20130314 arb minutes

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)

Agenda

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of March 7, 2013 Minutes
5. Report from Architecture Project
6. We need to review the plan, identify progress, prioritize activities and verify assignments.
   1. One of the key tasks will be to work out how we manage changes to the spreadsheet structure and the related models to minimize rework

A.	Lifecycle Activity Diagrams – Bo and Charlie
	1.	Review Frieda’s process model and update process lifecycle diagram. – Charlie 
	2.	Create initial activity diagrams and state transition diagrams. – Charlie 
	1.	Formalize diagrams above into EA – Bo 
	3.	Update meta-model profiles, spreadsheets, and models so far to reflect i and ii. – Bo 
	4.	Create a high-level product hierarchy / taxonomy – 
		Bo and Charlie to put together very high level first draft
		1.	Product Lines
		2.	Product families
		3.	Product family sub-components
B.	Data Capture Spreadsheet – Jane, Ron & AMS
	5.	Embed definitions for the data capture tool items in the reference section 
		of the spreadsheet – Mostly done – Ron and Jane
	6.	Harmonize the lists of things in the reference section to the work done by 
		AMS in the product catalog and Ron has done for FHIR – Ron, Jane and AMS
	7.	Further segment the lists of roles / behaviors etc… by life-cycle stage 
	8.	Steps 1 and 2 need to be redone in new data collection tool – 
		Step 1 done and most of Step 2 done – Ron and Jane
C.	Update Existing BAM – TBD 
	9.	Update BAM from previous steps – Bo 
	10.	Map flattened UML to proper UML – AMS (to be confirmed)
D.	BAM New Work – Pass 1 – Fill in remaining lifecycle steps for artifacts, 
	behaviors, participants, roles, and parties – TBD 
	11.	TSC assigns responsibilities to fill out data collection tool for remaining 
		lifecycle stages for ballotable products 
	12.	ArB models the work resulting from TSC assignments
E.	BAM New Work – Pass 2 – Vitality processes and reusable patterns – TBD 
	13.	Harvest and model the reusable process patterns such as publications,
		 balloting, project scope planning
	14.	Model vitality process
	15.	Model processes for context neutral components (data types, cmets, 
		harmonization processes)
	16.	Modify BAM to reference reusable processes and patterns where appropriate
F.	BAM New Work – Pass 3 – Include on the why and values – TBD 
	17.	Add to the model and the spreadsheets constructs for the why (means and ends),
		 the value statements and the conformance criteria 
G.	BAM Instance – TBD 
	18.	Start creating exemplary instances from the BAM
UNSURE WHERE THESE GO:
•	Using TSC Risk Assessment, identify organizational and typical product Governance
	 Points and corresponding precepts, metrics, and processes 
•	Conformity assessment processes to guide current or imminent new product 
	development

1. Other business and planning
   1. Next Meeting
   2. Atlanta WGM
2. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 20130314 Time: 5:00pm 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
R	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
X	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
.	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
R	Mead, Charlie	National Cancer Institute
X	Milosevic, Zoran	Deontik Pty Ltd
X	Parker, Ron	CA Infoway
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
.	Guests
X	Kreisler, Austin	HL7 TSC Chair
X	Gerding, Michelle	University of Kentucky
.	Pech, Brian	Kaiser Permanente
.	Shakir, Abdul Malik	City of Hope National Medical Center
.
.	Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

• Call to order
• Roll Call
• Approval of Agenda
• Approval of minutes and agenda.
  • Motion: to approve March 7, 2013 Minutes and agenda. (Steve/Lorraine)
  • Vote: (7-0-0)
• Introduction to Michelle
  • Ron: We are charged to develop a business architecture model(BAM) (framework) for how HL7 produces its products and product families. Examples are CDA and FHIR. Product line(family) is a visible standard targeted at an end user. Distinguish between Governance, Management, and Modeling. We are working on a tool to describe the above.
  • Ron: Jane and I have 2-3 hourly calls a week to further the work, and are approaching the completion of stage 2, probably next week.
• Ron: We need to review the plan, identify progress, prioritize activities and verify assignments.
  • One of the key tasks will be to work out how we manage changes to the spreadsheet structure and the related models to minimize rework
• BAM
  • Ron: Since the last call the numbering has been changed to identify the levels, including a stage level. High order is stage, major activity, etc.
  • Ron: Inputs are specified at the activity level, with additional only when needed deeper.
  • Ron: One of the things I did not highlight was the incorporation of the idea of a product directory.
  • Ron: Stage 1 is ready to go. We have concentrated on product line alignment.
  • Ron: Woody raised a point: Describing a lot of things that HL7 has had problems coming up with, tooling, etc.
  • Ron: Need an internal information architecture to produce the product - Not the RIM..
  • Austin: We have a chunk of that for V3.
  • Ron: There may be new tooling requirements. We might want in the early stages assert things that are necessary - ArB will not make decisions about what is in or out, will work with Tooling. The planning and how it fits is necessary.
  • Ron: The BAM provides business case to the rest of the organization. If the value proposition is strong enough, may require support from tooling, or the Board.
  • Ron: Every product line/family takes in previous HL7 Product Catalogue as an input. Outputs include New, revised, and retired products.
  • Ron: Risk assessment has not changed.
  • Ron: Jane and I need another hour or two to finish it. Our next step is to transition to the EA model.
• Ron: Calvin identified that it seems to be role heavy. He is hoping a methodology the skill set defined by the nature, so that a single person may be able to fill multiple roles.
  • Austin: We may want to take and group some of the roles into the more traditional roles.
  • Ron: We call them skills and participation.
  • Austin: People see one entry as one person. If we treat them like skills, and collect them e.g. here is what a co-chair needs to cover.
  • Ron: Here is the job of your MnM facilitator for example. For the next call I will try to do that synopsis. Erl efines participation skillsdoes this in his book.
  • Austin: We can feed education to provide training on the skills.
  • Ron: We need training, or solicit the community for skills we need that they may have.
  • Austin: Identify a skill as required, while another may not be.
  • Ron: I understood what Calvin was saying. In the theoretical you have to go for the best case, as you drill down you need to adjust. Any good methodology will tell you this is theoretical, and you may have to consolidate, or say not necessary. The challenge will be to describe the optimal thing, recognizing that when you create an instance, not all will apply.
  • Austin: The missing piece is the risk assessment. We need to emphasize putting into place the governance structure, and differentiate the 'must haves' from the 'nice to haves'. The first cut will not look precisely like the BAM. The critical pieces must be done first.
  • Ron: ArB acts as facilitator and conscience of the organization. Will need to accommodate - solving for one risk may introduce another.
  • Ron: We talked about taking Steering Divisions through the model. The first cut is the CDA-IG, and defer taking the other chairs through the model.
  • Austin: We have processes in place, which are understood, while there are aspects that are broken, which may not be reviewed closely until later.
  • Ron: Later is after the May WGM.
  • Austin: Good assumption.
  • Ron: We need to meet with Structured Documents Work Group, and talk to TSC about vitality. Are there any tutorials - we were doing SAIF, and let it go. We need to reassert, and make visible to the organization in a practical way.
  • Austin: As we bake SAIF into product lines/families, it will resurface.
  • Patrick: When we need to invigorate the SAIF training, we will have rooms.
  • Austin: An output of a product should be the ECCF matrix. As we put in rules these things will pop up.
• Action Items
  • ACTION: Transition BAM to EA
  • ACTION: Before WGM apply SAIF lens to the BAM]

• Other business and planning
  • Next Meeting
  • Atlanta WGM
• Adjournment
  • Adjourned at 5:45 PM eastern

Tony Julian 21:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)