Difference between revisions of "TSC SWOT"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(final approval) |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
**Clearly designate our product line and product identification | **Clearly designate our product line and product identification | ||
**Emergence of new and contemporary technology including FHIR and semantic web ontologies | **Emergence of new and contemporary technology including FHIR and semantic web ontologies | ||
| − | **Leverage new membership benefits for IP management, help desk and conformance testing, in dealing with technical issues. | + | **Leverage new membership benefits for IP management, help desk, user groups, and conformance testing, in dealing with technical issues. |
**Provide mechanisms to allow vitality assessment throughout the organization; define criteria for trigger events: including ability to define processes for assessment, provide strategic and tactical guidance to the EC and Board. | **Provide mechanisms to allow vitality assessment throughout the organization; define criteria for trigger events: including ability to define processes for assessment, provide strategic and tactical guidance to the EC and Board. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
**Lack of clear governance surrounding new member benefits e.g. user groups, help desk | **Lack of clear governance surrounding new member benefits e.g. user groups, help desk | ||
**Keeping up with increased uptake of our standards (e.g. FHIR) | **Keeping up with increased uptake of our standards (e.g. FHIR) | ||
| − | **Lack of adequate governance, management, curation and support processes to manage | + | **Lack of adequate governance, management, curation and support processes to manage our standards and the resulting profiles that are created. |
Approved by TSC 2014-09-13 | Approved by TSC 2014-09-13 | ||
Revision as of 14:55, 13 September 2014
- Strengths
- Clear focus on delineated governance and management activities
- Respected, highly experienced membership
- Committed membership
- Support from board, HQ, and Work Group members
- Open, transparent, and responsive
- Proactive
- Weakness
- Limited time
- Limited control over resources
- Support from Board, HQ, and Working Group but still sometimes we don't get the support we need from the Board and members
- Process for bringing in external proposed standards.
- Linkage with Strategic Initiatives
- Opportunities
- Business Architecture Model development offers improved Governance and Management to match existing Methodology strengths
- Change to Intellectual Property licensing at no cost
- Increased uptake by national programs
- Clearly designate our product line and product identification
- Emergence of new and contemporary technology including FHIR and semantic web ontologies
- Leverage new membership benefits for IP management, help desk, user groups, and conformance testing, in dealing with technical issues.
- Provide mechanisms to allow vitality assessment throughout the organization; define criteria for trigger events: including ability to define processes for assessment, provide strategic and tactical guidance to the EC and Board.
- Threats
- Creating overheads without visible return
- Improve Product Quality
- Lack of confidence in standards management creates vacuum for Profiler/Enforcer creating their own healthcare interoperability standards
- Increasing numbers of mandates coming from the US Realm
- Lack of clear governance surrounding new member benefits e.g. user groups, help desk
- Keeping up with increased uptake of our standards (e.g. FHIR)
- Lack of adequate governance, management, curation and support processes to manage our standards and the resulting profiles that are created.
Approved by TSC 2014-09-13
