This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

20120712 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)


  1. Call to order
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of Agenda
  4. Approval of Minutes
  5. Report from Architecture Project
  6. Architecture PSS
    1. Project Scope Statement
    2. HL7 Business Architure Project Scope Statement
  7. Scheduled tasks:
    1. HL7 Strategic Initiatives Review
      1. Charlie: ArB to comment on architecture implications of HL7 Strategic Initiatives
    2. Risk Management Project ArB Task Assignment
      1. Jane:Decompose ArB responsibilities for Risk Management and assign leads
    3. Zoran/Andy:Maturity of HL7 and the customer base
  8. Other business and planning
  9. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20120712
Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Charlie Mead Note taker(s) Julian, Tony
Attendee Name Affiliation
X Bond,Andy NEHTA
R Constable, Lorraine Constable Consulting Inc.
X Curry, Jane Health Information Strategies
X Dagnall, Bo HP Enterprise Services
. Grieve, Grahame Health Intersections Pty Ltd
X Hufnagel, Steve U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
X Julian, Tony Mayo Clinic
. Loyd, Patrick ICode Solutions
X Lynch, Cecil Accenture
X Mead, Charlie National Cancer Institute
X Milosevic, Zoran NEHTA
. Ocasio, Wendell Agilex Technologies
R Parker, Ron CA Infoway
X Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
. Guests
X Ballinger, Jay VSP
X Kreisler, Austin HL7 TSC
X Pech, Brian Kaiser Permanente
. Legend
X Present
. Absent
R Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes


  1. Motion Approve Minutes (Tony/Jane)
  2. Vote (7-0-0)
  3. Report from architecture project:
  4. HL7 Business Architecture Model Project Scope Statement:
    1. Will use as much as exists as is - TSC, ARB, GOM
    2. Driving concepts:
    3. Manages around product lines, e.g. FHIR, V3
    4. Will take into consideration separation of methodology, Management, governance.
    5. BAM was reviewed.
    6. Goes up to the TSC, does not include the Board, etc.
    7. Bo: Missing distinctions between goal state, and target state. Goal state is not bound by time, target states are time bound. Should separate the two.
    8. Charlie: Did not get pasted in is that for the PSS we need to build the Goal State. The next phase is to develop the incremental target states.
    9. Austin: The architecture project scope is to implement the BAM you develop. Will document the incremental target states.
    10. Charlie: ArB will define the Goal state.
    11. Austin: The projects are differentiated along the line of methodology, Management, governance.
    12. Cecil: This should define the final goal, but we need to lay out the components? There needs to be a temporal component to the goal states.
    13. Bo: Needs to be sufficiently abstract, but not so much as to be meaningless. The targets are defined by the other projects.
    14. Cecil: If we lay out the end goal there will be components that are forward looking to the projects that will need to be created to achieve it.
    15. Charlie: The SAIF architecture project will define who will take on which tasks: methodology, Management, governance. They will decide who does what, so ArB may be tasked for other responsibilities.
    16. Austin: The ArB will be involved.
    17. Charlie: We will define 2b, AP will define targets, and who will do what.
    18. Jane: Item 3 - is this not the governance points?
    19. Charlie: ArB BAM processes would be those to identify governance points, and TSC will determine how to achieve. They are not serial projects. ArB is launching the framework.
    20. Austin: All have to work together.
    21. Cecil: One of the 2b components would be a governance process, and define what has to be governed. TSC would define the iterative steps to improve the state to include the prescription provided by the TSC for what governance will look like.
    22. Austin: Iterative structure will be iterating multiple times.
    23. Charlie: Change the relationships as necessary to move to an organization that is centered around product lines, and around methodology, Management, governance. Will involve ArB, Architecture project, MnM, and others. Centered over SAIF-CD.
    24. Jane: Some HL7 principles we need to articulate more concretely - openness, consensus, etc. values for behavior. How existing processes behave within the values.
    25. Charlie: Scope statement is not final report. Can we vote on it?
    26. Cecil: OK with as is. We are now backing up to be business analysts. Will extend the domain model.
    27. Jane: Comfortable with the assumed process. Except no target dates.
    28. Austin: would like to report something to the Board in Baltimore.
    29. John: would like to report to board in August.
    30. Zoran: What is the meaning of <<context neutral>>.
    31. Charlie: We need to define capabilities, process is in the GOM. We define capabilities. If you start with the process model to find reusable processes.
    32. Jane: Important if the scope is consistency across product lines.
    33. Charlie: Understand how to manage product lines consistently.
    34. Steve: Concur with going forward.
    35. Andy: Seems to go out of its way to dissociate with current state. To develop a future state without understanding the current state is difficult. There are overarching principles we need to apply to the current state. Cant do future without analyzing the current.
    36. Charlie: Agree. The language about reusing the current, changing as necessary. We are going to reuse what we have. Changes will be guided by
    37. Austin: The current state is GOM. There are a lot of undocumented processes. ArB would find it an endless task to discover all of them. If it is NOT in the GOM, don't presume it.
    38. Charlie:Andy- more explicit that we will delve into the as-is, not necessarily all new.
    39. Andy: Make explicit that we don't spend 5 years discovering nuances: something in the 2b state that reflects a building block already in place, we need to discover the gaps. Goal to identify current state assets that are described in the GOM.
    40. Jane: if we need to identify the rationale, we need a touch point to something that is working well, or change because of perceived inconsistencies.
    41. Charlie: Based on the comments, it seems to me that the ArB is not comfortable on voting on the PSS as it stands. Will someone make targeted changes around the things we have discussed.
    42. Bo: I will take a stab at it.
    43. Charlie: Not a 6 page document.
    44. Bo: will incorporate another concept.
  5. SAIF Architecture PSS
    1. Austin: HL7 needs methodology, Management, governance working together iteratively. There will be a 3rd PSS focusing on Governance. In the future there will be three structures working toward the goal. The two groups today need to cooperate, in the future there will be three.
    2. The SAIF Architecture program will focus on management, the ArB on governance.
    3. MOTION Approve SAIF Architecture PSS. (Tony/Jane)
    4. Vote (8-0-0)
  6. Adjournment at 5:00pm Eastern

--Tony Julian 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)