HL7 SAIF ECCF rolled to all work groups working on applicable standards (V3 primarily)

Cross-artifact consistency

Percent of Work groups in FTSD, SSDSD and DESD participating in RIM/Vocab/Pattern Harmonization meetings, calculated as a 3 trimester moving average

Survey of newly published standards via the publication request form

V3 Standards - Measure - Green: All new standards have one or more of the following checked; Yellow: 1-2 standards have none of the following checked; Red: 3 or more standards have none of the following checked

Standard uses CMETs from COCT domain

Standard drawn from common Domain Model including Clinical Statement, Common Product Model, ???

Measure is the average number of ballot cycles necessary to pass a normative standard. Calculated as a 3 trimester moving average based on publication requests. Add a new field to publication request to document number of ballot cycles required to pass normative ballot.

Proposed process: Work group submits petition to change steering divisions for both its current steering division and proposed steering division. Both steering divisions need to approve petition based upon their decision making practices. Work Group may appeal steering division decisions to the TSC.

Moving lab IG from normative track to DSTU – Ken has not yet done this. ANSI suitability is the issue for change from Normative to DSTU or Informative. Project was approved as Informative in TSC Tracker 1972 for 2011-07-11.

Ken has proposed that projects continue to be identified as important to a strategic initiative, rather than removing that area on the project scope statement. If a project is being initiated specifically for a strategic initiative project then it must be identified in some way. Austin notes that we have not historically been using those checkboxes to identify which SI their project is aligned with. Ken notes that we need to help Project Services to identify SI projects that are not specifically in support of an SI. Woody notes that many projects are in alignment with a SI. Ken is looking to harvest information to know when a project is for a strategic initiative, for placement on the dashboard. Then we can measure those projects for green/yellow/red. Austin notes that such measurement is not restricted solely to projects. Ken notes that without deriving objective information from projects it will be a heavily manual, subjective process and resources would be needed. Ken was going to work with Dave to recategorize the existing projects among the three initiatives now in place. Austin uses an example of WGM effectiveness as a measure that cannot be generated from project information. Woody adds some measures are related to the ballot itself. Austin was not constraining himself to those measurements that can be automated. Ken notes that even the survey on WGM effectiveness you have to drill down to the comments to find constructive information. Austin notes that rolling up all projects under three categories will be difficult to measure since some of the items under each category are under the TSC and some are not. We have to be able to collect data at the next layer down. Woody notes that the indication of strategic initiative on the scope statement is not as precise as it needs to be but it gives us a place to start. Ken and Dave would do the assessment and bring it back to the TSC for review.

HL7 SAIF ECCF rolled to all work groups working on applicable standards (V3 primarily)

Cross-artifact consistency

Percent of Work groups in FTSD, SSDSD and DESD participating in RIM/Vocab/Pattern Harmonization meetings, calculated as a 3 trimester moving average

Survey of newly published standards via the publication request form

V3 Standards - Measure - Green: All new standards have one or more of the following checked; Yellow: 1-2 standards have none of the following checked; Red: 3 or more standards have none of the following checked

Standard uses CMETs from COCT domain

Standard drawn from common Domain Model including Clinical Statement, Common Product Model, ???

Measure is the average number of ballot cycles necessary to pass a normative standard. Calculated as a 3 trimester moving average based on publication requests. Add a new field to publication request to document number of ballot cycles required to pass normative ballot.

Green: 1-2 ballot cycles

Yellow: 3-4 ballot cycles

Red: 5+ ballot cycles

Woody was going to look at

creating schemas that actually validate,

the presence of line-level comments in a static model

Projects at risk of becoming stale 2 cycles after last ballot

Two cycles since last ballot but not posting reconciliation or request for publication for normative edition

items going into third or higher level of balloting for a normative specification; it’s ok to be flagged as a concern while the process is ongoing; doesn't mean it’s a measure of quality once it has finished balloting.

Lynn will move these to a specific wiki page to develop these further. Make a standing agenda item to report progress on proposals. Ken will work with Dave Hamill to sort the existing projects under the three criteria and develop instruction on the use of the strategic initiatives checkbox. They’ll use the 2012 SI criteria. Ken will ask Dave to present their findings next week.

Austin proposes skipping the meeting on the 28th, to be decided next week. Austin asks Lynn to set up an email vote for naming Freida to represent Ken for the next two weeks.

Proposed process: Work group submits petition to change steering divisions for both its current steering division and proposed steering division. Both steering divisions need to approve petition based upon their decision making practices. Work Group may appeal steering division decisions to the TSC.

Calvin notes they could make a swap – CG for II. Ken feels the Steering Division co-chairs should initiate the process, rather than the WG co-chairs initiating the process. Freida notes that this determination should be a suggestion for the GOM. We’re planning on inviting the GOC December 5th to discuss other changes; we can add that to the agenda once a recommendation is agreed upon.

Add to next week’s agenda a discussion on upcoming TSC call scheduling over the holidays, December 26th, Jan 2nd and November 28th.

Next Steps

Actions(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Lynn will move the proposed SI dashboard criteria to a specific wiki page to develop these further, and make a standing agenda item to report progress on proposals - see Strategic Initiatives TSC Dashboard.

Ken will work with Dave Hamill to sort the existing projects under the three criteria and develop instruction on the use of the strategic initiatives checkbox, using the 2012 SI criteria.

Ken will ask Dave to present their findings next week .

Lynn to set up an email vote for naming Freida to represent Ken for the next two weeks.