Difference between revisions of "20121212 TSC Risk Assessment call"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with '{{subst::20121205 TSC Risk Assessment call}}')
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
| width="0%" colspan="2" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes''' <br/>
 
| width="0%" colspan="2" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes''' <br/>
 
'''Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#'''<br/> GoToMeeting ID: [https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/998903490 998-903-490]
 
'''Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#'''<br/> GoToMeeting ID: [https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/998903490 998-903-490]
−
| width="0%" colspan="1" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date: 2012-12-05 '''<br/> '''Time: 9:00 AM U.S. Eastern'''
+
| width="0%" colspan="1" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date: 2012-12-12 '''<br/> '''Time: 9:00 AM U.S. Eastern'''
 
|-
 
|-
 
| width="0%" colspan="2" align="right"|'''Facilitator''': Austin Kreisler
 
| width="0%" colspan="2" align="right"|'''Facilitator''': Austin Kreisler
Line 20: Line 20:
 
|colspan="2"|Facilitators ||colspan="2"|ArB ||colspan="2"|Members||colspan="2"|Members
 
|colspan="2"|Facilitators ||colspan="2"|ArB ||colspan="2"|Members||colspan="2"|Members
 
|-
 
|-
−
|x ||Austin Kreisler||x || Calvin Beebe ||x || Pat van Dyke
+
| x||Austin Kreisler||x || Calvin Beebe || regrets|| Pat van Dyke
 
|-
 
|-
 
| ||Jane Curry ||x ||Ed Tripp || || ||
 
| ||Jane Curry ||x ||Ed Tripp || || ||
Line 28: Line 28:
 
*Roll call
 
*Roll call
 
*Agenda Review
 
*Agenda Review
−
*Outstanding Action items:
+
*Action items review:
−
**Austin - Austin will determine the status of the education plan.
+
*Risk vs. Issue and granularity of likelyhood discussion
−
*January WGM planning for task force
+
*Review of new risk items from GOM (see [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7115/9935/GOM-section-17-RiskAssessment_20121211.xls GOM Section 17 risks])
−
*Continue Review [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7093/9903/ConsolidatedRiskAssessment20121128.xlsx Consolidated risk assessment spreadsheet]
+
*Continue Review [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7113/9931/ConsolidatedRiskAssessment20121205.xlsx Consolidated risk assessment spreadsheet]
−
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7111/9929/GOM8and18Risk_Ed.xlsx GOM 8 and 18] from Ed
+
 
−
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7112/9930/GOMSection11RiskAssessment_Calvin.xlsx GOM 11] from Calvin
 
  
  
Line 41: Line 40:
 
*Roll call
 
*Roll call
 
*Agenda Review
 
*Agenda Review
−
*Outstanding Action items:
+
*Action items review:
−
**Austin - Austin will determine the status of the education plan. Education plan was approved to some degree.  
+
*Risk vs. Issue and granularity of likelihood discussion
−
*Continue Review [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7093/9903/ConsolidatedRiskAssessment20121128.xlsx Consolidated risk assessment spreadsheet]
+
**Austin describes distinction of risk versus issue. Risk is in future, not currently happening, where issue is something you're dealing with now. Issue is in effect a risk that has current likelihood of 100%. Active mitigation strategies are in place to put out fires for issues. Risks have strategies for avoiding it from happening. Need to evaluate this distinction for the purposes of developing governance.
−
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7111/9929/GOM8and18Risk_Ed.xlsx GOM 8 and 18] from Ed
+
**Overengineering likelihood from beyond low/medium/high granularity is to be avoided. Austin cites an example of a matrix on likelihood and criticality where you're looking for high likelihood and high degree of criticality.
−
***There is a great deal under the surface here that the GOM doesn't touch upon. The level of granularity in this section is different than other sections. We also need to address at what level of the organization this is to be addressed for mitigation. SDO liaison assignment is at the CEO and Board level. Some liaison functions are effectively attached to Work Groups, however. Board will delegate operational responsibility to TSC and TSC to different groups. Level of authority will be evaluated with the governance points. Effectively, the staff is managing the liaison relationships and there is no governance. TSC has stepped into the vacuum of Activities with Other SDOs but there's little other light on these activities.
+
**Flag 100% current likelihood as issues and address with TSC.  
−
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7112/9930/GOMSection11RiskAssessment_Calvin.xlsx GOM 11] from Calvin
+
*Review of new risk items from GOM
−
***Discussion ensued on 11.03 on specific instances of tutorial message review. There may be an opportunity for a governance point where paid tutorials are offered that material must be formalized through some sort of peer review or ballot process, in the case of the Security Risk Assessment framework. Calvin mentions there is an issue of the shared copyright of tutorial material as intellectual property but it is not in the tutorial section of the GOM. Mitigation may involve a peer review of content on a rotating set of volunteers. May want to ask the new Direction of Education. None of these identified as currently critical. Post tutorial evaluation is not in here but is an important mitigation of risks not otherwise expressed. It's certainly a governance point.  
+
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7116/9936/GOM-section-9-RiskAssessment_20121211.xls Section 9 risks]
−
**Continue on consolidated risk assessment spreadsheet
+
***09.01.07 endorsing tools – have one coming from EHR and SDWG on Monday and no process available.
−
***Come back to Product strategy when better developed
+
***09.02.04 WG co-chairs not available for WGM sessions; SDWG and RCRIM or other government-represented cochairs may not have travel permission or may be otherwise scheduled with Board duties to attend WG meetings.
−
***SWOT risk of resource needs for facilitators is being mitigated in FHIR development reducing need for technical facilitators. We have many kinds of facilitators and a shortage of all of them. Is that an unsustainable business operation? Some roles have been formalized that are not critical. Also need a shared pool of resources to do these pools. Like the FHIR core team, you may have a team of facilitators attached to a product line/family rather than to a Work Group. If risk is that every work group needs a full complement of facilitators, instead we say we need a set of facilitators for each product line. The specialized skill set for developing a V3 standard has become too refined and the tools don't support broad use. Our job will be to evaluate the roles defined in the BAM for which are critical for mitigating each risk. We want to highlight this one in Phoenix.
+
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7115/9935/GOM-section-17-RiskAssessment_20121211.xls GOM Section 17 risks])
 +
***17.02 changes to GOM not communicated effectively to membership/cochairs.
 +
**Plan to move these into the consolidated spreadsheet
 +
*Continue Review [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7113/9931/ConsolidatedRiskAssessment20121205.xlsx Consolidated risk assessment spreadsheet]
 +
**Left off on SWOT risk with facilitators. Not having enough facilitators plus needing facilitators for each WG, plus having multiple facilitator roles for 40+ Work Groups balloting on average 2x/year.
 +
**Discussion on FHIR example reducing requirement for modeling facilitator. However, direction of creating FHIR liaisons is essentially creating a FHIR facilitator. Risk is that there are not enough facilitators to satisfy demand leading to delayed or lower quality projects. Black market for facilitators operating informally (payment in beer). TSC needs to brainstorm some alternative strategies. Austin plans for Saturday meeting to review with TSC the critical risks and issues.
 +
 
  
 +
Being out of time, the group adjourned at 9:45 AM ET
 
   
 
   
  
Line 61: Line 67:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
−
*[[20121212 TSC Risk Assessment call]].
+
*[[20121219 TSC Risk Assessment call]].
−
*Continue [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7113/9931/ConsolidatedRiskAssessment20121205.xlsx consolidated risk assessment] review
+
*[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7118/9938/ConsolidatedRiskAssessment20121212.xlsx Updated Consolidated Risk Assessment]
  
  

Latest revision as of 15:00, 12 December 2012

TSC Risk Assessment Task Force Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
GoToMeeting ID: 998-903-490

Date: 2012-12-12
Time: 9:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Quorum n/a
Facilitators ArB Members Members
x Austin Kreisler x Calvin Beebe regrets Pat van Dyke
Jane Curry x Ed Tripp

Agenda


Supporting Documents

Minutes

  • Roll call
  • Agenda Review
  • Action items review:
  • Risk vs. Issue and granularity of likelihood discussion
    • Austin describes distinction of risk versus issue. Risk is in future, not currently happening, where issue is something you're dealing with now. Issue is in effect a risk that has current likelihood of 100%. Active mitigation strategies are in place to put out fires for issues. Risks have strategies for avoiding it from happening. Need to evaluate this distinction for the purposes of developing governance.
    • Overengineering likelihood from beyond low/medium/high granularity is to be avoided. Austin cites an example of a matrix on likelihood and criticality where you're looking for high likelihood and high degree of criticality.
    • Flag 100% current likelihood as issues and address with TSC.
  • Review of new risk items from GOM
    • Section 9 risks
      • 09.01.07 endorsing tools – have one coming from EHR and SDWG on Monday and no process available.
      • 09.02.04 WG co-chairs not available for WGM sessions; SDWG and RCRIM or other government-represented cochairs may not have travel permission or may be otherwise scheduled with Board duties to attend WG meetings.
    • GOM Section 17 risks)
      • 17.02 changes to GOM not communicated effectively to membership/cochairs.
    • Plan to move these into the consolidated spreadsheet
  • Continue Review Consolidated risk assessment spreadsheet
    • Left off on SWOT risk with facilitators. Not having enough facilitators plus needing facilitators for each WG, plus having multiple facilitator roles for 40+ Work Groups balloting on average 2x/year.
    • Discussion on FHIR example reducing requirement for modeling facilitator. However, direction of creating FHIR liaisons is essentially creating a FHIR facilitator. Risk is that there are not enough facilitators to satisfy demand leading to delayed or lower quality projects. Black market for facilitators operating informally (payment in beer). TSC needs to brainstorm some alternative strategies. Austin plans for Saturday meeting to review with TSC the critical risks and issues.


Being out of time, the group adjourned at 9:45 AM ET


Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items



back to TSC Risk Assessment

© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=20121212_TSC_Risk_Assessment_call&oldid=10715"