2012-05-14 TSC WGM SDO Activities Minutes

TSC Monday Q3 Agenda - 2012 May WGM Vancouver, BC CAN

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas
to JIC Projects page

to ISO_and_JIC_projects wiki page

TSC HL7 activities with other SDOs Meeting Location: Port McNeill Room		Date: 2012-05-14 Time: Monday Q3
Facilitator	Austin Kreisler	Note taker(s)	Lynn Laakso
Opportunity for HL7 WGM attendees to review activities in collaboration with other SDOs such as IHE, OMG, and the JWG and JIC, and provide comment.
Attendees: Richard Dixon-Hughes, HL7 AUS Doug Fridsma - ONC Mary Kay McDaniel - FM cochair Julie Richards - CHI Scott Robertson - ORC Chair Lisa Spellman - AHIMA/ISO TC 215 US TAG Robert Stegwee - HL7 NL and TC215 chair Sue Thompson - NCPDP Lynn Laakso - staff support

Agenda

Welcome and Introduction - Scott Robertson

• Continue discussions from Sunday afternoon
• Plan for next WGM:

Minutes

Scott convenes the group at 1:50 PM

Liaison reports - managed by ORC

• Quick - when possible attached in minutes, up to a page, make it easy for others to find and track down more information on what you're working on.
• Major project status
• Review status of MOU

Discussion/Panel/Presentation

• People
• Topic
  • Julie had suggested ballot scheduling, such as HL7 OOC ballots to coordinate with other SDOs- Scott notes that NCPDP, for example, doesn't do out of cycle ballots. It would be nice if there were fewer ballots. Ballot processes between SDOs might be a bit of education. CEN, ISO, ASTM/X12. Robert notes you want people that have experience with multiple ballot SDOs.
  • Question raised on difference to JIC. HL7 has joint projects with many SDOs; JIC can be part of it or be hosting it as TSC and ORC do now. Doug reports that JIC is doing some ballot coordination. We might learn about what JIC is doing and offer input into it. Robert reports that we could take the JIC coordination further and show people how coordination occurs. John Quinn as an HL7 representative to JIC he's very interested in this point. Lisa Spellman of US TAG has been faced with a battle coming up to speed. Mary Kay notes that people need to understand why it is complex, and why we need to care. Justifying why one needs to come to the meetings each WGM can be aided by demonstrating what one learns about what the other SDOs are doing.
  • JIC as entry point can illustrate both ballot procedure, and process/development.
  • Julie asks if we can use a specific problem to illustrate what we're trying to solve.
  • Doug asks if there's a sense of the MOUs we have out there. Scott reports that there is a page on the wiki that has a list of organizations, MOUs, and liaisons. He'll be updating that list today. Mary Kay reports that those MOUs are really important to justifying their membership with HL7. Liaison reports are therefore important to be able to share what they've learned from these contacts to communicate the value of membership.
  • Mary Kay notes that Giorgio's presentation on epSOS especially on lessons learned were extremely valuable and she'll be using that reference. Scott notes that some of their examples are relevant between the U.S. states.

Scott will ask for a quarter like this for the next session, as we may anticipate some more rollover into another session; and in planning for the next session this quarter's feedback and input are very helpful.

Julie asks about the ORC. They meet next quarter, and are responsible for maintaining the SOUs which were formerly referred to as MOUs. The ORC while being a Board committee has latitude in its membership so just check in with Scott to join. There is a TSC liaison (Ed Tripp), and Don Mon as ex officio. Chuck Meyer, Helen Stevens, and Klaus Veil are members according to the website. Karen is staff support and Chuck Jaffe is ex officio.

• Sue wants to find out what's expected in a liaison report. What are the active projects with HL7 and a one liner for status, new developments in their organization that are of interest to HL7 membership. Mary Kay notes experience with coordinating with X12 behind the scenes and the importance of the role of the liaison. Sue adds that as part of PStack and MTM they've gotten many new SNOMED codes.
• Scott notes that the other organizations with which we have liaisons may not be associated with specific projects.
• Doug notes that with the importance of these issues a 1 ½ hour meeting three times a year is not enough. It may not be the right vehicle to answer the questions suggested. Does the group need to consider improving how we work with the other SDOs beyond liaison reports? Is that within the charge of this particular group? Scott recalls the humble beginnings of the Activities with Other SDOs group. Joint efforts and joint understanding can be worked into some active coordination and action plan to produce something; that would be a wonderful output. Robert asks how do people in individual work groups find out what areas of interest and linkage are happening in other SDOs? Scott notes there is opportunity for inter-SDO knowledge at an individual level - having an idea and bringing it forward to broader consideration. Robert adds that JWG meetings were useful to talk about what was happening in one SDO and how the other SDOs can help with that. If we're not careful we may lose that.
• Passive receipt of information is not the best use of people's time, but active dialogue would help. All SDOs might be coming with their ballot schedule and actively coordinating various cycle times to bring forward for decision points. One must address dependencies between SDOs on what is coming to CDISC first, for example. JIC has been more effective than SCO for example as they have a more passive reporting structure. A collective decision or action as the objective of a meeting is an effective driver. Vocabulary bindings are difficult but not enough representation from IHTSDO to move things forward.
• Robert notes another tangible item might be in sharing experiences in doing the balloting - should we propose do the balloting in one place only and what would need to be changed to accomplish that? Each organization does its own ballot and may suggest referring to another SDO's ballot material but does not streamline the balloting process.
• Richard notes that finding the time for people who have the experience to come on the Sunday and compete with other scheduled items such as the FHIR sessions is difficult.

• Next time Monday agenda is discussion on conflict with other WGs, planning for next session, and assessment of Sunday Q4.
  • Richard concurs that the panel format was more useful but needs to focus on process direction and liaison reports need to focus on areas of potential issues. Monday meeting needs to have a specific item for discussion published ahead of time. Scott agrees that there is an element of marketing needed but a better sense of the agenda for the Monday session is important.
• Lisa notes that there were few questions and few attendees in the large room. We need to get a focus on what people are looking for. What are the cross-SDO projects in HL7 and what are we doing on them? Scott notes we can scan for them in the project database and highlight them in the liaison report portion. Lisa further suggests we invite participants from the various projects as identified ahead of time and have them report as well. Richard notes the US concern on SCO, NCPDP, X12 not of as much interest as JIC. Project reports from JIC project facilitators have been requested but not usually obtained. When the home base of a project is in another SDO like IDMP or ICSR whose organizing body is ISO it's more difficult. Robert adds that John has striven to get such reports to show the membership the value that the coordination offers. Scott notes there is a balance between requesting the reports and badgering the reporters is something to be worked on. Reducing the burden to coordinate a report used both to Karen for the Board and to Lynn for the Activities reporting is the right direction. Scott notes that time could be allocated in this Monday quarter for cross-SDO harmonization for specific issues to be resolved in a smaller audience. The Sunday session may not be appropriate to achieve a decision or action plan. Richard reports that in EHR meeting they were able to accomplish a number of cross-SDO decisions; Julie adds it may be influenced by having just completed the ISO meeting last week.
• Lisa notes that EHR was working on important comments so would a working lunch be appropriate? Scott notes that the targets we identify for the sessions, you may want to invite:
  • Managers for joint work projects
  • mega project stakeholders
• Then you design the session for the targets.
• Doug reiterates that a coordination strategy for a bunch of people 3x a year involving report outs on powerpoint is not tenable. Need to determine 'why' do we have the dependencies between the standards processes and work on those. Need to change abstraction levels of the standards for HL7 to remain at the 7th level of interconnectedness, we need to create situations that reduce interdependencies. Overlap in domain such as CDISC and HL7 with subject matter dependencies require a different kind of coordination. We are moving into a world where a single SDO can no longer solve the whole problem. Coordination between organizations and between countries is beyond that. For demand of a single interaction for a lab report, we request standards from NIST with encryption, AETF with transport, IHTSDO with vocabularies and HL7 set the structure. On a project by project basis we need to identify and articulate how we do that. Richard agrees.
  • Doug notes one way to do liaison reports might be Standards AUS, CHI, NHS to talk about challenges faced across SDOs instead of individual liaison reports? Julie notes the national bodies could be an advisory group so that the SDOs can have input from the national programs.
  • Doug noted also his recent Europe tour heard about Continua, vendor-led industry driven consortiums, but only ISO and CEN and HL7 as an afterthought or as a challenge. When IHE can develop a standard based on only two organizations wanting to demonstrate an interoperability scenario. They want faster, better, cheaper and getting the vendors to participate.
• Richard agrees that vendor participation in ISO is lacking. Doug asks if we've failed our customers that they don't come to HL7 to do this.
• Julie notes that groups discussing cross-SDO problems occurring at each of the SDOs is also not productive but we need a single place for all to contribute. Slides don't do it; have the liaison reports in the slideshow and SDO updates as well at morning and lunchtime.
• Robert notes that they have asked where do we do which activity, and ISO decided they will have full JIC sessions. But each SDO needs to have a session with its own membership to inform them of what's going on. That may be what the reason for the Sunday Q4 meeting. But that does not answer Doug's question as to whether we are still relevant to our customers and where they go to solve their problems. National programs in some countries have harmed grassroots organizing in HL7.
• Lisa notes we're trying to determine what needs to be a JIC project. Are our customers the countries' national programs or vendors. Separately project management is another issue.