20130113 arb Phoenix-F-F

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)

Logistics

Pointe Hilton Hotel, Phoenix AZ, USA

At a Glance

Day	Date	Time	Icon	Event	Chair	Scribe	Room
Saturday	January 12, 2013	Q1-Q4		BAM Focus Group	TBD	TBD	TBD
Sunday	January 13, 2013	Q1-Q3		BAM	Ron	Tony	Phoenix 2
Sunday	January 13, 2013	Q5		TSC Report	N/A	Tony	Geronimo
Tuesday	January 15, 2013	Q4		As comes up in the WGM	Ron	TBD	Sonora
Thursday	January 17, 2013	Q3		TBD	Ron	Tony	Palo Verde
Thursday	January 17, 2013	Q4		N/A	Ron	N/A	N/A

Icons:

• wiki business icon
• wiki ballot reconciliation icon
• wiki technical icon
• wiki no meeting Icon

---

Saturday

Agenda Q1-Q4

• Focus group on the Business Architecture model

Sunday

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Phoenix WGM		Date: 20130113 Time: 4:00pm 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
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
.	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
X	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
X	Mead, Charlie	National Cancer Institute
X	Milosevic, Zoran	Deontik Pty Ltd
X	Parker, Ron	CA Infoway
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
.	Guests
.	Shakir, AbdulMalik
X	Walker, Mead
.	Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Agenda - Q1

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Previous Minutes
5. Report from Architecture Project
6. FHIR
   1. Management
   2. Governance Board
7. BAM(Moved to Q2/Q3)
8. Item2
9. Other business and planning
10. Adjournment

Minutes - Q1

• Plan to turn DAM over to TSC.
• Adopt UML version.
• Discussion
  • Andy: There is a problem with sequencing in the flattened version.
  • Steve: Can do data-flow in UML
  • Ron: Dont have a authority to model some of the data flows. Need to agree on the level of the pitch - with ArB as methodologist.
  • Charlie: We can use internally whatever representation we want. John Quinn wants the initial publishing format to be UML.
  • Andy: No problem with that.
  • Charlie: We were to build an exemplar that the organization could flesh out. I outlined with John Quinn. Unfortunate that there is no transform. Tonight present to the TSC the metamodel, walk through, explain why it is not exactly like the RIM, show the commonalities, breakdown of the three products.
  • Jane: Agenda to revist step 1 - the ends are another form of artifact, means are behaviours. Define process of means to achieve the ends.
  • Ron: Seque to Step 4. Yesterday had interesting conversation mapping persons to role. What does this mean for co-chairs, steering divisions, etc. Next step for TSC. Avoid prescription at this point.
  • Jane: Distinguish roles.
  • Bo: Include meta-model and profiles tonight.
  • Ron: Get enough start this morning to determine who is doing what q2/q3. One group may need to go away to do the narrative.
  • Bo: Presented model: yellow are original classes.White are additions. Who participates how to create what artifacts. Addition of conformance criteria to measure quality. Product collections are either product lines or product families. Used to create a profile. Profile has classes based on base classes. Role is specialized to bring in Manager, Consult, Methodoligist, Governor.
  • Charlie: Does this address proponents and champions?
  • Jane: Not resolved. Proponent is an influencer who tends to be external, while champion tends to be internal.
  • Bo: Specialized behaviours as management, Governance, Methodologist. Then created the flattened view - may be teased out into a more dynamic model. Who, How, and what are modelled. Why and When are not modeled. Step 0 is proposal, Step 3 is design.
  • Ron: Need to provide reframing of spreadsheet to extend the model - in Q3.
  • Charlie: We need them to give us this information in another form.
  • Ron: When we get to ballot, we ballot DAM's. Usually informative. We declare difference between Informative and Normative. We had to introduce the balloting cycle.
  • Charlie: Specialize ballot into state machine.
  • Jane: The internal publication is a process of putting together intentions. Does not have the step where the conceptual goes to ballot. Modelled as processes.
  • Charlie: Dont want to make the state machine into a process.
  • Jane: Internal publication process needs link to the portions of the model.
  • Bo: There is a pattern, but the inputs/outputs change.
  • Jane: Different activity models.
  • Lorraine: Quality criteria for one phase is an input to the Quality criteria for the next state.
  • Andy: Not necessarily a sequential set of steps.
  • Ron: All governance points are an assessment of risks, and determination of need to escalate - a checkpoint.
  • Charlie: There are types of governance points.
• The remainder of the quarter was spent on modeling the BAM.

Agenda Q2

1. Mission and charter reference to SAIF
2. BAM

Minutes - Q2

• Mission and charter reference to SAIF
  • Motion: To approve the wording of mission and charter requirement and forward to TSC(Jane/Bo):
  • The [workgroup name] will develop specifications using the principles and language of the SAIF CD and the restrictions and specializations of the HL7 SAIF IG to ensure traceability from Conceptual to Logical to Implementable specifications.
  • Those workgroups involved in submitting artifacts or methodology to the HL7 SAIF IG will develop this content in compliance with the principles and language of the SAIF CD.
  • Vote: (9-0-1)
• The remainder of the quarter was spent on modeling the BAM.

Agenda Q3

1. BAM

Minutes - Q3

• The quarter was spent on modeling the BAM.

Q5 - Joint with TSC

1. BAM!

Tuesday

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Phoenix WGM		Date: 20130113 Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Charlie Mead/ Parker, Ron	Note taker(s)	Julian, Tony/????
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
.	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
.	Constable, Lorraine	Constable Consulting Inc.
.	Curry, Jane	Health Information Strategies
.	Dagnall, Bo	HP Enterprise Services
.	Grieve, Grahame	Health Intersections Pty Ltd
.	Hufnagel, Steve	U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
.	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
.	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
.	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
.	Mead, Charlie	National Cancer Institute
.	Milosevic, Zoran	DEONTIK
.	Parker, Ron	CA Infoway
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
.	Guests
.
.	Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Thursday

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Phoenix WGM		Date: 20130117 Time: 4:00pm 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
.	Dagnall, Bo	HP Enterprise Services
.	Grieve, Grahame	Health Intersections Pty Ltd
.	Hufnagel, Steve	U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
X	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
.	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
X	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
.	Mead, Charlie	National Cancer Institute
.	Milosevic, Zoran	Deontik Pty Ltd
X	Parker, Ron	CA Infoway
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
.	Guests
.
.	Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Agenda Q3

1. BAM Follow through
   1. Completion of artifacts
   2. Transition and faciliatation
2. Things arising from Update on SAIF Architecture
3. Things arising from Product Line Kickoff Meeting
4. Completion of SAIF-CD
5. Meeting Schedule for Atlanta

Minutes Q3

1. BAM Follow through
   1. Completion of artifacts
      1. Review Frieda's process model and update process lifecycle. Charlie and Bo
      2. Create proper Activity diagrams and state transistion diagrams). Charlie and Bo
      3. Update the metamodel profile and models to reflect items above.
      4. Steps 1 and 2 need to be redone in new data collection tool.
      5. Take inputs of above and put into the model.
      6. TSC to assign responsibilities to fill out data collection tool for ballotable products.
      7. aArB models the work resultinf from TSC assignments
      8. Map flattend UML to proper UML.
      9. Using TSC Risk assessment, Identify organizational and typical product governance point, and cooresponding precepts, metrics and process.
      10. Model Vitality process.
      11. Conformity assessment processto guide current or imminent new product development..
   2. Transition and faciliatation
2. Things arising from Update on SAIF Architecture
3. Things arising from Product Line Kickoff Meeting
4. Completion of SAIF-CD
5. Meeting Schedule for Atlanta
   1. Three quarters Sunday
   2. Tuesday Q4
   3. Thursday q3&q4