This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

20130214 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 23:11, 14 February 2013 by Ajulian (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)


  1. Call to order
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of Agenda
  4. Approval of Minutes
A.	Lifecycle Activity Diagrams – Bo and Charlie
  1.	Review Frieda’s process model and update process lifecycle diagram. 
  2.	Create proper activity diagrams and state transition diagrams. 
  3.	Update meta-model profiles, spreadsheets, and models so far to reflect i and ii.
  4.	Create a high-level product hierarchy / taxonomy 
    1.	Product Lines
    2.	Product families
    3.	Product family sub-components
B.	Data Capture Spreadsheet – Jane, Ron & AMS
  5.	Embed definitions for the data capture tool items in the reference section of the 
  6.	Further segment the lists of roles / behaviors etc… by life-cycle stage
  7.	Harmonize the lists of things in the reference section to the work done by AMS in the 
		  product catalog and Ron has done for FHIR
  8.	Steps 1 and 2 need to be redone in new data collection tool
C.	Update Existing BAM – TBD 
  9.	Update BAM from previous steps
  10.	Map flattened UML to proper UML
D.	BAM New Work – Pass 1 – Fill in remaining lifecycle steps for artifacts, behaviors, 
		participants, roles, and parties – TBD 
  11.	TSC assigns responsibilities to fill out data collection tool for remaining lifecycle 
		  stages for ballotable products 
  12.	ArB models the work resulting from TSC assignments
E.	BAM New Work – Pass 2 – Vitality processes and reusable patterns – TBD 
  13.	Harvest and model the reusable process patterns such as publications, balloting, 
		  project scope planning
  14.	Model vitality process
  15.	Model processes for context neutral components (data types, cmets, 
		  harmonization processes)
  16.	Modify BAM to reference reusable processes and patterns where appropriate
F.	BAM New Work – Pass 3 – Include on the why and values – TBD 
  17.	Add to the model and the spreadsheets constructs for the why (means and ends), the value 
		  statements and the conformance criteria 
G.	BAM Instance – TBD 
  18.	Start creating exemplary instances from the BAM
•	Using TSC Risk Assessment, identify organizational and typical product Governance
 Points and corresponding precepts, metrics, and processes 
•	Conformity assessment processes to guide current or imminent new product development
  1. Other business and planning
  2. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20130214
Time: 5:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Charlie Mead 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
. Hufnagel, Steve U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
X Julian, Tony Mayo Clinic
. Loyd, Patrick ICode Solutions
. Lynch, Cecil Accenture
X Mead, Charlie National Cancer Institute
X Milosevic, Zoran Deontik Pty Ltd
R Parker, Ron CA Infoway
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
. Guests
. Legend
X Present
. Absent
R Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes


  1. Call to Order at 5:00pm Eastern
  2. Charlie: TSC on monday was notified to come up with representatives to start a series of sessions with the ArB to populate the model.
    1. Doodle poll has comes out for times
    2. We need as much as we can to address the item list that Bo sent out today. The more complete the framework, the better the content.
    3. Jane: Do we know how we are going manage convergence? Will Bo do it all or will we synchronize.
    4. Charlie: I think that the amount of content coming in will be managable for the next couple of months. It is a concern. Calvin wants to have the SD chairs or their designate to put things into the model. For now, we will solicit input and put it in ourselves. I would help, but I have a MAC, and no emulator, and cannot run EA.
    5. Jane: We will run into file naming, project management.
    6. Charlie: TSC wants the TSC to take over the model, but is not familiar with this model. All we can say is that the problems are real, and will occur.
    7. Bo: I do not want to be the only person entering content into the model. The more we spread it out the more likely it is to diverge.
    8. Charlie: This is a mini-harmonization problem.
    9. Jane: When you have multiple persons you need to look at consistency. If AMS would offer a tutorial on how to use the tools. Everyone does not have the same skillset in using the tool.
    10. Bo: The guy from SPARKX - JD - maybe he can set up guidance. There is a plug-in for the tool for check-in/check-out.
    11. Charlie: BRIDGE had a versioning problem that was handled by EA.
    12. Bo: Who would like to set it up?
    13. Jane: I would.
    14. Tony: I would also.
    15. Bo: Will try to set up with AMS, Jane, Tony and JD.
    16. Bo: I do not know how to make changes in a profile cascade to the model. Maybe AMS knows.
    17. Charlie: There was no day and time on the poll where everyone was available.
    18. Bo: Looks like only Charlie and Bo are available.
    19. Charlie: People need advance notice. There is no time slot next week where everyone is available. This is for a kick-off meeting. He wants to discuss the model, how to receive the information. All four steering divisions do not have to meet at the same time together. The emphasis is to get started.
    20. Bo: There are a couple of things we need to do before we start with the TSC. The items under B have the most progress.
    21. Charlie: I was supposed to do the stuff with Friedas input.
    22. Jane: Ron and I discovered that as good as the spreadsheet is, it becomes awkward to use because of the one-to-many problem. It may involve some rework.
    23. Charlie: This effort will be a real challenge, because of the nature, dialog required, and bandwidth. You need a lot of face time with people in a room.
    24. Jane: You never have the objectivity desirable because you have people modeling their own process.
    25. Charlie: We need to not bend the framework to the point where we lose the basics - governance, management, methodology. We have some walls in place, and are expected not to move the walls.
    26. Bo: With the tooling and lack of face time are we setting up for failure?
    27. Charlie: These discussions should have been held a long time ago(16 years or so). No one had the fortitude to stand up and make change in the organization, despite the best desires. Real change is happening, and the question is how manageable and informed it will be. Several people understand the BAM will help us plot the future change. We have driving factors, the open source business model, the failure of the CMETS, and the risks of FHIR. Now is the time it will be successful. It could wither, there are a lot of challenges. There will not be a failure because the ArB did not do its job, rather that the organization did not come up with the commitment.
    28. Bo: Most of the challenges go without a resolution.
    29. Charlie: We addressed the tooling challenge. We need to recognize the challenges, then handle them. Austin asked for volunteers in Phoenix, and did not have anyone. Now that some are ready to start, we can face the next challenge. We are moving mostly forward.
    30. Bo: We have a list of tasks, and missing in the setup. We have no project manager.
    31. Charlie: If we raise that at the kickoff, we might offload to HQ.
    32. Jane: There would be some overloaded staff, but that would be our choice. Good people tend to be overloaded. I am not filling the holes, because I cannot commit to do so. It is not proactive project management.
    33. Charlie: Project Management is the nemesis of HL7. At the kickoff meeting we need to discuss the risks, now that they have the vocabulary. Calvin, Austin, and Pat are on the Risk committed - we need to surface this as a major organization risk. Only in the last few months have risk been on the radar.
    34. Jane: It is already demonstrating the added value, especially in the area of tooling.
    35. Charlie: It is the best it has ever been.
    36. Bo: Walk through the first 10.
    37. Charlie: The first we know how to do. Creation of a high-level hierarchy/taxonomy can be done.
    38. Bo: You are going to take steps 1 and 2, I will put in and EA model. Step 4 is not on a critical path.
    39. Charlie: The first task for the TSC was Calvins request for "where do i find in the business model the structures that will enable us to provide single entities that will make it work." CMETS were supposed to be reusable, but were not. Austin wants to see that surfaced in the model - it is at the top(or bottom) of the model. We need to create a few classes. Calvin things we need to get the base level manufacturing figured out.
    40. Jane: The closest we have is harmonization with governance that never happened with CMETS.
    41. Charlie: We need to move to an infrastructure that supports the semantics instead of the representation. Technology without the governance, and vice-versa will not solve the problem. The model should surface this.
    42. Jane: The business process was put into place prior to the tooling being available. We are concurrently exercising the OWL, the nature of templates, we did not have figured out how to apply a template to a data-type. People could not commit to a template instead of an overly rich CMET.
    43. Charlie: I have the first two, we can provide a wall to hang it on. Data capture spreadsheet?
    44. Jane: Ron and I can exercise the tool, but it is awkward.
    45. Charlie: It is usable, but not elegant.
    46. Jane: List of roles an behaviors is done.
    47. Bo: 6 and 7 are not done. 5 I mostly, 8 is mostly.
    48. Charlie:Can you start something on 6 & 7 so people can see what will show up?
    49. Jane: I will follow up with Ron to see. May have to do it offline.
    50. Bo: 6 is nice but not critical right away. 7 is important. Need to harmonize the list against the work done - reference set in place before handoff to the TSC.
    51. Jane: I would reverse:7 will clarify what 6 needs to look like.
    52. Bo: 9 will probably be me, but AMS would be a better candidate for 10.
    53. Charlie: Then Bo will do 9, and we will try to pin down AMS for 10. I can give an update to the TSC on monday. Jane will try, I will do mine and send to you. WIll you reach out to AMS? And set up a meeting with SPARX, Tony, Jane, AMS, and Bo.
  3. Motion to approve the [[20130207_arb_minutes Minutes ] (Bo/Zoran)
  4. Vote (6-0-0)
  5. Motion to adjourn at 5:50pm Eastern (Lorraine/Bo)
  6. Vote (6-0-0)