Difference between revisions of "Strategic Initiatives TSC Dashboard"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(25 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
<!--  -->
 
<!--  -->
 
===Requirements traceability and cross-artifact consistency===
 
===Requirements traceability and cross-artifact consistency===
*[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=2059&start=0 Tracker #2059] Austin will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: Requirements traceability and cross-artifact consistency
+
====Requirements traceability====
**Requirements traceability - Tied to HL7 roll out of SAIF ECCF. measure is the number of milestones completed
+
- Tied to HL7 roll out of SAIF ECCF.  
***Informative SAIF Canonical document published
+
*measure is the number of milestones completed:
***DSTU SAIF Canonical document published
+
**Informative SAIF Canonical document published
***Normative SAIF Canonical document published
+
**DSTU SAIF Canonical document published
***Peer Reviewed HL7 SAIF IG including ECCF chapter and draft SAIF Artifact Definitions
+
**Normative SAIF Canonical document published
***DSTU HL7 SAIF IG published
+
**Peer Reviewed HL7 SAIF IG including ECCF chapter and draft SAIF Artifact Definitions
***Normative HL7 SAIF IG published
+
**DSTU HL7 SAIF IG published
***SAIF Architecture Program experimental phase of HL7 SAIF ECCF implementation completed
+
**Normative HL7 SAIF IG published
***SAIF AP trial use phase of HL7 SAIF ECCF implementation completed
+
**SAIF Architecture Program experimental phase of HL7 SAIF ECCF implementation completed
***HL7 SAIF ECCF rolled to all work groups working on applicable standards (V3 primarily)
+
**SAIF AP trial use phase of HL7 SAIF ECCF implementation completed
 +
**HL7 SAIF ECCF rolled to all work groups working on applicable standards (V3 primarily)
 
<!--  -->
 
<!--  -->
**Cross-artifact consistency
+
====Cross-artifact consistency====
***(per TSC decision [[2012-03-26 TSC Call Agenda|2012-03-26]])
+
''(per TSC decision [[2012-03-26 TSC Call Agenda|2012-03-26]])''
****'''Standards that include V3 RIM-Derived information models.'''  
+
*'''Survey of newly published V3 Standards''' via the [http://www.hl7.org/permalink/?PublicationRequestTemplate publication request form]
****Percent of Work groups in FTSD, SSDSD and DESD participating in RIM/Vocab/Pattern Harmonization meetings, calculated as a 3 trimester moving average - Green of 75% or better participation. Yellow 50-74%. 0-49 is red.
+
**Key - Not including Implementation Guides ''(what about DAMs or foundational standards which define no artifacts?)''
**:Other metrics considered
+
***Green: All new standards have one or more of the following checked;  
***Survey of newly published standards via the [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6865/9455/HL7_Publication_Request_Template_2012Jun_SIdraft.docx publication request form]
+
***Yellow: 1-2 standards have none of the following checked;  
****V3 Standards - Measure - Green: All new standards have one or more of the following checked; Yellow: 1-2 standards have none of the following checked; Red: 3 or more standards have none of the following checked
+
***Red: 3 or more standards have none of the following checked.
*****Standard uses CMETs from HL7-managed CMETs in COCT, POCP (Common Product) and other domains
+
**Standard uses CMETs from HL7-managed CMETs in COCT, POCP (Common Product) and other domains
*****Standard uses harmonized design patterns (as defined through RIM Pattern harmonization process)
+
**Standard uses harmonized design patterns (as defined through RIM Pattern harmonization process)
*****Standard is consistent with common Domain Models including Clinical Statement, Common Product Model and "TermInfo"
+
**Standard is consistent with common Domain Models including Clinical Statement, Common Product Model and "TermInfo"
**Austin notes that these are not necessarily automated metrics for the criteria.  
+
*'''Harmonization Participation''': Percent of Work groups in FTSD, SSDSD and DESD participating in RIM/Vocab/Pattern Harmonization meetings, calculated as a 3 trimester moving average - Green of 75% or better participation. Yellow 50-74%. 0-49 is red.
 
*Staff Support: Lynn Laakso
 
*Staff Support: Lynn Laakso
 
<!--  -->
 
<!--  -->
 
<!--  -->
 
<!--  -->
 +
 
===Product Quality===
 
===Product Quality===
*[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=2058&start=0 Tracker #2058] Woody will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: '''Product Development Effectiveness'''  
+
*'''Product Development Effectiveness''' Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for average number of ballot cycles necessary to pass a normative standard. Calculated as a cycle average based on publication requests. Includes:  
**Measure is the average number of ballot cycles necessary to pass a normative standard. Calculated as a cycle average based on publication requests. Includes:  
+
*:(Note: This metric uses "ballots" rather than ballot cycles because more complex ballots frequently require two-cycles to complete reconciliation and prepare for a subsequent ballot.)
**:(Note: This metric uses "ballots" rather than ballot cycles because more complex ballots frequently require two-cycles to complete reconciliation and prepare for a subsequent ballot.)
+
*#Projects at risk of becoming stale 2 cycles after last ballot
**#Projects at risk of becoming stale 2 cycles after last ballot
+
*#Two cycles since last ballot but not having posted a reconciliation or request for publication for normative edition
**#Two cycles since last ballot but not having posted a reconciliation or request for publication for normative edition
+
*#items going into third or higher round of balloting for a normative specification;  
**#items going into third or higher round of balloting for a normative specification;  
+
*:(Note: This flags concern while the process is ongoing; it is not necessarily a measure of quality once the document it has finished balloting).
**#:(Note: This flags concern while the process is ongoing; it is not necessarily a measure of quality once the document it has finished balloting).
+
**Key
 
***Green: 1-2 ballots
 
***Green: 1-2 ballots
 
***Yellow: 3-4 ballots
 
***Yellow: 3-4 ballots
 
***Red: 5+ ballots
 
***Red: 5+ ballots
***[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/frsrelease/923/9596/Cycles_to_Normative_by_wg_with_ANSIDate.xlsx 2012Sep Release] includes trend on the average of cycles to reach normative status and ANSI publication. (T1 = Jan-May, T2 = May-Sep, T3 = Sep-Jan) -
+
**Results (T1 = Jan-May, T2 = May-Sep, T3 = Sep-Jan) -
***2012T3 2012Sep-2013Jan average -> #DIV/0! (no ANSI publications this period so far)
+
***2014T1 2014Jan-May -> 1.8 = Green
***2012T2 May-Sep average -> 1.33 = Green light
+
***2013T3 2013Sep-2014Jan -> 1.0 = Green
***2012T2 Jan-May average -> 2.71 = Yellow light?
+
***2013T2 2013May-Sep -> 1.4 = Green; [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7511/10886/Cycles_to_Normative_by_wg_with_ANSIDate.xlsx 2013Sep Release]
***Past 1 year average -> 1.35 = Green light
+
***2013T1 2013Jan-May average -> 1.7 = Green; [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/frsrelease/995/10408/Cycles_to_Normative_by_wg_with_ANSIDate.xlsx 2013May Release]
 +
***2012T3 2012Sep-2013Jan average -> #DIV/0! (no ANSI publications this period); [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/frsrelease/923/9596/Cycles_to_Normative_by_wg_with_ANSIDate.xlsx 2012Sep Release] includes trend on the average of cycles to reach normative status and ANSI publication.
 +
***2012T2 May-Sep average -> 1.33 = Green  
 +
***2012T2 Jan-May average -> 2.71 = Yellow ?
 +
<br/>
 
*Publishing will also create a "'''Product Ballot Quality'''" metric (at the level of the product, but generated for each Ballot) that creates a green/yellow/red result by amalgamating specific elements such as:  
 
*Publishing will also create a "'''Product Ballot Quality'''" metric (at the level of the product, but generated for each Ballot) that creates a green/yellow/red result by amalgamating specific elements such as:  
 
**Content quality, including:
 
**Content quality, including:
Line 69: Line 75:
  
 
===WGM Effectiveness===
 
===WGM Effectiveness===
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=2057&start=0 Tracker #2057] Patrick will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: '''WGM Effectiveness'''
+
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=2057&start=0 Tracker #2057] was created to document the Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: '''WGM Effectiveness'''
 
**Draft Criteria
 
**Draft Criteria
 
***% of WG’s attending
 
***% of WG’s attending
Line 85: Line 91:
 
**For International Locations: a different set of %’s for success
 
**For International Locations: a different set of %’s for success
 
**Metrics may also be based on each WG's prior numbers
 
**Metrics may also be based on each WG's prior numbers
*See [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7142/9979/WGMEffectiveness_2013Jan.xls draft metrics for 2013Jan]
 
**TSC to review and finalize it along with determining the red/yellow/green criteria.
 
 
*Staff Support: Dave Hamill
 
*Staff Support: Dave Hamill
 
+
*TSC Liaison: Jean Duteau
 
 
 
 
  
 
===Dashboard===
 
===Dashboard===
Line 110: Line 112:
 
*[[Image:SI_RequirementsTraceability_thermometer.png|250px|example for dashboard]]
 
*[[Image:SI_RequirementsTraceability_thermometer.png|250px|example for dashboard]]
  
|valign=top|  
+
|valign=top bgcolor="#ddffaa"|  
 
'''Product Development Effectiveness '''
 
'''Product Development Effectiveness '''
 +
*2014T1 Sep-Jan average -> 1.8 = Green
 +
*2013T3 Sep-Jan average -> 1.0 = Green
 +
*2013T2 May-Sep average -> 1.4 = Green
 +
*2013T1 Jan-May average -> 1.7 = Green
 
*2012T3 2012Sep-2013Jan average -> #DIV/0! (no ANSI publications this period)
 
*2012T3 2012Sep-2013Jan average -> #DIV/0! (no ANSI publications this period)
*2012T2 May-Sep average -> 1.33 = Green light
+
*2012T2 May-Sep average -> 1.33 = Green  
*2012T2 Jan-May average -> 2.71 = Yellow light?
+
*2012T1 Jan-May average -> 2.71 = Yellow ?
*Past 1 year average -> 1.35 = Green light (no change from T2 to T3)
 
 
Key:
 
Key:
 
*Green: 1-2 ballots
 
*Green: 1-2 ballots
Line 123: Line 128:
  
 
|valign=top|  
 
|valign=top|  
'''WGM Effectiveness- U.S. meetings'''
+
'''WGM Effectiveness'''
*  TBD
+
 
 +
[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7698/11223/WGMEffectiveness_20131203.xls Metrics Through Sept 2013 WGM]
 +
 
 +
 
 
|-
 
|-
  
|valign=top|  
+
|valign=top rowspan=2|  
 
'''TBD'''
 
'''TBD'''
  
 
|valign=top bgcolor="#ffaabb"|  
 
|valign=top bgcolor="#ffaabb"|  
 
'''Cross-Artifact Consistency'''
 
'''Cross-Artifact Consistency'''
*V3 Standards - Measure - Green: All new standards have one or more of the following checked; Yellow: 1-2 standards have none of the following checked; Red: 3 or more standards have none of the following checked
+
*2014May: RED (6 standards had none checked of 10 eligible for this measure)
*:2012Sep: RED (4 standards had none checked)
+
*2014Jan: RED (5 standards had none checked of 5 eligible for this measure)
*Adopted 2012-09-08, there were 11 eligible publication requests on which this measure could be checked
+
*2013Sep: RED (3 standards had none checked of 9 eligible for this measure)
** Standard uses CMETs from HL7-managed CMETs in COCT, POCP (Common Product) and other domains - five standard
+
*2013May: RED (4 standards had none checked of 8 eligible for this measure)
**Standard uses harmonized design patterns (as defined through RIM Pattern harmonization process) - four standards
 
**Standard is consistent with common Domain Models including Clinical Statement, Common Product Model and "TermInfo" - eight standards
 
  
Harmonization participation: 44.12% rolling average 2012= RED
 
  
|valign=top|  
+
|valign=top rowspan=2|  
 
'''Product Ballot Quality'''
 
'''Product Ballot Quality'''
  
|valign=top|  
+
|valign=top rowspan=2|  
 
'''WGM Effectiveness - International meetings'''
 
'''WGM Effectiveness - International meetings'''
 
*  TBD
 
*  TBD
  
 +
|-
 +
|bgcolor="#ffffaa"|
 +
Harmonization participation:
 +
*64.65% rolling average ending 2014T1 = YELLOW
 +
*51.25% rolling average ending 2013T3 = YELLOW
 +
*46.28% rolling average ending 2013T2 = RED,  - almost there...
 +
*46.28% rolling average 2013T2 (May-Sep) to 2012T3 (2012Sep-2013Jan)= RED
 +
*37.79% rolling average 2013T1 (Jan-May) to 2012T2 (May-Sep)= RED
 +
*44.12% rolling average 2012T3 (2012Sep-2013Jan) to 2012T1 (Jan-May)= RED
  
 
|-
 
|-
  
 
|}
 
|}

Latest revision as of 15:52, 25 April 2014

HL7 Strategic Initiatives Dashboard Project

At Project Insight # 799

Project Scope: The scope of this project to implement a dashboard showing the TSC progress on implementing the HL7 Strategic Initiatives that the TSC is responsible for. The HL7 Board of Directors has a process for maintaining the HL7 Strategic Initiatives. The TSC is responsible for implementing a significant number of those initiatives. As part of developing a dashboard, the TSC will need to develop practical criteria for measuring progress in implementing the strategic initiatives. There are two aspects to the project. First is the process of standing up the dashboard itself. This may end up being a discrete project handed off to Electronic Services and HQ. That dashboard would track progress towards all of HL7's strategic initiatives (not just those the TSC is responsible for managing.) The second part of this project will be focused on the Strategic Initiatives for which the TSC is responsible.

In discussion at 2011-09-10_TSC_WGM_Agenda in San Diego, a RASCI Chart showing which criteria under the Strategic Initiatives the TSC would take responsibility for.

From those, the TSC accepted volunteers to draft metrics with which to measure the TSC criteria.


Industry responsiveness and easier implementation

Requirements traceability and cross-artifact consistency

Requirements traceability

- Tied to HL7 roll out of SAIF ECCF.

  • measure is the number of milestones completed:
    • Informative SAIF Canonical document published
    • DSTU SAIF Canonical document published
    • Normative SAIF Canonical document published
    • Peer Reviewed HL7 SAIF IG including ECCF chapter and draft SAIF Artifact Definitions
    • DSTU HL7 SAIF IG published
    • Normative HL7 SAIF IG published
    • SAIF Architecture Program experimental phase of HL7 SAIF ECCF implementation completed
    • SAIF AP trial use phase of HL7 SAIF ECCF implementation completed
    • HL7 SAIF ECCF rolled to all work groups working on applicable standards (V3 primarily)

Cross-artifact consistency

(per TSC decision 2012-03-26)

  • Survey of newly published V3 Standards via the publication request form
    • Key - Not including Implementation Guides (what about DAMs or foundational standards which define no artifacts?)
      • Green: All new standards have one or more of the following checked;
      • Yellow: 1-2 standards have none of the following checked;
      • Red: 3 or more standards have none of the following checked.
    • Standard uses CMETs from HL7-managed CMETs in COCT, POCP (Common Product) and other domains
    • Standard uses harmonized design patterns (as defined through RIM Pattern harmonization process)
    • Standard is consistent with common Domain Models including Clinical Statement, Common Product Model and "TermInfo"
  • Harmonization Participation: Percent of Work groups in FTSD, SSDSD and DESD participating in RIM/Vocab/Pattern Harmonization meetings, calculated as a 3 trimester moving average - Green of 75% or better participation. Yellow 50-74%. 0-49 is red.
  • Staff Support: Lynn Laakso

Product Quality

  • Product Development Effectiveness Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for average number of ballot cycles necessary to pass a normative standard. Calculated as a cycle average based on publication requests. Includes:
    (Note: This metric uses "ballots" rather than ballot cycles because more complex ballots frequently require two-cycles to complete reconciliation and prepare for a subsequent ballot.)
    1. Projects at risk of becoming stale 2 cycles after last ballot
    2. Two cycles since last ballot but not having posted a reconciliation or request for publication for normative edition
    3. items going into third or higher round of balloting for a normative specification;
    (Note: This flags concern while the process is ongoing; it is not necessarily a measure of quality once the document it has finished balloting).
    • Key
      • Green: 1-2 ballots
      • Yellow: 3-4 ballots
      • Red: 5+ ballots
    • Results (T1 = Jan-May, T2 = May-Sep, T3 = Sep-Jan) -
      • 2014T1 2014Jan-May -> 1.8 = Green
      • 2013T3 2013Sep-2014Jan -> 1.0 = Green
      • 2013T2 2013May-Sep -> 1.4 = Green; 2013Sep Release
      • 2013T1 2013Jan-May average -> 1.7 = Green; 2013May Release
      • 2012T3 2012Sep-2013Jan average -> #DIV/0! (no ANSI publications this period); 2012Sep Release includes trend on the average of cycles to reach normative status and ANSI publication.
      • 2012T2 May-Sep average -> 1.33 = Green
      • 2012T2 Jan-May average -> 2.71 = Yellow ?


  • Publishing will also create a "Product Ballot Quality" metric (at the level of the product, but generated for each Ballot) that creates a green/yellow/red result by amalgamating specific elements such as:
    • Content quality, including:
      1. ability to create schemas that validate (metric of model correctness) [where failure could have been prevented by the product developer],
      2. the presence of class- and attribute-level descriptions in a static model (metric of robust documentation)
  • Staff Support: Lynn Laakso

WGM Effectiveness

  • Tracker #2057 was created to document the Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: WGM Effectiveness
    • Draft Criteria
      • % of WG’s attending
      • % of WG’s who get agenda posted in appropriate timeframe
      • % of WG’s who achieve quorum at WGM
      • Number of US-based attendees
      • Number of International attendees
      • Number of non-member attendees
      • Profit or Loss
      • Nbr of FTAs
      • Nbr of Tutorials Offered
      • Nbr Students Attending Tutorials
      • Nbr of Quarters that WG's had agenda for; but did not make quorum
    • For US-Based Locations: one set of %’s for success
    • For International Locations: a different set of %’s for success
    • Metrics may also be based on each WG's prior numbers
  • Staff Support: Dave Hamill
  • TSC Liaison: Jean Duteau

Dashboard

Industry responsiveness and easier implementation Requirements Traceability
and cross-artifact consistency
Product Quality WGM Effectiveness

SI Project assessment

  • TBD

Requirements traceability

Product Development Effectiveness

  • 2014T1 Sep-Jan average -> 1.8 = Green
  • 2013T3 Sep-Jan average -> 1.0 = Green
  • 2013T2 May-Sep average -> 1.4 = Green
  • 2013T1 Jan-May average -> 1.7 = Green
  • 2012T3 2012Sep-2013Jan average -> #DIV/0! (no ANSI publications this period)
  • 2012T2 May-Sep average -> 1.33 = Green
  • 2012T1 Jan-May average -> 2.71 = Yellow ?

Key:

  • Green: 1-2 ballots
  • Yellow: 3-4 ballots
  • Red: 5+ ballots


WGM Effectiveness

Metrics Through Sept 2013 WGM


TBD

Cross-Artifact Consistency

  • 2014May: RED (6 standards had none checked of 10 eligible for this measure)
  • 2014Jan: RED (5 standards had none checked of 5 eligible for this measure)
  • 2013Sep: RED (3 standards had none checked of 9 eligible for this measure)
  • 2013May: RED (4 standards had none checked of 8 eligible for this measure)


Product Ballot Quality

WGM Effectiveness - International meetings

  • TBD

Harmonization participation:

  • 64.65% rolling average ending 2014T1 = YELLOW
  • 51.25% rolling average ending 2013T3 = YELLOW
  • 46.28% rolling average ending 2013T2 = RED, - almost there...
  • 46.28% rolling average 2013T2 (May-Sep) to 2012T3 (2012Sep-2013Jan)= RED
  • 37.79% rolling average 2013T1 (Jan-May) to 2012T2 (May-Sep)= RED
  • 44.12% rolling average 2012T3 (2012Sep-2013Jan) to 2012T1 (Jan-May)= RED