Project Services Work Group (PSWG)

March 18, 2010

Dial in: Phone Number: 770-657-9270

Participant Passcode: 281101

GForge Link to Project Services: http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/psc/

GForge Link to Project Insight Change Requests: http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/project-insight/

Attendees:

Present / Name / Organization / Email
x / Rick Haddorff (Co-Chair) / Mayo Clinic/Foundation /
Regrets / Freida Hall (Co-Chair) / US Department of Veterans Affairs /
x / Dave Hamill / HL7 International /
x / Leah Krynicky / The Ambit Group /
x / Lynn Laakso / HL7 International
Regrets / Ken McCaslin / Quest Diagnostics, Incorporated /
Barb McKinnon
x / Ioana Singureanu / Eversolve, LLC /
Serafina Versaggi / Eversolve, LLC /

Quorum Met (Co-chair +2 without preponderance of influence):

Yes No

Chair for call: Rick Haddorff

Standing Agenda items:

·  Open Forum – None.

·  Approve minutes – http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/projectServices/minutes.cfm?

o  March 11, 2010 minutes–

§  “General consent” method when there are no corrections: “You have received the minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Hearing none, if there is no objection the minutes are approved as posted.” –There were no objections. Minutes approved as posted.

·  TSC Updates (Lynn Laakso) – The ballot list for this ballot cycle was approved. A project was approved for a Micro ITS and H Data project for ITS. The Technical Steering Committee (TSC) discussed having project facilitators invited to TSC meetings at which their projects are discussed to answer questions.

·  SD Updates (Ken McCaslin) – There was no Steering Division (SD) meeting this week. The next meeting is 3/22.

·  Report items (all) – None.

·  Revise/Prioritize other agenda items –

Review Open Action Items (tracker # not assigned)

Hyperlinked below – (not reviewed)

Other agenda items:

File reference name in [brackets]

1.  Finalize Proposal - [Most current ppt included in zip file with this agenda and posted to HL7 web page]

Discussion from February 11 minutes (and “Next Steps”):
Freida made live changes to the slide deck during discussion.
Lynn suggested calling the presentation “Accelerating Standards Approval”. Freida stated that she understood that this also dealt with standards being developed more quickly through predictable processes. Rick stated that Ioana’s subtitle “Leveraging rigorous process to accelerate standard approval through predictable and repeatable processes” captures the purpose of the presentation. Rick agreed that development is also part of the idea being conveyed.
Slide 2: Lynn recommended revising to say that veteran HL7 developers have expressed concerns, rather than saying they are concerned. Freida stated that she is trying to avoid inflammatory language.
Slide 3: Freida stated that she does not understand “Stage the SAIF-required models into iterative milestones”. Lynn stated that she does not think we have progressed far enough to know what the required models are so this statement is too generic. Lynn suggested “scheduling model development using iterative milestones.” Freida agreed that “schedule” makes more sense. Lynn stated that she is concerned when we phrase any reference to SAIF as conformance. Lynn does not like the phrase “SAIF-required models”. Rick agreed that he does not like “required” and suggested changing to “SAIF models”.
Slide 5: Freida asked if we need to explain why Object Management Group (OMG) is on this slide. Rick stated that this could be added to the notes.
Slide 6: Lynn stated that ECCF stands for Enterprise Conformance and Compliance Framework. Freida asked if this is equivalent to the Implementation Stack. Lynn stated that she thought the grid applied to the interoperability framework.
Slide 7: Freida stated that we need to determine if the title of HDF has changed, is the ‘H’ for HL7 or Healthcare (v1.2 is ‘HL7’).
Slide 10: Freida stated that we might ask Mark if the Alpha Projects are addressing these artifacts. Freida stated that Mark might want to make some adjustments before this goes to the Alpha Projects.
Next Steps: Freida will add missing acronyms and page numbers and revise the slides so that all text is visible in slideshow mode. We will have Mark and Ron look at the presentation. We will also go to Modeling and Methodology (MnM) and Vocabulary simultaneously. Lynn stated that there was an Alpha Projects meeting on Monday. Only one project was represented, and that project has already balloted documents. There is a lack of participation from other Alpha Projects in bringing feedback. Lynn will work with Mark to determine how to socialize this presentation. Ioana is a MnM chair so we will ask her to get this on the agenda for us to attend the call.

Slide 1: Rick suggest the title “SAIF and Sound” to point out how we will get to the SAIF processes. Ioana suggested thinking of this as a means of fast tracking development while adopting interoperability framework so an innocuous name might be better. Rick suggested “Fast Track to Standards Development”. Dave liked Rick’s suggestion of “SAIF and Sound”. Rick suggested “SAIF and Sound: Fast Track to Standards Development, Leveraging Rigorous Processes”. The group agreed to this title change.

Slide 4: Ioana stated that the D-MIM listed under the DAM is incorrect. This is an error that has been in the SAIF for a long time. Ioana will add notes to this slide to provide clarification.

Slide 8: Rick asked if the meaning of HDF has been changed. Ioana confirmed that it has, but everyone uses the old terminology. We need to use its balloted name.

Ioana stated that there are so many notes that this presentation can easily become a document. Lynn stated that it makes sense to turn this into a white paper.

Ioana will make the final changes and upload the presentation. She will then work on a draft to turn this into a document.

2.  March 18 – Tracker 1106 - Develop mitigation strategies for SWOT weaknesses and allocate those item in the 3 year plan (2010May)

Weaknesses:

·  Dependent on volunteer resources as project facilitator—Rick stated that we invite the facilitators to meetings. Dave is reaching out to recruit more facilitators.

·  Insufficient infrastructure/support/resources to deploy work products to entire membership—Rick stated that this is a question of how we get information out so that other groups can use what we have been working on. He asked if this is a communication issue or a process issue. Lynn asked if we are more interested in adoption or deployment/dispersion of artifacts. Lynn suggested that it might be a governance issue regarding deployment.

·  Insufficient membership engagement and understanding of impact of our decisions—Rick stated that this weakness might be connected with the weakness above. Other groups don’t understand what Project Services does for them. We can focus on the second weakness as deployment and this one as understanding.

Rick stated that there are different ways to get things out depending whether they are balloted or not. Rick suggested that if information is not balloted we present information to working groups through co-chair meetings. Dave stated that over the past year we have followed the TSC SD format for creating documents. He wonders if the weakness in the current method indicates that we are being too narrow in our communication to the various steering divisions. Dave stated that having Lynn on TSC calls helps to mitigate weaknesses. Rick agreed. Lynn stated that the artifacts that were produced in the past were not met with much success when put out for voluntary adoption. Lynn stated that the HDF provides a great process so we might add this to the governance framework. This might actually be an opportunity rather than a weakness.

Lynn stated that there is an Enterprise Architecture Implementation Projects biweekly call. She has provided them a copy of the presentation to help them see the process that we are adding to the existing artifacts to help with understanding.

Rick stated that he will write up the mitigation strategies discussed so that we can verify them at the next meeting.

3.  Standing item: Review work items (in Gforge)— Scheduled last Thursday of month

http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/psc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemBrowse&tracker_id=332

4.  Standing item: If applicable, review new HDF Peer Review Comments for Project Services items; tracker ‘home’ page: (if any items received)

http://hl7projects.hl7.nscee.edu/tracker/?func=browse&group_id=44&atid=333

Completed Action Items

·  3/4 – Ioana will update presentation as discussed on the call and send to Freida to include with the minutes.

·  3/4 – Dave will follow up to confirm SAEAF rename to SAIF for PMO newsletter article.

Open Action Items (tracker # not assigned)

Note: The group discussed if tracker # is assigned the item does not need to be included in action items in minutes. Ideally, action items not completed by following week’s call will be moved to Gforge tracker.

·  2/25 - Freida suggested that for next week the team review the comments on the slides and send comments to the list. Update 3/4 – review to finalize on 3/11 call.

·  3/4 – Freida to forward email to Marc and cc: those on call.

Agenda Items next call:

·  March 25 – vote on SWOT mitigation strategies (on March 11 call agenda)

·  Project Visibility project (after the TSC approves)


May 2010 Deliverables (from 3 year plan):

The reference #s in the first column are from Gforge; project insight #s are in the last column.

Gforge # / Description / Project Insight # /
683 / Develop method to evaluate target date vs. actual date in Project Insight (2010May)
711 / Annual Edits to Project Life Cycle (2010Jan, 2011Jan, 2012Jan) – in progress (Rick and Freida) / 533
722 / Develop method to predict ballot schedules from Insight (2010May)
725 / Develop outreach to recruit project facilitators (2010May)
847 / Annual Edits to PSS Template (2010Jan) – on track / 581
531
741, 778, 814, 880 / Monitor and Maintain the Project Approval Process – (2010May) (tracker updated) / 530
1106 / Develop mitigation strategies for SWOT weaknesses and allocate those item in the 3 year plan (2010May)
1107 / Respond to needs of WG as requested by TSC – this is placeholder for work assigned to PSWG by the TSC. / 535

Page 1 of 5