Difference between revisions of "TSC SWOT"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(final approval) |
Anne wizauer (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
** Respected, highly experienced membership | ** Respected, highly experienced membership | ||
** Committed membership | ** Committed membership | ||
− | ** Support from | + | ** Support from HQ |
** Open, transparent, and responsive | ** Open, transparent, and responsive | ||
**Proactive | **Proactive | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
** Limited time | ** Limited time | ||
** Limited control over resources | ** Limited control over resources | ||
− | **Support from Board | + | **Support from Board 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. | **Process for bringing in external proposed standards. | ||
** Linkage with Strategic Initiatives | ** Linkage with Strategic Initiatives |
Revision as of 13:41, 3 October 2015
- Strengths
- Clear focus on delineated governance and management activities
- Respected, highly experienced membership
- Committed membership
- Support from HQ
- Open, transparent, and responsive
- Proactive
- Weakness
- Limited time
- Limited control over resources
- Support from Board 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