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

20130522 BAM Modeling

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 19:07, 22 May 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 111-567-781

Date: 2013-05-22
Time: 2 pm Eastern Time
Facilitator Ron Parker Note taker(s) Lynn
Attendee Name

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



  • Review minutes of 20130508_HL7_PLA_Meeting
  • update of ArB a-ha moment on three axes of product platform as a paradigm (technology binding/context); product line as a business domain (Function), and product family as a methodology (Form)
  • Discuss Security Risk Assessment Cookbook process
  • update on simplified data collection spreadsheet Ron/Jane
  • Next steps for engagement with the cochairs - Result of TSC discussion on updates to WGM agenda template/icons and cochair education session

Reference Documents

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


Agenda - need to refine messages to Structured Documents and confirm understanding out of WGM; 3-axis paradigm needs refinement before discussion on BAM. Recursion complexity of product family within product family discussed.

  • asking them to surface this in their agenda setting to identify separation of concerns as a means of addressing governance vs management vs methodology.
    • If you don't you simply follow the path of least resistance in conflict, even internal conflict.
    • Need a narrative describing outline for their calls such as what we're doing in TSC. Here's the things you think about as you separate out your agenda discussion. Updated governance 101 deck in separating out governance, methodology and management (GMM). One-pager on how to run a call using GMM and what does it mean to how the WG behaves with respect to a project.
    • SDWG Calls are about projects, management of issues coming forward, etc.
    • Austin set up a recurring monthly call with the SDWG cochairs first Tuesdays at 11 where they can talk about this. Ron needs to join the call.
    • Most SDWG calls are management focused and project oriented. Pressure now is to shoehorn as much as possible into CCDA to gain traction in meaningful use. CDA Product Line/Family is needed for governance of templating when developing R3.
    • CCDA is getting too big to edit and may need to be broken into chapters as V2 is. It is over 600 pages now. Breaking it into two volumes is a management issue.
    • No project scope statement for the CDA IG product line. By developing a PSS they would declare the interested parties, who are the customers, etc. This was not done for FHIR. The IG PSS would do a high-level market segmentation and statement of what they value, what constitutes success. All of these would be deliverables of the project. Risks of doing or not doing the effort should be elucidated.
    • Set baseline of GMM, goals, objectives, declared risks with approach. Then you can measure when management is happening around the project then what risks need to be mitigated and how does that change our behavior. These become deliverables of the project.
    • PSS already has some elements but more towards management. PSS could include checkbox for new product family or new product line and ask for notional definition of what that product family/line would be.
    • PSS method brings awareness to other WGs in asserting the impact on multiple SDs with formation of new product family. FTSD needs to review new product family PSS to evaluate methodology, as well as T3SD. DESD and SSD SD would likely be working on content within a product family. Bringing these proposals to the other SDs is definitely a necessary approach.
    • Brian adds that formation of product family would need some sort of representative body that will show the interests of these SDs. Austin notes that the PSS would only identify participants but not have the product family representative group established. You might still have the Arden Syntax product family.
    • Some of this discussion coming back to the three-axis representation.
      Calvin arrives
    • Need an outline of tasks at hand.
      • Presentation at SDWG cochairs call on setting up PSS for the CDA R2 IG product family.
      • Present a chopped down version of Governance 101 along with concrete suggestions on what to do with their agenda especially separating out governance and management and teasing out methodology as well.
      • Need BAM checklist for initiation of PSS for CDA IG Product Family and identify deliverables of the project WRT goals/objectives/risks, RACI chart. List of things you need to establish as part of the project.
      • Need to clearly identify representatives from each steering division on the project as an alternative to having each SD approve the PSS.
    • Calvin notes that most of HL7 doesn't understand what the SDWG methodology is. Austin notes we will rub each others' noses in each methodology.
    • Still need to figure out the implications of the ArB a-ha moment, and bring that eureka moment forward. Austin hasn't sat in on an ArB meeting yet to have the a-ha moment himself.

Adjourned 2:58 PM

Meeting Outcomes

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

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