20101006 arb minutes jointw with O&O and MnM on EA IP Transition
ArB Minutes EA IP Transition
|HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes
Location: Cambridge WGM
Time: 3:30 pm U.S. EDT
|Facilitator||Ron Parker||Note taker(s)||Ron Parker|
|.||Curry, Jane||Health Information Strategies|
|.||Grieve, Grahame||Kestral Computing|
|.||Julian, Tony||Mayo Clinic|
|.||Koisch, John||Guidewire Architecture|
|X||Loyd, Patrick||Gordon point Informatics LTD.|
|.||Lynch, Cecil||ontoreason LLC|
|.||Mead, Charlie||National Cancer Institute|
|.||Ocasio, Wendell||Agilex Technologies|
|X||Parker, Ron||CA Infoway|
|.||Quinn, John||Health Level Seven, Inc.|
|.||Shakir, Abdul-Malik||Shakir Consulting|
|X||Michael vand der firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Quorum Requirements Met: Yes|
- Call to order
- Agenda review and approval (Suggestions or additions to and acceptance of agenda)
- EA IP Transition
ACTION: Lynn + Charlie One of the outputs is a rehash of the project scope statement for the Enterprise Architecture Implementation Program(?) (note change from Project) - Restate the problem statement: - Functional models and technical models and the relationship between them - Consistency across our paradigms - Behaviour in dynamic model - Reusable functional components - Need to refine the problem statements and provide success criteria to know if we are making progress and how we will know we are done.
ACTION: Mark Coehn, Ron Parker, Lynn Laakso
Before proceeding with the new scope definition we should close the existing Alpha's with a structured interview process with each alpha that harvests the learnings. Mark Coehn and Ron Parker will developed the interview questions and we will ask Lynn Laakso to conduct the interviews. Mark will consolidate the responses into the closing report.
ACTION: Patrick Loyd
Need a revised project statement for the O&O Composite Orders project WG's developing Infrastucture (definitional work) ITS I&M M&M Tooling I&C SOA Publishing Project Services WG providing the Reference Implementation Project is O&O and they will define the scope, and the requirements (both process and what the infrastructure groups need to support). It will formally be O&O's project. Each WG will need to produce a plan for what they will do to support this process. There is an expectation that each WG will determine and describe who of the other WG's they will work with to accomplish this. TSC will assert / resolve governance on an ongoing basis. Alongside of these activities, we are going to select a focused project ex: Composite Lab Order. OO would be the sponsor of this project. They understand the value of the SAIF BF to allow the last six years of work be actually implementable. This one This would be followed at some point by Pharmacy, then Structured Docs. EA IP Project will have oversight, make visibile to the organization the plans, interdependencies, the critical path, and progress. Partial list of activities: InM determines how to move / adapt wrappers to the service-contract description Project Services determines how the methodology and deliverables are integrated into the balloting life cycle MnM to address the modeling formalisms and the impact of the SAIF on HDF methodology ArB will be responsible for providing SAIF reference materials SOA to define the service contract paradigm, as well as perhaps a guide for application of SOA
What is to be balloted?? O&O Composite Order Specifications expressed in messaging, CDA, and web services contexts (all done in a SOA paradigm). (RP comment: is this really necessary? All 3?). Suggestion that we not attempt to ballot the infrastructure components line with the balloting of the O&O work product. This may be fine, but we cannot ballot work product without having a formalized process to version and change manage the underlying infrastructure components (perhaps this can be done in formal Harmonization). How do we get Implementation Guides? What we need to think of is higher than that, in other words what is the education process needed, which may be: Tools Guides Checklists Etc...
- Work products:
Updated MIF Core Principles Need to figure out how to structure Harmonization awithin this framework. Lessons from the Alpha projects' Mapping issues, procedural Sept 2011 would be the target date for balloting of Composite Orders. This is a SWAG. We need to work backwards from that date to define what is required. The goal is not to make the infrastructure products perfect in the course of this.
- Risks and Mitigations
- Risk 1
- It was observed that there will be some (maybe up to 5) "hard problems" that will need to be addressed in the course of this.
- Mitigation: develop a structured Harmonization and change management process (along the lines of the RIM Harmonization)
- Risk 2
- We need also to be sure to document how the project evolves, how the hard problems were dealt with, and how thinking evolved over the time.
- This will require disciplined use of trackers and the ability to consolidate the tracking and issues resolution. We will have to ask the projects to use only one of the 4 current tracking mechanisms in order to facilitate this.
- Also can use Harmonization process
- Risk 1
- Risk 3 -
- The nature of volunteer participation and the challenges of capability, capacity, timeliness, and continuity that result
- Probability: HIGH Impact: SIGNIFICANT
- Risk 4 -
- Introduction of coordinated Project Management to HL7 working groups may be met with considerable resistance
- Probability: MODERATE Impact: SIGNIFICANT
- Mitigation: Work with Project Services to define how to do this, including perhaps contracting out some to some resources. Also, it may be easier to have infrastructure IG's adhere to PM when they understanding that they are contributing to one set of specs (it is not their product, they need to agree to support the production of the O&O product).
- Is it feasible to canvas within the HL7 community to find PM's etc who would be willing to participate?
- Risk 5
- Patrick Lloyd is the sponsor / leader for this O&O project which is aligned with his current day job (Infoway sponsored). He is scheduled to roll off the contract lifetime with Infoway in April 2011.
- Mitigation: determine how to support Patrick's continuity, either through extending engagement with Infoway or engineering his next gig (perhaps with existing HL7 vested stakeholders).
- Risk 6
- Are the foundation SAIF framed artifacts going to be available in time for the O&O project?
- Mitigation: Presume that the more affected or net-new artifacts are focused on up-front
- Risk 7
- We may not be able to assert credible metrics and measures for success. How do we demonstrate that we have achieved success in a credible way.
- Mitigation: This is tightly coupled with the idea of being able to assert conformance, which SAIF is designed to solve for. Is the ultimate success an implementation of the product and behaviours by senders and receivers who adopted the specs? NOTE: The EA IP project is about addressing the problem statements to be addressed by the O&O project.
- Risk 8
- We have no customers. Who are the customers for Composite Orders? Who would be vested?
- BC in Canada
- Possibly VA?
- Possibly Brazil?
- One of the problems we have is that HL7 v2 Lab is the most adopted spec in HL7's history. In addition, the medical legal liability implications of participating in orders has been well addressed in the v2 paradigm. This would need to be solved to move to some other paradigm.
- Risk 9
- We have not identified who are the key participants in the Enterprise Architecture Implementation Program
- Mitigation: do this as part of the program charter / project statement
- Early list:
- Charlie McCay
- Ron Parker
- Marc Koehn
- Patrick Loyd
- A co-chair from each involved WG
- PM for each project
- Adjourned 5:00pm U.S. EDT
Tony Julian 16:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)