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

Talk:EA IP

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 17:45, 24 March 2010 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussion Page for Enterprise Architecture Implementation Plan

Instructions

Please edit the page and add your comments, and date/timestamp. If you wish to be identified with your comments, while signed in as "wiki", please add your name.

Comments

archving information from main page Llaakso 17:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Discussion has occurred various implementation approaches, including
    • Top-down reorganization
    • Bottom-up test, or "alpha" projects
  • where the "alpha" project would be a sub-project of the architecture rollout.
  • (draft) Alpha Project charter template
  • (draft) Alpha Project considerations
    • The goal is to use these charters to validate our overall Alpha strategy by, among other things, confirming the level of coverage over the thing-formerly-known-as-SAEAF that we can achieve through our collaboration. Receipt of the charter would be the trigger to formalize Alpha status through the TSC and to coordinate various kick-off calls with the ArB.
    • Alpha project candidates or volunteers include:
      1. CTS2 - Common Terminology Services 2(Project Insight # 324) - charter draft in progress
      2. PASS - Privacy, Access and Security Services Functional Model (Project Insight #200)
      3. CDA R3 - Clinical Document Architecture Release 3 (Project Insight #477)
      4. Various NCI Initiatives (NCI deployed four services 20090105 developed under SAEAF architecture).
      5. Others from earlier reference
        • US VA/DOD project is poised as alpha project [1] TSC Tracker #858
        • ACS Cardiology DAM
        • Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK (David Bowen). Pilot planned to start in 2009 Q2.
  • John Koisch in an email from the ArB summarized for consideration by the TSC, proposed from ArB WGM minutes, listed by project, with some brief notes about why the ArB thinks they are interesting <<as>> Alpha projects:
    1. DOD VA EHR-FM -- Message portfolio ; Creates analysis specs for prioritized EHR profiles
    2. Pa Registies (More than one) -- Most of the analysis done, service interfaces
    3. COPPA - National Person Registry; Captures RIM semantics, uses instances of the Behavioral Framework(BF); Set of artifacts already done
    4. OO -- Complex Behavioral models(instances of the Behavioral Framework(BF)) and access patterns
    5. Patient access to quality care (PAQC) -- Infoway; Messaging expressed in a services metaphor
    6. CTS2 -- Terminology Services
    7. Medicine Identity Reconcillation -- PHARMA ; Pushes on OMG harmonization ; Uses EIS for medicine identification
    8. PASS -- Directing OHT to pull together the work from MCI, Infoway, NeHTA, NHS
    9. PHER -- Immunization registry.

Questions

  1. What 'governance' are we talking about?
    • If those involved with SAIF have to constantly re-define 'governance', that it has a more specific definition in the architecture world related to transaction and exchange. We are more concerned with governance from the project approval process and project life cycle touchpoints. llaakso 17:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. OO project approved by ArB 2/11/2010 - was the PSS approved, or an alpha project charter with baseline artifact assessment? Where is the document?
  3. "this" is what we tried to do, "this" is what's happened, meaning the ArB liaisons don't even attend the SAIF alpha projects call, the projects save PASS don't attend, how and whether we should proceed?
  4. separate decision points from decision processes; go through the steps, draft the specs, draft the model etc, but hnow much review do you need at each step and what is the result (dstu, informative, normative). instruments of decision making versus rules of that instrument.

still looking for clearer definition of what those artifacts are... traditionally, we use informative ballot for 'this' kind of thing. but because of ballot fatigue, maybe not a ballot for that but a peer review, and progress through to "this" step. at each step do we apply committee vote, peer review, harmonization, informative ballot, etc. Have a call between PASS and project services to explore how PASS is working and what 'makes sense'. PASS Access Control, PIM level R1 as DSTU May 2010. Audit, Conceptual Level R1 DSTU May 2010. Architecture Framework R1 Informative January 2010 postponed, Access Control R1 DSTU Jan 2010. Get Don J and Ioana together on a call to map this. Document questions back to PSC, ArB and Marc.