20120719 arb minutes

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)

Agenda

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
5. HL7 Strategic Initiatives Review All
6. Maturity of HL7 and the customer base Zoran/Andy
7. HL7 BAM Charlie/Bo
8. Risk Management Project ArB Task Assignment Jane
9. SAIF Glossary Finalization Zoran
10. Report from Architecture Project
11. Other business and planning
12. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 2012MMDD Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Parker, Ron	Note taker(s)	Julian, Tony
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
X	Constable, Lorraine	Constable Consulting Inc.
X	Curry, Jane	Health Information Strategies
X	Dagnall, Bo	HP Enterprise Services
.	Grieve, Grahame	Health Intersections Pty Ltd
.	Hufnagel, Steve	U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
X	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
.	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
.	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
.	Mead, Charlie	National Cancer Institute
X	Milosevic, Zoran	NEHTA
.	Ocasio, Wendell	Agilex Technologies
X	Parker, Ron	CA Infoway
X	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
.	Guests
.	Kreisler, Austin	HL7 TSC
.	Legend
.	Present
.	Absent
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes Minutes
   1. MOTION approve Lorraine/Jane
   2. VOTE (7-0-2)
5. HL7 Strategic Initiatives(SI) Review All
   1. Ron: No formalized initiatives
   2. Jane: No progress. Related to risk assessment.
   3. Austin: It is clear that the Risk Assessment project belongs to the ArB. We need ArB review of SI impact on architecture. Making major effort to separate management from governance.
   4. Ron: ArB will return Risk assessment to TSC. ArB role will be architure risk assessment, arising from SI.
   5. Jane: I will take a run at evaluating the SI for implications for architecture for next week. Maturity of HL7 and the customer base will be valuable input to the Risk Assessment. Jane will distribute for review by ArB architecture implications.
6. Maturity of HL7 and the customer base Zoran/Andy.
   1. Ron: Looking for actionable steps.
   2. Zoran: Presented slides. InteropCapbility-ARB-NEW.pptx
   3. Developing SAIF for Australian eHealth. We are finding a divide between interoperability and integration. Interoperability focuses on the open world - importance of standards, conformance, federation with multiple time points. Ingegration focuses on single time point.
   4. Andy: We did not want to incorporate architecture maturity into integration maturity. Only include those that relate to the interoperability goal.
   5. Andy: Interoperability is to architecture as acceleration is to speed. Interoperability supports architecture in transit.
   6. Zoran: Classic contention between internal and external architecture. Interoperability is a dimension of a system.
   7. Zoran: We are looking to leverage the Capability Maturity Model Integration(CMMI) framework. There are two approaches
      1. Continuous representation, used by software development - focus on properties of activities in the organization.
      2. Staged representation, describes maturity levels 1-5.
   8. Zoran: Need to look at continuous, not maturity.
      1. Level 1 is data
      2. Level 4 is semantic interoperbility
   9. Zoran: Need to focus on the process areas that are key.
   10. Andy: The path used depends on the level of governance, and the depth of the pockets of cash to work with.
   11. Andy: The governance of the architectures is at the state level, often at the "lets get something going" level.
   12. Jane: I have heard that the V2 is more acceptable since it is existing, and is easier to adapt than to do a top/down architected solution.
   13. Andy: Comes down to interoperability and architecture - how much is change management and adoption. How much of the interoperability model is achievable. Some want to do V2 to wrap CDA, others use V2 to adapt the CDA information model. How do you measure the journey toward the goal of an integratable solution? Our job is not to determine the maturity of a model,rather the place in the journey.
   14. Jane: Using maturity level of repeatable processes.
   15. Andy: Not one single measure of maturity, one for each journey. Need to recognize the levels, allowing coexistence. Have to allow for V2 journey as well as CDA journey. If we had a big bucket of money to pay everyone. The singularity method does not work. The environment needs to allow the joruneys to take place.
   16. Zoran:Rather than choosing an ad-hoc approach, we have a schematic approach to define the interoperability process areas.
   17. Zoran: Cncept Relationship: Capability levels are associated with a process area: Performed, Managed, Defined, Incomplete. Specific goals are defined by practices to produced work products. Principles definging Key process areas are Governance, Policy Compliance, Service Orientation, Conformity Assurance, Common Semantics and Technical Interoperability. Process areas have specific goals, practices, and work products.
   18. Zoran: Next steps: Agree interoperability process areas vs Architecture Process. For each area agree on Specific Goals, Practices, Work Products.
   19. Ron: See elements for the Strategic Initiatives. Looking at future state this could be helpful on how we position things.
7. HL7 BAM Charlie/Bo
   1. BAM is projected as circulated.
   2. MOTION to forward to TSC. Tony to add WIKI link. (Jane/Lorraine)

http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=HL7_Business_Architecture

1. 1. Vote (8-0-0)
   2. Austin: There is a third project - Governance but will not be ready for Monday.
2. Adjournment
   1. Adjourned at 5:00pm Eastern