Difference between revisions of "2013-07-10 TRAC"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with '__NOTOC__ ==TSC Risk Assessment Committee (TRAC) Agenda/Minutes == back to TRAC page ===Meeting Info/Attendees=== Category:2013 TSC Minutes {|border="1" cellpad…')
 
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
|colspan="2"|Chair/CTO ||colspan="2"|Members ||colspan="2"|Members  
 
|colspan="2"|Chair/CTO ||colspan="2"|Members ||colspan="2"|Members  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| ||Pat Van Dyke|| ||Rick Haddorff|| ||Melva Peters
+
|X||Pat Van Dyke||X||Rick Haddorff||X ||Melva Peters
 
|-
 
|-
−
| ||John Quinn || ||Austin Kreisler|| ||  
+
|X||John Quinn ||X||Austin Kreisler|| ||  
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="3" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|
 
|colspan="3" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 
===Agenda===
 
===Agenda===
 
*Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke  
 
*Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke  
Line 45: Line 46:
 
===Minutes===
 
===Minutes===
  
−
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>  
+
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>
 +
MOTION:  Approve 6/19/2013 minutes.  Austin motioned to approve.  Melva 2nd.  Rick abstained.  Minutes approved<br/>
 +
MOTION:  Approve 7/3/2013 minutes.  Rick motioned to approve Moved.  Melva 2nd.  Minutes approved<br/>
 +
 
 +
'''Review Melva's assessment of the T3F review'''
 +
*From Melva's review of the T3F 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.<br/>
 +
 
 +
*The group walked through the risks, assigned a level of "criticalness" and came up with a few mitigation strategies.
 +
<br/>
 +
''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'.
 +
<br/>
 +
''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
 +
<br/>
 +
 
 +
''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.
 +
<br/>
 +
''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. 
 +
<br/>
 +
 
 +
''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.
 +
<br/>
 +
 
 +
''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. 
 +
<br/>
 +
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===
 
===Next Steps===
Line 53: Line 111:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/>
 
|colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/>
−
 
+
* Lynn - Cancel calls on July 17 and July 24
 +
* Dave - Add the agenda topics to the July 31 and August 7 calls
 
|-  
 
|-  
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>

Latest revision as of 20:17, 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#
GoToMeeting ID: 660-939-197

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

Review Melva's assessment of the T3F review

  • From Melva's review of the T3F 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)
  • Lynn - Cancel calls on July 17 and July 24
  • Dave - Add the agenda topics to the July 31 and August 7 calls
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • 2013-07-31 TRAC.
  • Pat will not be available on the 17th nor will Melva. Pat is also not available the 24th. Meet on the 10th and 31st of the month.
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2013-07-10_TRAC&oldid=11850"