20120823 arb minutes

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)

Agenda

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
5. Report from Architecture Project
6. BAM Update
7. business scenarios
8. Other business and planning
9. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 2012MMDD Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Charlie Mead	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
X	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
.	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
X	Mead, Charlie	National Cancer Institute
.	Milosevic, Zoran	NEHTA
.	Ocasio, Wendell	Agilex Technologies
X	Parker, Ron	CA Infoway
X	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
.	Guests
X	Kriesler, Austin	HL7 TSC
X	Luthra, Anil	NCI
.	Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

1. Call to order
   1. The meeting was called to order at 4:00pm Eastern by Charlie Mead.
2. Approval of Minutes and Agenda
   1. MOTION to approve the minutes and agenda (Jane/Bo)
   2. VOTE (7-0-2)
3. BAM Update
   1. Bo discussed the changes to the BAM Proposal.
4. business scenarios
   1. Jane discussed the secenarios document.
   2. Charlie: We will have notion of products, and separation of governance, methodology,and management, but no heavy focus. To Abdul-Malik, Bo, Jane: What is the most effective way to product a first-cut instance model.
   3. Bo: I dont have the domain knowledge of HL7 to do it.
   4. Charlie: Fair enough. Jane, Abdul-Malik, how would you go about it?
   5. Steve: Swimlane for each role, and heirarchal decomposition.
   6. Jane: That is what Abdul-Malik did in showing how we can use EA to do this.
   7. Steve: If I were doing the presentation to the TSC I would put up a model, and ask them to walk through the model, and see if it works - will engage the TSC.
   8. Charlie: This will be the meat of the Sunday night discussion. If Jane, Abdul-Malik and Bo had not done this work, then we would have to draw a class diagram, swim lanes, and develop a candidate. I think that the work done is a richer framework that has the potential to be more robust. Wendell was concerned that we might hit analysis paralysis. I hope that with guidance/input of the presented framework, we could end up with something we can show to the TSC. Jane, Abdul-Malik and Bo what is the most effective way to do this
      1. Hand to Arb
      2. Jane, Abdul-Malik and Bo will come up with something, and pass backup
      3. another strategy, somewhere in the middle.
   9. Jane: We can use the 2005 business function model, and assign the functions to governance, methodology and management. One of the opportunities for discussion is the product lines. What needs to happen for a product line functionality to work.
   10. Jane: Another source is the visio that tooling uses to show the interdepence between methodology, feedback balloting, design, implementation of specifications. We cannot do all of this, because we dont have feedback loops. There is a process map based on the HDF, which we can tweak reviewing the strategic initiatives(SI), identifying the products that do not suport the SI. THese would give us a quick start.
   11. Abdul-Malik: I cant answer the efficiency question, I have a bandwidth problem
   12. Ron: We need to do something representative.
   13. Abdul-Malik: I could work with Jane with the inputs/outputs.
   14. Bo: Part of the problem is the large scope of the organization. What if we narrowed the scope to a particular product line, and focus on the model for that product, for example FHIR, or CDA, or V3 - in the scope of a single product line.
   15. Charlie: That is a way we could do that - a depth model. The other way is to do breadth first, very shallow. Austin/John would you like to see a depth based on FHIR, or a breadth model.
   16. Austin:Depth first would definitely I choose FHIR first. Breadth approach gives people reasurrance that we are not obliterating the current structure. In the end we need both.
   17. John: I am enamored with the breadth first to enable the steering divisions to fill in the blanks.
   18. Jane: If we dont know the problems, we are doing an as is. What does successful differnce look like?
   19. Charlie: Start with separation of product lines, and governance, methodology and management. Without specifics, is it a fruitless excercise.
   20. Ron: Use FHIR as a first path. Will help FHIR governance and management - find the intersection points between governance, methodology and management. Not deep, just understand the requirements.
   21. Jane: Document the rationale - we are missing the motivation. What are we doing and why?
   22. Andy: Breadth and depth cannot be done independently. It has to be done withing context of HL7, quality control, balloting. It needs a framework for the evaluation. Feedback of the depth back into the breadth.
   23. Ron: FHIR is new enough that we can draw parallels between what HL7 knows, and feedback from the team. We need to put together a light model, and walk through with the FHIR team.
   24. Charlie: Abdul-Malik what is your sense of the rest of the ArB being able to provide breadth - those of use who can have the bandwith.
   25. Abdul-Malik: The tiger team would answer the questions. Between the document and advice we give is enough. The first thing the team will have to do is determine the subject-matter experts.
   26. Charlie: Outcome for Sunday in Baltimore is to have the pointers in place. Jane- can you work on the instance.
   27. Jane: I want to work on the business scenarios first. I would like some feedback on the problem-type business scenarios to draft. We could use an existing problem on the TSCs plate where different groups have different requirements, resulting in inconsistent standards.
   28. Austin: The data-types problem exhibits why we need strong governance in product lines.
   29. Steve: We could ask Lloyd to the Sunday meeting to flesh out the model.
   30. Charlie: Lloyd wont come to a Sunday meeting because of FHIR and International.
   31. Andy: I will put in some time.
   32. Patrick: My time is on the lab side for OO.
   33. Ron:I will be happy to provide commentary, and would like to be part of, and set up the discussion with the FHIR team.
   34. Charlie: Steve and Jane have business product model. Ron will set up the FHIR discussion.
   35. Jane:Related question - there are some strong unstated traditions in HL7 that are not declared, that may be violated by this effort. Should we be rude and identify?
   36. John: We need to identify them.
   37. Austin: Make them explicit. It does not mean we will change it, but they are a factor.
   38. John: Identify them, and we can change them.
   39. Jane: We could start with the simplified process model. I will ship to Steve. I would like feedback on the business scenario model, based on the diagram I showed earlier.
   40. Charlie: I will work on slides for the TSC, Andy, Bo, and AbdulMalik will be consulted. Thanks to the tiger team.
5. Other business and planning
6. Adjournment
   1. Meeting adjourned at 5:10pm Eastern

--Tony Julian 21:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)