Talk:Organization
Two organization charts have been shown - one which supposedly shows our org chart today, and one that shows a propsed one from strategic initiatives. First, I think its important to clarify that the chart that shows "what we are doing today" was designed by ORC members who were trying to group what we do into a new structure. So, if it looks a little confusing, that is why.
I think the proposed org chart is misleading in the following ways:
- it shows the board report to HL7 membership which is only partially true. Also, its just as true for our current organization. Members elect the board, but they are certainly not micromanaging. Also, an important area where HL7 membership is NOT shown is in every box from Foundations and Technology, Structure and Semantic Interoperability and Domain Expertise on down. Representatives from HL7 membership staff each one of these grouping of committees and I think that should be shown.
- the paid staff roles are shown in depth while the many committees - bread and butter of HL7 and represent the primary resources are not shown at all. All the committees should be shown to make this picture comparable to the original picture. If a higher level picture is desired, then the paid staff roles should be boiled up into higher categories as well. Detailed diagrams for both staff roles and member roles can then be provided. The current diagram seems to communicate a real imbalance of priorities - emphasizing staff over membership's role in standards development. Paid staff support is good but should never be emphasized as the focus of the organization.
When you compare the two diagrams, the "existing" looks messy and complicated while the new one looks so organized and clean. That is because many boxes were simply left out as well as the fact that the current org one was an ORC exercise, not an attempt at a nice diagram. Thats false advertising, I think.
