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

20130410 BAM Modeling

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 19:02, 10 April 2013 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC representatives and ArB to jointly develop content for the BAM for the Product Line Architecture Program

HL7 BAM Modeling Call Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
GTM 511-882-013

Date: 2013-04-10
Time: 2 pm Eastern DAYLIGHT Time
Facilitator Ron Parker Note taker(s) Lynn
Attendee Name

x Calvin Beebe
Woody Beeler
Jane Curry
Bo Dagnall
Jean Duteau,
Tony Julian
x Austin Kreisler,
x Lynn Laakso
x Cecil Lynch
Ravi Natarajan
x Ron Parker
Brian Pech
Melva Peters
Quorum Requirements Met: (yes/No)
quorum definition?



  • Approve minutes of 20130403 BAM Modeling
  • Goals and timelines
    • SDWG cochairs call update
    • First three life_stage elements
    • update on where Ron/Jane stand and discuss ongoing sessions.
  • Next steps for engagement with the cochairs

Reference Documents

  1. BAM Overview BAM status as of Jan WGM
  2. Fill in spreadsheet


  • simplified data collection spreadsheet not progressed - Ron reports he and Jane want to work on that with Bo
  • Austin reports the SDWG cochairs call set a quarter Monday Q2 at WGM to discuss further - need to present a sales pitch.
    • What should be in that session. Focus on high-level overview of the BAM and process to stand up the CDA R2 IG product line.
    • Calvin suggests they review the hats that SDWG is wearing and 'spin' this as the opportunity for different groups in HL7 organization to focus on different business activities. One "super-group" is trying to do it all.
    • Quality group, publishing group, etc. relation to governance groups' vitality assessment. Calvin suggests you pull elements out to be free-standing.
    • Attempt earlier to align them with SAIF would have been useful to clearly define the areas, notes Cecil. It needs to be done now.
    • Ron notes that alignment between artifacts like clinical statements makes this important. Calvin notes that clinical documents as well as administrative documents have been in the SDWG purview. Governance and management in a single organizational unit may be on a basis of using a different lens to regard an issue.
    • Agenda icons are business meetings, reconciliation, and technical discussion. Perhaps we need governance and management indicators.
    • First step for TSC was grouping agenda items under governance and management and methodology to provide focus and recognition, notes Austin. Calvin notes you see after a few WGMs how the time is used and who is participating. Austin observed that the TSC already had the ArB as its methodology group, as well - SDWG doesn't have that distinction.
    • ArB product line implementation is the development of the agenda template and format for potential agenda topic Monday on TSC. May want to refer to PIC. That might be a mini-education session itself.
    • Separation of governance/management/methodology for a group such as SDWG having involvement in multiple product families (CDA IGs, CDA Standard as part of V3 Product Family) that span product lines. CDA IG product lines, CCD product line, etc.
    • Cecil recounts how RCRIM pulled SPL out as its own product line and used SDWG for management group and PHER could do the same thing and pull public health development work into their WG using SDWG as management. Calvin notes that the methodology of secondary constraint strategies (versus modeling) is a SDWG construction. V3 methodology is the domain of MnM. Position 'one path' as creating three groups, another 'path' as splitting the quality group into governance and defining the other activities under the management or methodology 'lenses'.
    • Need also to describe rationale for teasing these apart, notes Ron. Austin adds we need a CDA R3 governance structure in order to enable R3 development of templating CDA. Cecil recognizes issue with FGB not answering to a higher power governance body - it's currently TSC and they're not right for that role. Need an organizational 'governance assembly'. Ron interjects we need to first identify separation of concerns and work towards traceability of accountability up the stack. CDA emphasizes its importance.
    • Cecil notes that governance needs to be established at the top and roll out to the hierarchy based on the framework. Need HL7 governance framework to be established and then divvy up the various areas. Governance structures at the bottom won't understand what governance looks like at the top if you do it bottom-up. Ron agrees TSC has been acting as the informal methodology oversight for governance. Cecil says it's time to establish that conceptual model of governance for the organization. Organizations need to have governance over their governance. Ron notes that a 'product director' would have this framework to structure their work. Is it a governance group having focus on multiple products or governance groups rolling up to an oversight committee, e.g. distributed or monolithic?
    • Ron adds we need better definition of what the roles and triggers are for consideration of issues from management versus governance viewpoints.
    • How to define this in such a lightweight manner to not overburden existing (volunteer) resources. Ron suggests we start with SDWG to frame their thinking around separating out those viewpoints within the SDWG, and continue to work on how the top-down structure will work. Calvin notes we need to identify what those roles are for product managers and other new "hats" and how will TSC, CTO, ArB roles need to change. Cecil cautions that we need to present the value of the effort as well in order to get people signed on. Ron notes the FGB is not a fully fleshed model yet as the pilot, needing vitality assessment and receiving input from the FMG.
    • Calvin agrees that the change to agenda planning and listing topics on those viewpoints is a start to begin thinking about those activities is doable and currently being modeled. Then community members can plug in to those activities of interest to them.
    • Austin notes that RCRIM, EHR, Arden have similar opportunities.
    • Separation of gov/mgmt/mth to SDWG as lead-in to establishment of CDA R2 IG product family. Other people have to be invited and involved for groups using templates and be part of the governance process and alignment. Shift in focus for our stakeholders (e.g. in US), for stability of assets, traceability of versioning, etc demands governance; a maturity model and business model to protect their interests.
  • Ron will develop a deck for Austin's review - not sure if it will take a whole quarter but certainly more than half the quarter.

Adjourned 3:00 PM

Meeting Outcomes

  • Austin and Ron to review draft deck on Tuesday before Ron leaves.
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2013 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.