum of members. | ||
| − | + | <br/> | |
''RISK:'' There is a lack of implementation guides for the standards (V2, V3)\ | ''RISK:'' There is a lack of implementation guides for the standards (V2, V3)\ | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
*The most robust IGs have largely been developed outside of HL7. | *The most robust IGs have largely been developed outside of HL7. | ||
*This risk should be should be addressed at the product family level. | *This risk should be should be addressed at the product family level. | ||
| − | + | <br/> | |
''RISK:'' Information cannot be found. | ''RISK:'' Information cannot be found. | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
*The root issue is we have so much information. It’s a constant irritant. | *The root issue is we have so much information. It’s a constant irritant. | ||
*Electronic Services is also looking at this issue, hence that is one mitigation plan. | *Electronic Services is also looking at this issue, hence that is one mitigation plan. | ||
| − | + | <br/> | |
We stopped at the risk above. | We stopped at the risk above. | ||
Revision as of 15:57, 10 July 2013
TSC Risk Assessment Committee (TRAC) Agenda/Minutes
back to TRAC page
Meeting Info/Attendees
| TRAC Meeting Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# |
Date: 2013-07-10 Time: 10:00 AM U.S. Eastern | |
| Facilitator: Pat Van Dyke | Note taker(s): Dave Hamill | |
| Quorum | n/a | ||||
| Chair/CTO | Members | Members | |||
| X | Pat Van Dyke | X | Rick Haddorff | X | Melva Peters |
| X | John Quinn | X | Austin Kreisler | ||
Agenda
- Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke
- Review minutes of 2013-06-19 TRAC and 2013-07-03 TRAC
- Action Items:
- Melva and Rick look at Risk ID 27 (second one) and come up with ideas for accelerate standard or implementation of standard for use. Ideas for artifacts, things in place to support a product out the door for implementability that we can develop metrics for.
- Pat will work on developing a straw man for separate criteria for informative ballot reconciliation in 6 months, for example.
- Governance Point development see
- updated spreadsheet
- referred item on precept for a statement on whether an R2 project supersedes prior releases.
- review updated 890/901 PSS with Melva
- review Melva's assessment of the T3F review
Minutes
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
MOTION: Approve 6/19/2013 minutes. Austin motioned to approve. Melva 2nd. Rick abstained. Minutes approved
MOTION: Approve 7/3/2013 minutes. Rick motioned to approve Moved. Melva 2nd. Minutes approved
From Melva's review of the TSC survey, she created a list of 12 ‘Associated Risks’.
- Austin commented the common SWOT item of ‘lack of availability of resources’ plays into the 12 risks listed.
- The group walked through the risks, assigned a level of "criticalness" and came up with a few mitigation strategies.
RISK: The standards are not consensus based - there are competitors in the standards development arena.
- The group labeled the risk as a critical risk
Discussion:
- Austin thought this risk might be focusing on those standards that have a small defined interested party.
- Melva has noticed that a lot of projects that come into HL7 that stem from 'outside of HL7'.
RISK: The standards developed are not coherent.
- The group labeled the risk as a critical risk
Discussion:
- This risk is one of the principle drivers behind product family/product line
RISK: The standards to not meet the needs of implementers
- The group labeled the risk as a critical risk
Discussion:
- Many of the specifications are at the conceptual, logical or platform independent level. Implementers are interested in a platform specific standard.
RISK: Standards are not developed in a timely manner
- The group labeled this risk with a low level of criticality.
Discussion:
- Some reasons for this: Work Groups don’t have the appropriate resources to do the work; there’s also lack of understanding of what level of rigor is needed for ballot reconciliation.
- The composition of membership of the work groups may not include a balance of membership categories.
- Some work groups have specific focuses and will not appeal to a broad spectrum of members.
RISK: There is a lack of implementation guides for the standards (V2, V3)\
- The group rated it as a high risk and a high likelihood.
Discussion:
- The most robust IGs have largely been developed outside of HL7.
- This risk should be should be addressed at the product family level.
RISK: Information cannot be found.
- The group labeled this risk with a low level of criticality.
Discussion:
- The root issue is we have so much information. It’s a constant irritant.
- Electronic Services is also looking at this issue, hence that is one mitigation plan.
We stopped at the risk above.
Upcoming Calls
- Pat, Melva nor Austin are available for the call on July 24
- Next meeting will be July 31. Neither Austin and Melva may not be able to attend; the 7/31 meeting will be held even though Austin and Melva may not be able to attend.
- Next Call: Continue reviewing these risks.
- Agenda topic for the first call in August: Firm up what we want to have deliverable at the Sept WGM
Adjourned 11:04
Next Steps
| Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) | |||
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
