View source for Report on the Strategic Initiative to the Affiliate Council

Below some key snippets from the presentation by the HL7 chair to the Affiliates Council on 20060910, related to the strategic initiative.

==HL7 US==
[..A] key point from the initiative is the creation and
recognition of HL7 US. The US contingent has long lacked a voice because
internationally we're seen as hl7.org, nationally we're seen as members
of an international organization that doesn't meet national objectives.
So we're kind of squat in the middle of everything.  So in order to
meet these requirements and segregate if you will "US issues" we have to
clearly look at the creation of an affiliate "HL7 US", and then join in
as an equal partner with you in the Affiliate Council. But yet have the
ability as you do in your international organizations to bring closure
to situations unique to that realm. So a critical component of that, as
we move forward will be the creation of HL7 US. Now that fact is that,
we obviously have a ripple effect of doing all of this. What's the
effect on membership levels. Who will be members of HL7 US versus
members of HL7 Inc. How do we support joint membership what are the
advantages, how can we roll out [revenue?] improvement.

==CEO==
We're also looking at, from the efficiency side, how can we take the
mundane off the backs of our volunteers, and let them be focused on
development of the standards and not focus on populating the pubs
database, roving out all of the technical editing that comes into play,
all of that stuff that really can be handled by a professional staff.

We're in the search process [for a CEO] at the moment, we've contracted with a professional [search organization] for candidates, we've reviewed an initial list, we'll be conducting interviews, and we hope to have a CEO on the board for the January meeting.

Q: ''What international input has gone into the search process for the CEO, because I'm assuming that the CEO is for both hl7.org as opposed to HL7 US?.''
A: We were quite clear in our requirements during the CEO search that there was an international component. However, I will be the first to admit to you that there were no international candidates. (All of the candidates that we're currently considering are US based. [..] we made it quite clear the importance of our affiliates, the role that they play, the need to represent HL7 on a global scale, participation in CEN,ISO, at certain international conferences, because remember the job of the CEO, in addition to running the organization, is to take that somewhat onerous burden off of some of you whom we approach and say "can you represent us at CEN", "can you represent us at this conference" And you, in addition to being the person who speaks for Siemens, be the person who speaks for HL7. That's why we need a professional staff. [...A]ll the finals on the list are US based. And when I see the list I don't think you'll be disappointed, given who the candidates are. I think those candidates are very well aware of their need for an international presence.

[increasing the membership and registration fees] will bring in the technical and professional resources we need to make this a more viable organization over the longer terms. We are probably unique in all organizations amongst all associations, and certainly amongst the other SDOs in not having any support staff perse, administratively we're covered. But if we look at ASTM, and to a certain extend that's simply based on the size of that organization, if we look at NCPDP, if we look at X12, they have people that have all of those things, whereas we're dependent on constantly coming back to you, the volunteers and say "can you do a little more", "can you do a little more" and "can you do a little more". When we've reached a point when you can't do any more, you're doing more than you can -now.

==CTO and TSC==
There'll be a CTO, and underneath that person a technical directorate,
taking the role of, somewhat subsuming the TSC, the technical steering
committee, but also controlling the technical staff. The technical
editors, the project managers, those people that will be handling some
of those things that take away from your time and actually focus on the
standards. In the interim when a technical directorate, obviously the
CTO is down the road a ways, we're going to create the HL7 technical
taskforce which will be the interim organization as we begin to evolve
the TSC into the technical directorate.  [...] What I will divulge at this point is that the technical taskforce, again: building on our TSC
relationship, is going to be co-chaired by John Quinn and Norman Daoust
as we begin to restructure the TSC into a viable and vibrant organization.

==Organizational Restructuring==
You may remember the output of the ORC committee which suggests that we
restructure our committees into functional slots (that's probably not
the right term) there were three headings under which all of our
technical committees and SIGs would be structured: semantics,
infrastructure, and domain expertise. [..Y]ou could
probably see where things like MnM and INM and others will fall, versus
Orders and observations versus Vocab. There will be a hierarchical
structure above them with chairs of each of those three groups who will
actually become the representatives for you in the technical
directorate. Or as we progress the technical taskforce moving towards
the directorate. We see 2007 also as a transition year for this
governance model that we're talking about and rolling out the new board
structure which is not significantly different then our current board,
and that board will still rely on you, the affiliate council, for input,
and/or advisory committee for input,  but it will be more streamlined.
And with the [hiring] of a CEO, it will move out of the realm of the
operational body. It will not decide publishing schedules, it will not
decide titles of standards, it will not do that stuff. That's what a CEO
and a CTO is for. It will provide strategy and direction for the
organization.

==Revenue==
Our main source of revenue in our organization is obviously our membership fees and to a
lesser extend registration fees. We do clear a small profit on most of
our WGMs. [...W]e're looking at an increase in our membership and
registration fees for 2007. The board met last Wednesday with its
finance committee and went over that. [...T]o meet our budget for 2007
and maintain our six month operational reserve, we're looking at a 30%
increase across the board for our membership and registrations for 2007.
We're also looking for a significant contribution from you, the
affiliates.

Since we began the affiliate process and the affiliate
charters you have been participating at the level of 10%  of your
membership fees or $500, whichever is greater.  We're asking you to step
up with the rest of us and in the new affiliate agreements you're going
to see that that has been raised to 20% of your membership fees or
$1000, whichever is greater. Now, we recognize and have retained that
verbiage which says that if there are financial constraints on an
affiliate, and this is obviously for our newer and smaller affiliates,
that preclude you from making that contribution. It can be taken up on a
case by case basis with the board of directors. But I did want you to be
aware of that new structure. Now, I realize that some of you're thinking
wait a minute, you just told me  you're doing a 30% across the board,
but you're telling me I've got to double my contribution. That's not
quite true. We're not coming to you to say you're going to give us 30%
of your membership revenues, we are asking you to make a significantly
greater contribution.
But we felt is was entirely in line with what we've done within our general membership and registration fees over the course of the last 5 to 7 years. that has not had any direct impact on the affiliates.

We also understand that you the affiliates hold the power to set your own membership and registration fees should it become necessary for you to address that. I have no idea how many of any of you have raised your membership in the last 5 years or not,  and secondly it's not our business. But I did want you to know that when you get your affiliate agreement from Diana starting this afternoon you will know that [has] changed. Kai and Klaus have reviewed the affiliate agreement, not the contribution increase. But the other sections, and I believe they're pretty comfortable with the verbiage as it is just now, no significant changes that I'm aware of, other than the contribution levels that were [raised].

[...] It's important that we all step up, recognize the need, and participate in this. Now, we're not so naive as to expect that everybody is going to take this joyously and calmly and we may loose some organizational members [..]. I don't think we're going to loose any affiliates. I think we may get a little pushback but I'm hopeful that all of you will recognize the need, understand the outcome, and see the benefits.