Strategic Initiatives TSC Dashboard

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

• Tracker #2060 Ken will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics recommendations for: Industry responsiveness and easier implementation

  Ken has proposed that projects continue to be identified as important to a strategic initiative, rather than removing that area on the project scope statement. If a project is being initiated specifically for a strategic initiative project then it must be identified in some way. Austin notes that we have not historically been using those checkboxes to identify which SI their project is aligned with. Ken notes that we need to help Project Services to identify SI projects that are not specifically in support of an SI. Woody notes that many projects are in alignment with a SI. Ken is looking to harvest information to know when a project is for a strategic initiative, for placement on the dashboard. Then we can measure those projects for green/yellow/red. Austin notes that such measurement is not restricted solely to projects. Ken notes that without deriving objective information from projects it will be a heavily manual, subjective process and resources would be needed. Ken was going to work with Dave to recategorize the existing projects among the three initiatives now in place. Austin uses an example of WGM effectiveness as a measure that cannot be generated from project information. Woody adds some measures are related to the ballot itself. Austin was not constraining himself to those measurements that can be automated. Ken notes that even the survey on WGM effectiveness you have to drill down to the comments to find constructive information. Austin notes that rolling up all projects under three categories will be difficult to measure since some of the items under each category are under the TSC and some are not. We have to be able to collect data at the next layer down. Woody notes that the indication of strategic initiative on the scope statement is not as precise as it needs to be but it gives us a place to start. Ken and Dave would do the assessment and bring it back to the TSC for review.

Requirements traceability and cross-artifact consistency

• Tracker #2059 Austin will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: 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)
      • Standards that include V3 RIM-Derived information models.
      • 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.

    Other metrics considered

    • Survey of newly published standards via the publication request form
      • 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
        • 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"
  • Austin notes that these are not necessarily automated metrics for the criteria.

Product Quality

• Tracker #2058 Woody will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: Product Development Effectiveness
  • Measure is the average number of ballot cycles necessary to pass a normative standard. Calculated as a 3 trimester moving average based on publication requests. Add a new field to publication request to document number of ballots required to pass normative ballot. 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).

    • Green: 1-2 ballots
    • Yellow: 3-4 ballots
    • Red: 5+ ballots
    • Examples: 2012 Normative publication requests:
      1. MnM Abstract DT R2 (PI 455)
      2. Pharmacy MDSE (PI 242)
      3. MnM RIM R4 (PI 363)
      4. MnM Core Principles and Properties (PI 219)
      5. SOA DSS R1 (PI 757)
      6. EHR Pharmacist/Pharmacy Provider Functional Profile (PI 698)
      7. Arden Syntax V2.8 (PI 733)
      8. Patient Safety ICSR Part 1 and 2 (PI 227)
      9. Do we count CMETs? We should probably not count reaffirmation ballots...
    • 2011 Normative publication requests:
      1. Patient Administration Realt Time Location Tracking (PI 491)
      2. Patient Care: Care Provision: Health Concern (PI 275)
      3. RCRIM: eStability R2
• 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)
• Lynn will move these to a specific wiki page to develop these further. Make a standing agenda item to report progress on proposals. Ken will work with Dave Hamill to sort the existing projects under the three criteria and develop instruction on the use of the strategic initiatives check box. They’ll use the 2012 SI criteria. Ken will ask Dave to present their findings next week.

WGM Effectiveness

• Tracker #2057 Patrick will create 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