This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20130717 BAM Modeling
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
TSC representatives and ArB to jointly develop content for the BAM for the Product Line Architecture Program
| HL7 BAM Modeling Call Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# |
Date: 2013-07-17 Time: 2 pm Eastern Time | ||
| Facilitator | Austin | Note taker(s) | Lynn |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| x | Calvin Beebe | ||
| Woody Beeler | |||
| Jane Curry | |||
| Bo Dagnall | |||
| Jean Duteau, | |||
| Tony Julian | |||
| x | Austin Kreisler, | ||
| x | Lynn Laakso | ||
| x | Cecil Lynch | ||
| Ron Parker | |||
| x | Brian Pech | ||
| Melva Peters | |||
| Quorum Requirements Met: yes | |||
| quorum definition? | |||
Agenda
Agenda
- Review minutes of 20130529_BAM Modeling, notes of 20130612 BAM Modeling (no call 6/19), 20130626 BAM Modeling, and notes of 20130710 BAM Modeling
- Action Items:
- Ron will get back to FMG to acknowledge the discussion on the formation of WG, take this to the ArB to see what they can work out.
- discuss what SDWG need to do to develop a PSS.
- Austin to forward the Visio diagram to Ron and Dave
- Ron will discuss the Visio diagram with the ArB team.
Need to identify deliverables on
- notional definition of what that product family/line would be
- How you will stand up Governance, how you will stand up Management, how to stand up methodology. Agenda division, or governance one meeting/month, etc?
- high-level market segmentation and statement of what they value, what constitutes success
- PSS they would declare the interested parties, who are the customers, etc
- Risks of doing or not doing the effort
- Present a chopped down version of Governance 101 along with concrete suggestions on what to do with their agenda especially separating out governance and management and teasing out methodology as well.
- Need BAM checklist for initiation of PSS for CDA IG Product Family and identify deliverables of the project WRT goals/objectives/risks, RACI chart. List of things you need to establish as part of the project.
- Discuss Security Risk Assessment Cookbook process
Minutes
Convened at 2:03PM discussing the new model diagram. Woody has reservations on going down both paths instead of one or the other.
- Calvin asks about what the conceptual components with respect to Orders and Observations? Austin notes they would be involved in multiple product families. Who does ballot recon? The management groups shepherd the recon though with the V2 example other WGs are assigned specific chapters. CIC has historically done DAMs but this cycle has a CDA IG. What about V3? Focus on Laboratory order messaging yielded its own WG but fell back under the OO umbrella.
- How else to have the product management organization with WG structure? Matrix representation of existing processes one option.
- Governance describes the rules of which management ensures implementation. What are the different requirements for governance boards for V2, V3 as well as FHIR. FHIR has its guiding principles, where V3 is RIM-driven.
- What if you have reps from each product line and they become the board that governs product governance. Understanding nuances of all product families is rare skill. Vesting a group with resolution of governance questions for all products makes more sense, still allowing for management group of each product family. Such product governance is already delegated function of the TSC.
- If we try it and it doesn't work we must be prepared for that. Defining the rules is not the same as defining the process or methodology.
- Cecil asks about the governance board placement on the chart. He agrees that there should be a consolidated governance board for products. Dotted line for cross product family harmonization board should be all a governance board e.g. the Product Directorate, as HL7 harmonization processes are methodology and not governance processes.
- Behind the ITSs there are domain content models, not only clinical domains but transaction pattern domains such as orders, notes Calvin. PHER and SOA confluence may become issue.
- Cecil asks about the interactions between groups. Business process modeling consultancy in other organizations finds the same with matrix organization structure where the governance needs governance. Unique elements not contained anywhere else exist outside the governance domain.
- Terminology and vocabulary governance issues discussed. Calvin will draft a revision. How do the set of existing WG's relate to the new steering divisions…
- Sense of ownership needs to be addressed and represented.
- WG has the opportunity to own a product within the governance model, but if they cannot meet the rules there is a place in the governance structure to ensure the product can be maintained. Recognition can flow down to the WGs for products. Need to ensure awareness that those who govern are not necessarily those who build.
- Calvin notes the projects that the wg creates are what are managed more than the WG itself. Projects fall within product families generally though there are examples that span paradigms. Project proposals could flow through a management group function rather than steering division, using rules set by governance groups.
Adjourned 2:59 PM
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2013 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
