HL 7 Transition Team Project Lifecycle TTPL Transition

HL 7 Transition Team Project Lifecycle (TTPL)

Transition Team Transition Oversight Team (TOT) Transitional Technical Task Force (T 3 F) Structure and Governance (TTSG) interim Until Technical Directorate (TD) is established Products and Services (TTPS) Project Lifecycle (TTPL) Volunteer Resources (TTVR) Marketing and Communications (TTMC)

Transition Team Project Lifecycle (PL) Background l SITF Productivity and Process Members: l Ken Mc. Caslin, Freida Hall, Laura Sato, Sharon Moore, Wes Rishel, Jane Curry, Pete Kitch (consultant) l Initially conducted three calls seeking additional input with participation from: l Lloyd Mc. Kenzie, John Quinn, Ioana Singureanu, Karen Van. Hentenryck, Nancy Wilson-Ramone, Dick Harding, Charlie Mc. Cay l HL 7 membership invited to comment on current proposal via Peer Review, with little response.

TTPL – Current state and potential impacts l HL 7 members (our customers): l We are still open to process suggestions l 2006 ANSI Audit – recommending changes to ballot process: l Current Committee level ballot reconciliation not required; considering streamlining the ballot process: l Informative vs. Normative l Requires synchronization with Bylaws/Pn. P revisions, HDF and other Transition Teams impacting TTPL

Project Lifecycle

HL 7 Products and Projects l PL relies on concept of HL 7 Products, defined by Transition Team Product and Services (TTPS) l Examples Discussed: l Product Brand l Messaging, Arden Syntax, CCOW, CDA, XML, …. l Version l V 2, V 3, R 1, R 2, R 3, … l Multiple projects may be required to create viable ‘product’

HL 7 Project Criteria l Be consistent with HL 7 strategic direction l Include appropriate project documentation - project charter, scope, resources, timelines, assumptions, constraints, planned deliverables, etc. per PMO methodology l Be aligned with market demand l Be sponsored by stakeholders intending to implement the product produced by the project l Define a reasonable balloting strategy to meet market demand implementation timelines l Define how the project will engage with other impacted committees l Follow project approval protocols to ensure appropriate project socialization and sign-off has taken place

Managing Product portfolio

Process to Informative Ballot

Process to Normative Standard

Project Completion

Project Sunset

Advantages of PL approach l Based on strategic plan focusing general direction of the organization l Focuses work on products customers have committed to implement l Allows hosted projects bringing resources to support their project as long as not in conflict with HL 7 strategic direction l Requiring DSTU/prototype prior to normative ballot should stabilize and improve quality of normative standards l Intentionally targets industry involvement l Quality of ballots should improve due to quality measures, should decrease ballot fatigue syndrome

Disadvantages of PL approach l Change is disruptive, but necessary path to a better way l Plan to implement incrementally to minimize disruption l It is easier to act your way to a new way of thinking than think your way to a new way of acting (Menninger)

What does PL mean to TC or SIG? l Suggest committees evaluate how PL approach will impact your committee work l Schedule agenda time for discussion l Register projects with HL 7 PMO Office l Contact Terrance Bennett at HL 7 HQ l Evaluate potential new projects with suggested criteria for committee approval: l Who are project sponsors (minimum one) l Who is responsible party (minimum one) l Who are the implementers (minimum two)

Other changes required to implement PL l Technical Directorate and other governance changes l Quality requirement definitions must be finalized, for example: l Requirements Definition deliverables might be: Use Cases, Storyboards, Glossary, Business Rules l Logical Design deliverables might be: Domain Analysis Model, Activity Diagrams, State Diagrams, Refined Glossary l Candidate standard validation process must be finalized