From: Parker , Ron [rparker@infoway-inforoute.ca] Sent: January-27-10 3:30 PM To: Hall, Freida; Helen Stevens-Love; robert.stegwee@capgemini.com Cc: McCaslin, Kenneth H; bbraithwaite@anakam.com; Patrick Loyd; Marc Koehn; Dave Hamill (HL7); Michael Kingery (HL7); meadch@mail.nih.gov Subject: RE: Peer Review Process - Proposed New Form Attachments: HL7 Peer Review Comment Form.xls Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged My apologies to the group, this was my last e-mail of the day and I forgot to attach the document before I sent and shutdown. Here it is.... Thanks for sending this along Freida. HELEN and ROBERT: Please take a look at the attached spreadsheet. I noticed the word doc was from 2004, so I hope you don't mind if I took Freida's suggestion and developed a spreadsheet to capture both comments and their disposition. Please take a look and tell me what you think. I have taken some license with content, but I hope I have retained the spirit of the document. I gave up trying to jam everything in one landscape page, so I have engineered the form so that the reviewer comments print on page 1 in landscape, and the next page that prints is the disposition comments. I have incorporated line numbering in the form that repeats on each page (left and right) so we can line up comments and disposition in printed form. I have put Protection (no password so you can turn it off) on the sheet to allow users to [Tab] quickly through the form. I have used drop-down lists for some of the columns. I did divide out Priority and Impact. I also added a sheet for the PIC comments and have added some text in white font that I think helps clarify the process. In that text I have made a suggestion for how to escalate if there is a dispute over comment resolution. I have no idea if that is proper or not, I await your direction. My next task is to create the macro to take a number of files based on the same form and append them to each other into one consolidated file (just for fun). I am working actively with ArB team on our weekly calls to get the content for review pulled together, posted somewhere, and then initiate the review process. It is my personal belief that someone other than ArB (perhaps MnM?) should initiate the review process and perhaps herd the cats. Thanks... looking forward to any feedback you may have.... I'm open. Ron P. Ron G. Parker Group Director, Solution Development Solutions Products and Services Group Canada Health Infoway Inc. 200 Waterfront Drive, Suite 125 Bedford, Nova Scotia, B4A 4J4 Time zone: Atlantic Canada UTC -4 Mobile: 902-222-7716 Office: 902-832-0876 x4103 Mail: rparker@infoway-inforoute.ca ? Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Hall, Freida [mailto:Freida.Hall@va.gov] Sent: January 20, 2010 17:37 To: Parker , Ron; Michael Kingery (HL7); Dave Hamill (HL7); Marc.Koehn@GPInformatics.com; Helen Stevens; robert.stegwee@capgemini.com Cc: McCaslin, Kenneth H; bbraithwaite@anakam.com; patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com Subject: Peer Review Process discussed in Electronic Services/ArB mtg today Peer Review Process MnM, PIC Purpose: To ensure a fair, open process for comment and review of documents, as well as providing clear documentation as to the results of the discussion. Process: Documented at <>. In brief, a document is circulated to the list with a blank peer review forms. All comments must be returned by a pre-specified date (in advance of the actual review). The review requester compiles the comments, designating those comments that will be accepted without discussion. The review itself then focuses on those comments that were not immediately accepted. Benefit: The Peer Review Process has proven its value to reaching a clearer conclusion in less time than simply informally circulating documents for comment. It allows people to participate without being on a telecon, ensures that every identified issue is discussed, and provides clear documentation of the result of the group’s decision for each issue. Attached is the supporting documentation previously developed by PIC, however Helen Stevens and Robert Stegwee are the new PIC co-chairs so they may want to suggest some edits to this form, and may want to review suggested revisions. Personally, I think it would be more useful as in excel and having used it several times, the Priority/Rank grading scale might warrant edits. I included the “Best Practice” document which, along with the blank input form, is all the documentation PIC created. In the Project Life Cycle (which the Board approved as output of Strategic Initiatives engagement) we suggested using peer review (with this simple form) for early iterations of standard content development so work groups could focus more on the standards content and less on reconciling ballot comment spreadsheets. Alternatively, the HDF created a Gforge Tracker for reviewers to enter peer review comments; I don’t think this required a password/login account to submit a comment, but I know we’ve had some issues with ‘open’ access to Gforge so this may not be an option any longer. http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/hdf/tracker/?action=TrackerItemBrowse&tracker_id=333 Please let me know if you have any questions.