TSC National Initiative project
TSC Large Customer Partnerships Project
was National Initiative Project 2009
Link to TSC Tracker #1001
Link to draft project scope statement v3
Link to draft v2 PSS
DRAFT - Not approved by TSC
- This project will not be progressed by the TSC
- The International Council have been asked to consider taking it on
- The HL7 roadmap clearly points to HL7 delivering to national initiatives and other major users of international standards as a way to promote standards adoption, and generate financial resources for the HL7 organisation.
- The TSC wishes to define what this means in practical terms, and to see how HL7 can deliver to this sector more effectively. It is vital that we can accurately describe the value that HL7 can deliver, and be confident that we have plans and processes in place so that HL7 really does deliver on any commitments made.
- The US initiative is a urgent example of this, but there is also a need to engage with other national projects more effectively. See below for illustration.
- The core activity of HL7 is workgroups that engage in projects to produce and maintain products. This is mainly resourced by membership fees, where in return for the membership fee the member has access to the projects, products and workgroups, and other membership benefits.
- The TSC has been working to make the HL7 Projects, Products and Workgroups more visible. However to engage with large customers (National Initiatives, and 'Provider/Enforcer Organisations') we need to articulate Packaged Value Propositions that meet the needs of the large customer collaboratives, and can be delivered through a combination of HL7 projects and products. These 'Packaged Value Propositions' will be produced by developing an understanding of the needs of the large customers, and seeing what HL7 can deliver that will help to meet those needs.
- Note that packaged value propositions may include providing access to HL7 products to some or all non-members (ie include licences to use some or all HL7 products)
- Large Customer Partnerships project would intend to articulate the requirements that define what our stakeholders want of HL7. In comparison, the efforts of the Grants and Contracts Infrastructure Committee appointed by the Board of Directors, is imagined to devise the detailed mechanics of 'how do we deliver'.
- As our specification infrastructure evolves through the SAEAF, specific issues may surface, needing to be resolved with the types and form (structure) of our specification to satisfy the needs of the Large Customer Partnerships.
Objectives and Deliverables
- The project intends to create a white paper to be reviewed and approved by the TSC, outlining:
- Different potential ways that PEOs and HL7 can engage with each other.
- The value propositions to PEOs for engagement with HL7
- The organisational change need to deliver that value
- The resource implications of delivering the value
- The paper will include one or more example actionable plan for delivering greater value to National Initiatives. These example actionable plans can then be used as a basis for creating actual plans for engagement with National Initiatives.
- The paper will inform the TSC and CTO as they maintain the technical plan for the organisation.
- The paper will be maintained alongside the HL7 Product List and be used to help inform that work.
- The paper will inform those marketing to and negotiating with National Initiatives in the USA and affiliates, and provide a central repository of requirements and actionable solutions.
- The project will perform a before and after survey as a measure of its effectiveness.
- Actionable plans agreed with more than one national initiative
- Increased confidence in HL7 by National Initiatives (as measured by survey)
Assuming that this initiative is intended to surface the expectations / requirements of government stakeholders on HL7 as an SDO then it would be great if they surfaced at least the following:
- Overall simple/clear statement of business goal / objectives
- Clarification of the desired outcomes desired in terms of:
- What changes to the business scope (content) of our specification outputs are sought? Are there domains or scope areas that are missing? This would drive content committee changes.
- Knowing that we are re-engineering our specification infrastructure through the SAEAF, are there specific issues they see as needing to be resolved with the types and form (structure) of our specification? This would drive refinements to the SAEAF and could impact our view of the core 'product'.
- Are there stakeholders (people) that we need to be engaging that we are not engaging today? Are there gaps in the way we are engaging existing stakeholders? (i.e. communications, etc.)
- What are timing (process) expectations vis-a-vis particular outcomes? (e.g. we need core health care models nailed down by date X? We need a new specification Y to be able to be defined AND endorsed within Z months?)
- What are the decision making (process) expectations vis-a-vis specifications? Are “ANSI” standards sought? Are softer levels of endorsement sought?
- For each of the above points it would be great if the consensus view could be formally surfaced (i.e. goals they all agree with) as well as national nuances. All of this can then be input to the applicable “change / definition” processes.