Difference between revisions of "TSC SWOT"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(final approval)
Line 20: Line 20:
 
**Clearly designate our product line and product identification
 
**Clearly designate our product line and product identification
 
**Emergence of new and contemporary technology including FHIR and semantic web ontologies
 
**Emergence of new and contemporary technology including FHIR and semantic web ontologies
**Leverage new membership benefits for IP management, help desk and conformance testing, in dealing with technical issues.  
+
**Leverage new membership benefits for IP management, help desk, user groups, and conformance testing, in dealing with technical issues.  
 
**Provide mechanisms to allow vitality assessment throughout the organization; define criteria for trigger events: including ability to define processes for assessment, provide strategic and tactical guidance to the EC and Board.
 
**Provide mechanisms to allow vitality assessment throughout the organization; define criteria for trigger events: including ability to define processes for assessment, provide strategic and tactical guidance to the EC and Board.
  
Line 30: Line 30:
 
**Lack of clear governance surrounding new member benefits e.g. user groups, help desk
 
**Lack of clear governance surrounding new member benefits e.g. user groups, help desk
 
**Keeping up with increased uptake of our standards (e.g. FHIR)
 
**Keeping up with increased uptake of our standards (e.g. FHIR)
**Lack of adequate governance, management, curation and support processes to manage uptake of our profiles and standards.
+
**Lack of adequate governance, management, curation and support processes to manage our standards and the resulting profiles that are created.
  
 
Approved by TSC 2014-09-13
 
Approved by TSC 2014-09-13

Revision as of 14:55, 13 September 2014

  • Strengths
    • Clear focus on delineated governance and management activities
    • Respected, highly experienced membership
    • Committed membership
    • Support from board, HQ, and Work Group members
    • Open, transparent, and responsive
    • Proactive
  • Weakness
    • Limited time
    • Limited control over resources
    • Support from Board, HQ, and Working Group but still sometimes we don't get the support we need from the Board and members
    • Process for bringing in external proposed standards.
    • Linkage with Strategic Initiatives
  • Opportunities
    • Business Architecture Model development offers improved Governance and Management to match existing Methodology strengths
    • Change to Intellectual Property licensing at no cost
    • Increased uptake by national programs
    • Clearly designate our product line and product identification
    • Emergence of new and contemporary technology including FHIR and semantic web ontologies
    • Leverage new membership benefits for IP management, help desk, user groups, and conformance testing, in dealing with technical issues.
    • Provide mechanisms to allow vitality assessment throughout the organization; define criteria for trigger events: including ability to define processes for assessment, provide strategic and tactical guidance to the EC and Board.
  • Threats
    • Creating overheads without visible return
    • Improve Product Quality
    • Lack of confidence in standards management creates vacuum for Profiler/Enforcer creating their own healthcare interoperability standards
    • Increasing numbers of mandates coming from the US Realm
    • Lack of clear governance surrounding new member benefits e.g. user groups, help desk
    • Keeping up with increased uptake of our standards (e.g. FHIR)
    • Lack of adequate governance, management, curation and support processes to manage our standards and the resulting profiles that are created.

Approved by TSC 2014-09-13