Difference between revisions of "20121205 TSC Risk Assessment call"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | ||Austin Kreisler|| || Calvin Beebe || || Pat van Dyke | + | |x ||Austin Kreisler||x || Calvin Beebe ||x || Pat van Dyke |
|- | |- | ||
− | | ||Jane Curry || ||Ed Tripp || || || | + | | ||Jane Curry ||x ||Ed Tripp || || || |
|} | |} | ||
===Agenda=== | ===Agenda=== | ||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
* | * | ||
===Minutes=== | ===Minutes=== | ||
+ | *Roll call | ||
+ | *Agenda Review | ||
+ | *Outstanding Action items: | ||
+ | **Austin - Austin will determine the status of the education plan. Education plan was approved to some degree. | ||
+ | *Continue Review [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7093/9903/ConsolidatedRiskAssessment20121128.xlsx Consolidated risk assessment spreadsheet] | ||
+ | **[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7111/9929/GOM8and18Risk_Ed.xlsx GOM 8 and 18] from Ed | ||
+ | ***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. | ||
+ | **[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7112/9930/GOMSection11RiskAssessment_Calvin.xlsx GOM 11] from Calvin | ||
+ | ***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. | ||
+ | **Continue on consolidated risk assessment spreadsheet | ||
+ | ***Come back to Product strategy when better developed | ||
+ | ***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. | ||
Line 50: | Line 62: | ||
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/> | |colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/> | ||
*[[20121212 TSC Risk Assessment call]]. | *[[20121212 TSC Risk Assessment call]]. | ||
+ | *Continue [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7113/9931/ConsolidatedRiskAssessment20121205.xlsx consolidated risk assessment] review | ||
Latest revision as of 15:14, 5 December 2012
TSC Risk Assessment Task Force Agenda/Minutes
HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# |
Date: 2012-12-05 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 | x | Pat van Dyke | ||
Jane Curry | x | Ed Tripp |
Agenda
- Roll call
- Agenda Review
- Outstanding Action items:
- Austin - Austin will determine the status of the education plan.
- January WGM planning for task force
- Continue Review Consolidated risk assessment spreadsheet
- GOM 8 and 18 from Ed
- GOM 11 from Calvin
Supporting Documents
Minutes
- Roll call
- Agenda Review
- Outstanding Action items:
- Austin - Austin will determine the status of the education plan. Education plan was approved to some degree.
- Continue Review Consolidated risk assessment spreadsheet
- GOM 8 and 18 from Ed
- 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.
- GOM 11 from Calvin
- 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.
- Continue on consolidated risk assessment spreadsheet
- Come back to Product strategy when better developed
- 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.
- GOM 8 and 18 from Ed
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.