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

20120802 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. HL7 Business Architecture
  6. Follow up on Architecture Implications of Strategic Initiatives(SI) - ALL
  7. Other business and planning
  8. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20120801
Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Parker, Ron Note taker(s) Julian, Tony
Attendee Name Affiliation
X Bond,Andy NEHTA
. 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
X Parker, Ron CA Infoway
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
. Guests
X Pech, Brian Kaiser Permanente
X Luthra, Anil NCI
X Abdul-Malik Shakir Shakir Consulting
. Legend
X Present
. Absent
R Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes


  1. Call to order
    1. The meeting was called to order at 4:00pm Eastern.
  2. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
    1. MOTION to approve the minutes (Steve/Zoran)
    2. Vote( 9-0-2)
  3. Follow up onHL7 Business Architecture (BA) and Architecture Implications of Strategic Initiatives(SI) - ALL
    1. Jane: It is difficult determining the initiatives given the product lines since we don't know which product lines which members are implementing. No one else has made any comments.
    2. Charlie: We need to start by getting clarification from Austin/John on how the SI reach up past the TSC, and the BA stops at the TSC. We have not gotten official approval to start the BA, so now is the time to have this discussion.
    3. Jane: We have not nailed down the artifacts to be derived from the BA.
    4. Charlie: TSC stumbled over the breadth of qualifications of the ArB to develop the model.
    5. Abdul-Malik: with volunteers?
    6. Charlie: Yes.
    7. Abdul-Malik: There are organizations that do this which will solve the qualifications issue.
    8. Charlie: There is no funding.
    9. Abdul-Malik: Maybe Accenture could do so as a good-will gesture.
    10. Charlie: Or Shakir Consulting.
    11. Abdul-Malik: Anyone in HL7 will be working on it in addition to the seven other things they are working on.
    12. Jane: I came away discouraged by what is implied, but not explicit. We have fewer metrics, and other things. The time frame is too short.
    13. Charlie: The concept was to give them a sketch, which will be filled in.
    14. Jane: We can discuss methods used, and artifacts produced.
    15. Charlie: The first cut is a framework of the architecture. Engagement with the larger community will be required to flesh it out.
    16. Jane: Including pointing out the missing pieces.
    17. Ron: Put together a framework, and start to cobble it together. We have to model from GOM, but not redesign things that work well. We can make assertions that you need these capabilities to accomplish the SI.
    18. Abdul-Malik: Should we start with TOGAF and identify the artifacts.
    19. Ron: Yes.
    20. Abdul-Malik: I would be willing to work with someone else.
    21. Ron: How do we begin?
    22. Charlie: Take a framework we know, and plug in.
    23. Ron: We might have to allocate certain threads. Pull up TOGAF, and assign responsibilities for people to do things. People familiar with available functions.
    24. Jane: Sounds like less doing and more planning on the first iteration.
    25. Ron, Charlie: Yes.
    26. Ron: Jane had done a lovely piece of work on the tooling required. Presupposed the need for shared repository, that could be used by Work Groups. There was notional work done in INFOWAY for how the specifications enabled vendors to do the work.
    27. Bo: On TOGAF, The methodology ADM is useful, but for now, goal, 2b. We are not scoped to do all of these things. It does not capture the motivation for why you do things - it is a bit of a whole. We coupled the OMG business motivation model.
    28. Zoran: I support that idea. We should be careful not to waste cycles not to support all of TOGAF. We have a good framework to guide us. We can say we are relying on the business parts of TOGAF.
    29. Abdul-Malik: I suggested that we need a common framework. If there is an existing one, we should do that.
    30. Zoran: We can do that.
    31. Bo: We cannot do that verbatim.
    32. Abdul-Malik: We did the same thing with SAIF using RM-ODP.
    33. Ron: TOGAF points out not to be a slave from the methodology. If there is one thing that has to be communicated is WHY.
    34. Jane: Missing piece in the SI, and the ability to measure same. The fit-for-purpose thing we added with SAIF does not tell us how to find this.
    35. Ron: Set of initial steps so we can show up in Baltimore with an outline and an approach.
    36. Abdul-Malik: Will be on a tiger team if someone else will be the leader.
    37. Ron: I am gone for two weeks.
    38. Bo: I will volunteer.
    39. Jane: I will be on the team, my perspective is the SI and bringing into the architecture.
    40. Team will be Abdul-Malik, Jane, Bo.
    41. Bo: We are working on a framework? Do we need to have something for next week?
    42. Charlie: Next week would be good.
  4. Saif Glossary
    1. Zoran agreed to have ready for the Baltimore Working Group Meeting.
  1. Other business and planning
  2. Adjournment at 4:38pm Eastern

--Tony Julian 20:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)