2014-05-21 TRAC

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: 889-380-173		Date: Wednesday, 2014-05-21 Time: 10:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Pat Van Dyke		Note taker(s): Lynn

Quorum				n/a
Chair/CTO		Members		Members
x	Pat Van Dyke	regrets	Rick Haddorff	regrets	Melva Peters
	John Quinn	x	Austin Kreisler		Ken McCaslin

Agenda

• Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke
• Review minutes of 2014-04-23 TRAC
• Action Items:
  • Pat will review balloting QA results for discussion
  • Generic WGM Checklist Calendar - Rick
  • Pat will work on developing a straw man for separate criteria for informative ballot reconciliation in 6 months, for example.
  • Melva will re-review the T3F risks and give a first draft on impact and likelihood for review on the next call.
  • Bring recommendation back to TSC for an opinion on whether they want a metric on projects coming in late .
  • Determine tracking metric on NIB deadlines for request to Don.
• Review 20140212 risk spreadsheet
  • precepts for the IP protection issues and address the related risks.
  • Risk identification from recent XSLT vulnerability issue
• TSC referred action:
  • WG Balloting metric: bundling together other PBS metrics measures including balloting in previous cycles, submitting PSS on time and NIBs on time, etc
    • Ballot quality assessment consideration as a governance point/work group health metric/strategic initiatives dashboard metric. Larger sample size, Other measures the TRAC might assess are % of negatives less than 20, or ballots not returned versus negative balloters.
    • Discuss outreach to ballot evaluators on what additional ballot quality measures should be performed.

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

• Pat convenes 10:04 AM
• Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke - review late PSSes without Dave; Lynn has received one late PSS still needing WG and US Realm Task Force review on Birth Registry CDA. Can review NIB deadline tracking.
• Review minutes of 2014-04-23 TRAC
• Action Items:
  • Determine tracking metric on NIB deadlines for request to Don.
    • We would need to ask him to track how many come in late.
    • Draft ballot announcement goes out two days after NIB deadline so any lengthier measurement is not meaningful.
    • Three pronged measure for minutes, meeting room requests and agenda posting - room request app is still in beta test not fully used this cycle so not ready for full rollout - review last cycle's data when Rick and Melva are on the call.
• What surfaced at the WGM that applies to the group?
  • Release numbering is the way HL7 packages up a number of things to take a snapshot of all the artifacts in the package. The package is composed of a variety of artifacts which can each be independently versioned. Need to hunt down where this is currently defined and ensure it is general enough to cover HL7 release numbering, and stand mute on versioning of artifacts within the package. Austin notes that you may want to have versioning approaches documented within each product family. It was noted that ANSI does not acknowledge "dot-releases" and we end up with a "release 1" tacked on to the end of the HL7 normative standard. This group might identify the risks and suggest mitigations such as product family- or artifact-specific rules for versioning.
  • TSC addition of ISM to publication request should be added to a mitigation strategy for an existing risk or create a strategic risk to represent what it is meant to mitigate.
  • US Realm Task Force as mitigation to risk where US Realm does not have authority of an affiliate.
  • Conformance testing lessons learned from the 5/3 TSC meeting, e.g. conformance testing to FHIR as a next step when the FHIR framework is not sufficiently constrained to be meaningfully testable. Austin suggests we may want to identify risks to Work Group operations with conformance testing, and demands of Help Desk answers on a small set of volunteers. Austin feels we need to get Paul Knapp to join us for that discussion. Lynn notes that another risk might be evaluated for developing conformance profiles using HL7 organizational resources for a non-HL7 standard. Austin adds that we then created the immunization user group that was effectively given away to an external organization without them becoming members.
  • Bring recommendation back to TSC for an opinion on whether they want a metric on projects coming in late. This was not brought up at the TSC this last round. It doesn't really seem to be a problem with very small numbers outside the 7 day window, and with awareness and education it does not demonstrate a need to set a metric at this time; we can continue to monitor as a "vitality trigger". Lynn will put on the TSC agenda for June 9.
• TSC referred action:
  • WG Balloting metric: bundling together other PBS metrics measures including balloting in previous cycles, submitting PSS on time and NIBs on time, etc using Ballot quality assessment consideration as a governance point/work group health metric/strategic initiatives dashboard metric. Austin feels a larger sample size, additional reviewers would provide a more reasonable sample. Is it worth trying to repeat it? Austin feels there is opportunity for important trend identification remaining.
    • Other measures the TRAC might assess are % of negatives less than 20, or ballots not returned versus negative balloters. We need to use those measures once the quality assessment determines what the thresholds should be but we can't apply metrics based on too few reviewers.
    • Austin does not recommend we proceed with the results we had from last year. If we recommend governance points based on review and evaluation of risks we identify we do not execute the mitigations. QA review performed at the Ballot stage of the product development life cycle is too late. In order to help with risk assessment for the Strategic Initiative regarding ballot quality, we need to mine the ballot data for quality measures to be reviewed earlier in the development of the product. This was intended to develop measures for the quality of our ballots. Pat notes that we changed processes to disallow a single check box to enroll in all of the ballots; would measurements from before and after that action be meaningful? Austin suggests we take this back to the TSC and ask how they want to proceed. Add to the June 9 agenda.
• Meet next week, not June 4; meet June 11, 18 but not the 25th.

Adjourned 11:00 AM

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2014-05-28 TRAC.

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved