Difference between revisions of "Profile Development Process for First Timers"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(29 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
This is how IHE Radiology works.  Other domains will be similar but differ in some details.
+
{{TOCright}}
 +
 
 +
This is how IHE Radiology works.  Other domains will be similar but differ in dates and details.
  
 
* Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected by the [[Profile Proposal Process]].
 
* Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected by the [[Profile Proposal Process]].
 
:* We’re going to say “profile” a lot here but the process is essentially the same if your proposal was for a whitepaper, etc.
 
:* We’re going to say “profile” a lot here but the process is essentially the same if your proposal was for a whitepaper, etc.
−
* There’s lots of work to do '''before the first meeting'''
+
 
 +
 
 +
* '''Before the first meeting''' there’s lots of work to do
 
:* Good news: you can hit the ground running because your plan is in your proposal
 
:* Good news: you can hit the ground running because your plan is in your proposal
 
::* Start working on the steps listed in your '''Breakdown of Tasks'''
 
::* Start working on the steps listed in your '''Breakdown of Tasks'''
 
::* Contact the people listed in your '''Support and Resources''' and listed as '''Contributors'''
 
::* Contact the people listed in your '''Support and Resources''' and listed as '''Contributors'''
−
::* Get them working on considering your '''Open Issues''' and proposing ideas
+
::* Get them working on considering your '''Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties''' and proposing ideas/resolutions
−
::* Start sketching the profile document
+
::* '''Start sketching the profile''' document
−
:::* Use the template: [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/DocumentPublication/DocumentTemplates/Technical_Framework_Supplement_Template/IHE_Suppl_Template_Rev10.3_2012-12-31.doc Supplement Template V10.3]
+
:::* Use the current supplement template [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13nsG6u3V--lQgCXCZlt0M73-oRgSXE9q here]
 
:::* Practice Safe Pasting to avoid messing up your document ('''Paste text without formatting''')
 
:::* Practice Safe Pasting to avoid messing up your document ('''Paste text without formatting''')
−
:::* Lots of guidance in the template in ''<italic text>''
+
:::* Note the guidance (in ''<italic text>'') throughout the template
−
:::* Material from your '''Use Case''' section will get you started on Volume 1, X.4
+
:::* Material from your '''Use Case''' section will get you started on Section X.4 in Volume 1
−
:::* Start working on an Actor/Transaction Diagram; it's a great highlevel view
+
:::* Start working on an '''Actor/Transaction Diagram'''; it's a great highlevel tool
−
:::* If you want to work up some Swimlane Diagram screenshots, check out http://www.websequencediagrams.com - it's simple and tidy.
+
:::* If you want to work up some Swimlane Diagram, check out http://www.websequencediagrams.com - it's simple and tidy.
 +
:::* For each new transaction, bullet list the existing transaction or standard that it will be based on and what details it will cover
  
−
* Three meetings (and optional tcons) will get the profile from Proposal to Trial Implementation status.
+
===Expectations===
−
:* '''Kickoff Meeting''' (2016 Nov 1-4)
+
* '''Three meetings''' (and optional tcons) will get the profile from Proposal to Trial Implementation status.
−
::* Arrive with a skeleton profile document
+
:* '''Kickoff Meeting''' (early-Novemberish)
 +
::* Have a plan and materials (strawmen, list of options, etc.) to resolve as many '''[[Proposal_Effort_Evaluation#TC_Review_.26_Effort_Estimation|Uncertainty Points]]''' as possible.
 +
:::* Many profiles have struggled from key uncertainty points remaining unresolved into the later meetings
 +
::* Arrive with a skeleton profile document as described above
 
:::* Bring contentious/hard issues and be prepared to walk the committee through them
 
:::* Bring contentious/hard issues and be prepared to walk the committee through them
 
:::* Make your best call for less contentious issues and write that into your skeleton.  
 
:::* Make your best call for less contentious issues and write that into your skeleton.  
 
::::* It gives people something tangible to consider.  
 
::::* It gives people something tangible to consider.  
 
::::* They can still disagree but if they agree you’ve saved time for more meaty discussions.
 
::::* They can still disagree but if they agree you’ve saved time for more meaty discussions.
−
::* Committee will critique the contents and help you work through open issues
+
::* Committee will refine/flesh out missing Use Case details
−
::* Leave with a complete idea of how you’re going to draft all the text for public comment
+
::* Committee will critique the document contents and help you work through open issues
−
:* '''PC Prep Meeting''' (2017 Jan TBD soon)
+
::* '''Goal:''' Leave with a complete idea of how you’re going to draft '''all''' the text for public comment
 +
:* '''PC Prep Meeting''' (Januaryish)
 
::* Arrive with a draft Public Comment version of the document
 
::* Arrive with a draft Public Comment version of the document
 +
:::* Post a draft to the meeting folder one week before the meeting
 +
:::* The draft ?should? indicate which sections people can start reviewing(?) and which aren't ready
 +
:::* In particular, for each '''[[Proposal_Effort_Evaluation#TC_Review_.26_Effort_Estimation|Complexity Point]]''', include draft text for people to start thinking though
 +
:::* Include profile text for resolved uncertainty points (best) and clear Open Issues for those that depend on community feedback.
 
::* Committee will review in detail and vote it ready for public comment if it meets the following criteria
 
::* Committee will review in detail and vote it ready for public comment if it meets the following criteria
 
:::* All parts of the profile are written (not in stone, but the parts are all in place)
 
:::* All parts of the profile are written (not in stone, but the parts are all in place)
Line 32: Line 45:
 
:::* Issues that have been decided but you want to avoid rehashing with the email reviewers who didn’t hear the discussion are documented in Closed Issues
 
:::* Issues that have been decided but you want to avoid rehashing with the email reviewers who didn’t hear the discussion are documented in Closed Issues
 
::::* Reviewers are permitted to re-open closed issues but they had better introduce new facts/considerations beyond what’s documented in the closed issue.
 
::::* Reviewers are permitted to re-open closed issues but they had better introduce new facts/considerations beyond what’s documented in the closed issue.
−
::* Leave with a ready to publish for PC (possibly after some remaining tidy-up edits)  
+
::* '''Goal:''' Leave with a ready to publish for PC (possibly after some remaining tidy-up edits)  
−
:* '''TI Prep Meeting''' (2017 Mar/Apr TBD soon)
+
:* '''TI Prep Meeting''' (Late March/Early Aprilish)
−
::* Arrive with a draft Trial Implementation version of the document, a consolidated list of the received comments, completed resolutions for most comments, proposed resolutions for some comments, and  
+
::* Arrive with
 +
:::* a draft Trial Implementation version of the document
 +
:::* a consolidated list of the received comments
 +
:::* completed resolutions for most comments
 +
:::* proposed resolutions for some comments, and  
 +
:::* few or no comments with no idea on how to proceed
 
::* Committee reviews in detail and votes it ready for trial implementation
 
::* Committee reviews in detail and votes it ready for trial implementation
 
:::* All open issues must be closed, one way or another.
 
:::* All open issues must be closed, one way or another.
−
::* Leave with a doc ready to publish for TI (possibly with some remaining tidy-up edits)
+
::* '''Goal:''' Leave with a doc ready to publish for TI (possibly with some remaining tidy-up edits)
 +
 
 
:* '''General Meeting Notes'''
 
:* '''General Meeting Notes'''
 
::* You get allocated a number of time slots based on the estimated effort in your proposal
 
::* You get allocated a number of time slots based on the estimated effort in your proposal
 
::* Most meetings spread your timeslots over a couple days so you can do homework overnight after the first day to work on issues/ideas raised
 
::* Most meetings spread your timeslots over a couple days so you can do homework overnight after the first day to work on issues/ideas raised
 
::* Ideally, post a draft document to the meeting folder a week in advance of the meeting
 
::* Ideally, post a draft document to the meeting folder a week in advance of the meeting
−
::* While it’s understood that some domain experts may not be able to attend for the entire duration of the face to face meetings, it is strongly recommended.  It’s a way to learn by watching others while you're not in the hotseat.  And frankly the point of IHE is for everyone to contribute to everyone else's work.  We benefit from the breadth of view.
+
::* While it’s understood that some domain experts may not be able to attend for the entire duration of the face to face meetings, it is strongly recommended.  Rather than leaving or doing email when Other Profiles are being worked on, stay tuned in.  Learn by watching others while you're not in the hotseat, and frankly the point of IHE is for everyone to contribute to everyone else's work.  Your viewpoint is valuable and we benefit from the breadth all your views bring.
 
::* That being said, if you have travel constraints, or if you have contributors who will be joining the meeting by phone from another time zone, contact the co-chairs so they can take those constraints into account when scheduling the agenda.
 
::* That being said, if you have travel constraints, or if you have contributors who will be joining the meeting by phone from another time zone, contact the co-chairs so they can take those constraints into account when scheduling the agenda.
 
::* Also, it’s expected that a profile editor may set up tcons with their contributors to work on the profile between face-to-face meetings
 
::* Also, it’s expected that a profile editor may set up tcons with their contributors to work on the profile between face-to-face meetings
Line 58: Line 77:
  
 
* '''Reading/Reference List'''
 
* '''Reading/Reference List'''
−
:* Profile Supplement Template - ftp://ftp.ihe.net/DocumentPublication/DocumentTemplates/Technical_Framework_Supplement_Template/
+
:* Profile Supplement Template - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13nsG6u3V--lQgCXCZlt0M73-oRgSXE9q
 
:* [[IHE_Profile_Design_Principles_and_Conventions]]
 
:* [[IHE_Profile_Design_Principles_and_Conventions]]
 
:* [[Writing_Technical_Frameworks_and_Supplements#Guidance_for_Authors_and_Editors]] - Important Information on using MS Word in IHE (seriously, do yourself and Mary a favour)
 
:* [[Writing_Technical_Frameworks_and_Supplements#Guidance_for_Authors_and_Editors]] - Important Information on using MS Word in IHE (seriously, do yourself and Mary a favour)
 
:* [[Public_Comment_Process]]
 
:* [[Public_Comment_Process]]
 
:* [[Process]] Other bits of IHE Process but less relevant to you right now
 
:* [[Process]] Other bits of IHE Process but less relevant to you right now
 +
:* [[Resources_for_Authors/Editors]] - Useful links
  
−
===Annex: Post-Kickoff Risk Assessment===
+
===Annex: Kickoff Closing Assessment===
  
−
At the end of the Kickoff Meeting, the Technical Committee will do an assessment of each workitem to make sure everyone is on the same page about the remaining potential risks and expectations.
+
At the end of the Kickoff Meeting, the Technical Committee assesses each workitem to make sure everyone is on the same page about the expectations and remaining potential risks.
  
 
The purpose is to get a clear picture of aspects the authors will need to focus on between now and the Public Comment Preparation meeting.
 
The purpose is to get a clear picture of aspects the authors will need to focus on between now and the Public Comment Preparation meeting.
  
−
* Run down the following checklist
+
* Paste the following checklist items into the minutes; discuss and record findings for each
 +
* Profile Name:
 
** Describe gaps in Use Case coverage
 
** Describe gaps in Use Case coverage
 +
** Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?
 +
** Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right?
 +
** Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
 
** Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks
 
** Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks
 
** Describe potential practical issues
 
** Describe potential practical issues
−
** Does the open issue list feel complete
+
** Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete
−
** Which open issues feel most risky
+
** Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?
 
** How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 
** How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 
** How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)
 
** How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)
Line 81: Line 105:
 
** Have the promised resources manifested?
 
** Have the promised resources manifested?
 
** What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
 
** What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
−
** What vendors are engaged for each actor?  
+
** What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.
 +
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
 +
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap
 
** How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?
 
** How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?
−
* Record checklist findings in the minutes
 
  
−
It will be the responsibility of the Profile Editor to lead resolution of risk items before/at the Public Comment preparation meeting.
+
It will be the responsibility of the Profile Editor to lead resolution of these issues before the Public Comment preparation meeting.
  
 
Resolution may involve:
 
Resolution may involve:
Line 92: Line 117:
 
* Including open issues in the PC Profile draft for wider comment (generally for issues that would not radically change the profile)
 
* Including open issues in the PC Profile draft for wider comment (generally for issues that would not radically change the profile)
 
* Changing the workitem from a profile to a whitepaper to explore the solution space if it is not ready for profiling.  
 
* Changing the workitem from a profile to a whitepaper to explore the solution space if it is not ready for profiling.  
−
** Hopefully the whitepaper work is solid enough that it will be ready to profile and the same proposal will be selected again next year
+
** Hopefully the whitepaper work is solid enough that it will be ready to profile next year and the same proposal will be selected again
 
* Dismissing the workitem as not ready for profiling in the forseeable future.
 
* Dismissing the workitem as not ready for profiling in the forseeable future.
 
** This likely means there was something the TC should have caught during evaluation
 
** This likely means there was something the TC should have caught during evaluation
  
 +
For sample evaluations see: [[Rad_Tech_Minutes_2016-11-01_to_2016-11-04]]
  
 +
===Annex: PC-Prep Closing Assessment===
 +
Paste the following checklist items into the minutes; discuss and record findings for each
  
 +
* Profile Name:
 +
* Did we line-by-line the entire document
 +
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
 +
* Which open issues are risky, and why
 +
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
 +
* Which use cases need more input
 +
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
 +
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
 +
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
 +
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?
 +
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation.  Still seems right? Need more?
 +
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
 +
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 +
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
 +
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
 +
* Have the promised resources manifested
 +
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
 +
* When will we have sample data/objects
 +
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
 +
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting (See "PC Prep Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
 +
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
 +
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
 +
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
  
−
* Sample Evaluation: FUNC
+
For sample evaluations see: [[Rad_Tech_Minutes_2017-02-28_to_2017-03-03]]
−
** Describe Use Case coverage gaps
 
−
*** Need more use case details e.g. escalation paths to confirm practicality
 
−
** Describe Unresolved Technical Issues/Tasks
 
−
*** Choose mechanism for one or two transactions
 
−
*** Update actor/transaction diagram and swimlane diagram to reflect conclusions
 
−
*** Finalize payload descriptions for each transaction
 
−
*** Address dealing with messages across out-of-network boundaries
 
−
** Describe potential practical issues
 
−
*** Security concerns and red-tape could be a roadblock and hamper uptake
 
−
**** Might be OK since such concerns are less for in-network and profile would be useful even if just in-network
 
−
*** Leaving the last mile of notification undefined is not unreasonable but is still a risk
 
−
*** Contact list management will be challenging
 
−
** Does the open issue list feel complete
 
−
***
 
−
** Which open issues feel most risky
 
−
***
 
−
** How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth?
 
−
*** A bit tight but not seriously
 
−
** How does the scope feel?
 
−
*** pretty reasonable – not too broad, and little scope creep seen
 
−
** If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
 
−
***
 
−
** Have the promised resources manifested?
 
−
***
 
−
** What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
 
−
*** Need to validate our technical conclusions with clinicians (Tessa and others)
 
−
** What vendors are engaged for each actor?
 
−
*** Would be good to get some Reporter and Source actor implementers to stand up
 
−
*** MACM has some reporter uptake but we haven’t reached out yet.
 
−
** How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?
 
−
***
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
* Sample Evaluation: SOLE
 
−
** Describe gaps in Use Case coverage
 
−
*** Needs image acquisition case
 
−
*** Needs text to go with diagrams
 
−
** Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks
 
−
*** Definition completion of events and detailed payloads
 
−
*** Clarify meanings of times (actual, detected, logged, reported, etc.)
 
−
*** Confirm selected baseline events
 
−
*** Detailed description of transaction mechanisms
 
−
** Describe potential practical issues
 
−
*** simple vs complex consumer clients scope creep
 
−
*** PHI concerns do affect event description choices
 
−
*** Uptake and will be challenging to get participation by reporters
 
−
**** Profile will have value with just subset of participants installed, some particular participants will be high payoff.
 
−
** Does the open issue list feel complete
 
−
*** Good start, may have more
 
−
** Which open issues feel most risky
 
−
*** Issues 5, 6
 
−
** How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 
−
*** Tight but reasonable
 
−
*** Biggest risk is discovering a landmine/major issue defining events.
 
−
** How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)
 
−
*** Feels reasonable
 
−
** If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
 
−
*** Mobile reporter support
 
−
*** Problematic events
 
−
** Have the promised resources manifested?
 
−
*** Some scheduling conflicts
 
−
** What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
 
−
*** Event description may pull in more SIIM/RADLEX participants
 
−
*** Mobile experts
 
−
** What vendors are engaged for each actor?
 
−
*** Repository: Agfa, Karos/Vital, Forecare?
 
−
*** Consumer (Dashboards): new, Montage?, Vital?
 
−
*** Reporters (RIS/EMR): ***
 
−
*** Reporters (VNA/Archive/Image Manager): Karos/Vital, Agfa, Sectra?
 
−
*** Reporters (Modalities): GE?, Philips?, Siemens?, etc?
 
−
** How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?
 
−
*** 3 doing event description completion mid-december, early-jan, early-feb
 
−
*** 1 full review before pc
 
−
* Record checklist findings in the minutes
 
−
 
 
−
===Annex: Post-PC Prep Assessment===
 
−
(Risks and Progress)
 
−
 
 
−
MAP Protocols:
 
−
 
 
−
* Run down the following checklist
 
−
 
 
−
** No risky open issues?
 
−
Basically
 
−
** Did we get sufficient input on use cases
 
−
Yes, good input from AAPM participants among others.
 
−
 
 
−
** How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 
−
About right.
 
−
 
 
−
** Did we line-by-line the entire document
 
−
Yes
 
−
 
 
−
** Is it ready to go out for PC
 
−
A few paragraphs to add as discussed, otherwise yes
 
−
 
 
−
** How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?) in terms of being a useful chunk of work
 
−
Good.
 
−
 
 
−
** If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
 
−
NA
 
−
 
 
−
** Have the promised resources manifested?
 
−
Yes.
 
−
 
 
−
** What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
 
−
Nice to have some community hosp input and tech input.  Will seek during PC.
 
−
 
 
−
** What vendors are engaged for each actor?
 
−
Modalities (T, P, )
 
−
(VNA would like a test object)
 
−
 
 
−
** When will we have sample data/objects
 
−
Good question, will look into it.
 
−
 
 
−
** How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Imp Meeting?
 
−
One before PC and 1 before Trial Imp
 
−
 
 
−
** Where was the profile at at the start of the PC Mtg and would you have preferred to have more, if so what
 
−
Written with a few gaps in use cases and open issue.
 
−
 
 
−
** Where was it at at the end of the meeting, are you comfortable with that, if not what more
 
−
Would have been nice to be fully complete but it's OK where it is.
 
−
 
 
−
** Did you know what feedback you needed and did you get the answers you needed
 
−
Yes
 
−
 
 
−
Profile Name: SOLE
 
−
 
 
−
* Run down the following checklist
 
−
 
 
−
** No risky open issues?
 
−
No landmines.
 
−
 
 
−
** Did we get sufficient input on use cases
 
−
Pretty good.
 
−
 
 
−
** How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 
−
Some things still undone, not TOO far behind.
 
−
 
 
−
** Did we line-by-line the entire document
 
−
No. Skipped use cases, Concepts.
 
−
 
 
−
** Is it ready to go out for PC
 
−
Not until a few more things done, maybe a week of work.
 
−
 
 
−
** How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?) in terms of being a useful chunk of work
 
−
About right
 
−
 
 
−
** If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
 
−
could drop events, but doesn't change much.  Some scope creep in BI analysis. Keeping a lid on.
 
−
 
 
−
** Have the promised resources manifested?
 
−
More or less.  More editing would be nice but schedules were tight.
 
−
 
 
−
** What would benefit from additional expertise?
 
−
Writing volume was underestimated but expertise availability was as needed.
 
−
 
 
−
** What vendors are engaged for each actor?
 
−
Spectators. Some gaps in ACTIVE involvement.  We're asking many different systems to pitch in.  Not asking a lot but it's asking something new and it reopens code without a HUGE individual benefit for the extra work.  Will have to be customer driven.
 
−
 
 
−
BI Vendors are interested and get the most value.  This will improve their situation a bit. 
 
−
 
 
−
** When will we have sample data/objects
 
−
Good question. How big?
 
−
Will put the one event sample on the FTP during Pub Cmt.
 
−
Would be a good student project to work some up.
 
−
 
 
−
** How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Imp Meeting?
 
−
Want 2 but will only have time for 1.
 
−
 
 
−
** Where was the profile at at the start of the PC Mtg and would you have preferred to have more, if so what
 
−
It was a first draft of all the sections but the contents were not completed.  Did a fair bit of work finishing population of the list of events and the event details.
 
−
Would be nice to have a 5 day meeting.  Would have needed more pre-meeting tcons.
 
−
 
 
−
** Where was it at at the end of the meeting, are you comfortable with that, if not what more
 
−
Role tables are missing. Some of the tables are not populated yet so reviewers need to help complete the table rather than review it. Need a bunch of radlex codes. General formatting
 
  
−
** Did you know what feedback you needed and did you get the answers you needed
+
===Annex: TI-Prep Closing Assessment===
−
Yes. Got the answers needed from this meeting.
 
−
 
 
−
** What are the biggest risks now?
 
−
- Not enough time to get a clean PC draft together
 
−
- Asking lots of vendors to make small changes to lots of products - profile risk
 
−
- Worried about dashboard lag - deployment risk
 
−
 
 
−
Profile Name: FUNC
 
−
 
 
−
* Run down the following checklist
 
−
 
 
−
Would have benefited from
 
−
- a whitepaper in the first year, profile second
 
−
- experienced author from the get go
 
−
- high level powerpoint two to three weeks earlier would have gotten Mildenberger feedback and done better analysis on tcon to start the do over earlier
 
−
- good to have fundamental structural tcon early
 
−
- people like sending out powerpoints so they get feedback
 
−
- due to level of interest from many people and complexity of profile concept, have a PPT during PC to help reviewers.
 
−
- between language and concepts it's hard to review
 
−
- many people have put in time
 
−
- maybe have an orientation tcon DURING public comment which can be recorded
 
−
- effort was underestimated, understanding was not as complete
 
−
- input was a bit too US centric
 
−
- Lynn feels like we're rushing, can we slip 6 months
 
−
- Google docs is great for collaboration - need to get the back to word conversion
 
−
- Teri and Steve had good work contacting vendors at HIMSS, although they didn't show up this week.
 
−
- Having chairs of institution going with the PC will help
 
−
- how did we miss the Euro interest during profile selection
 
−
-  
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
** No risky open issues?
 
−
A few yes.  mACM is a bit new.
 
−
 
 
−
** Did we get sufficient input on use cases
 
−
Yes. Lots
 
−
 
 
−
** How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 
−
Running behind+++
 
  
 +
* Paste the following checklist items into the minutes; discuss and record findings for each
 
** Did we line-by-line the entire document
 
** Did we line-by-line the entire document
−
No.
+
** How ready is it to go out for TI: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
−
 
+
** How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
−
** Is it ready to go out for PC
+
** Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?
−
No.
+
** Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.
−
 
+
** Are all the open issues closed?
−
** How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?) in terms of being a useful chunk of work
+
** What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep
−
Took a bit to grapple,  but it feels on target now.
+
** Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
−
 
+
** What residual risks are worth noting
−
** If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
+
** Does it feel we've met all the use cases
−
Bail to whitepaper and do 2 years.
+
** Did the promised resources manifest
−
 
+
** What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
−
** Have the promised resources manifested?
+
** Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)
−
Not fully, lots of good use case input and lots of support, but needed to transfer author.
 
−
Supposed to get some Critical Results vendors input and didn't at all.
 
−
 
 
−
** What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
 
−
We're good
 
−
 
 
−
** What vendors are engaged for each actor?
 
−
Rmanager - MModal
 
−
FollowupSource - Primordial, AscendHIT, McKesson
 
−
AlertReproter/Agg - Epic, McKesson
 
−
 
 
 
** When will we have sample data/objects
 
** When will we have sample data/objects
−
Someday after TI
+
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
−
 
+
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
−
** How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Imp Meeting?
+
** Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication
−
3. 2 for review, 1 for PC kickoff, 1 for triage PC
 
−
 
 
−
** Where was the profile at at the start of the PC Mtg and would you have preferred to have more, if so what
 
−
Debacle, Needed more time to prep.  Development comments came in too late.
 
−
Would have wanted everything except use cases needed more
 
−
 
 
−
** Where was it at at the end of the meeting, are you comfortable with that, if not what more
 
−
need more time to finish writing.
 
−
Not done.
 
−
Volume 1 is done-ish. Vol 2 needs a lot of work, half transactions not written
 
−
 
 
−
** Did you know what feedback you needed and did you get the answers you needed
 
−
Lots of good input.  Needed more earlier.
 
−
 
 
−
Template
 
−
 
 
−
Profile Name:
 
−
 
 
−
* Run down the following checklist
 
−
 
 
−
** No risky open issues?
 
−
 
 
−
** Did we get sufficient input on use cases
 
−
 
 
−
** How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 
−
 
 
−
** Did we line-by-line the entire document
 
−
 
 
−
** Is it ready to go out for PC
 
−
 
 
−
** How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?) in terms of being a useful chunk of work
 
−
 
 
−
** If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
 
−
 
 
−
** Have the promised resources manifested?
 
−
 
 
−
** What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
 
−
 
 
−
** What vendors are engaged for each actor?
 
−
 
 
−
** When will we have sample data/objects
 
−
 
 
−
** How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Imp Meeting?
 
−
 
 
−
** Where was the profile at at the start of the PC Mtg and would you have preferred to have more, if so what
 
−
 
 
−
** Where was it at at the end of the meeting, are you comfortable with that, if not what more
 
−
 
 
−
** Did you know what feedback you needed and did you get the answers you needed
 

Latest revision as of 22:22, 8 February 2024

This is how IHE Radiology works. Other domains will be similar but differ in dates and details.

  • We’re going to say “profile” a lot here but the process is essentially the same if your proposal was for a whitepaper, etc.


  • Before the first meeting there’s lots of work to do
  • Good news: you can hit the ground running because your plan is in your proposal
  • Start working on the steps listed in your Breakdown of Tasks
  • Contact the people listed in your Support and Resources and listed as Contributors
  • Get them working on considering your Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties and proposing ideas/resolutions
  • Start sketching the profile document
  • Use the current supplement template here
  • Practice Safe Pasting to avoid messing up your document (Paste text without formatting)
  • Note the guidance (in <italic text>) throughout the template
  • Material from your Use Case section will get you started on Section X.4 in Volume 1
  • Start working on an Actor/Transaction Diagram; it's a great highlevel tool
  • If you want to work up some Swimlane Diagram, check out http://www.websequencediagrams.com - it's simple and tidy.
  • For each new transaction, bullet list the existing transaction or standard that it will be based on and what details it will cover

Expectations

  • Three meetings (and optional tcons) will get the profile from Proposal to Trial Implementation status.
  • Kickoff Meeting (early-Novemberish)
  • Have a plan and materials (strawmen, list of options, etc.) to resolve as many Uncertainty Points as possible.
  • Many profiles have struggled from key uncertainty points remaining unresolved into the later meetings
  • Arrive with a skeleton profile document as described above
  • Bring contentious/hard issues and be prepared to walk the committee through them
  • Make your best call for less contentious issues and write that into your skeleton.
  • It gives people something tangible to consider.
  • They can still disagree but if they agree you’ve saved time for more meaty discussions.
  • Committee will refine/flesh out missing Use Case details
  • Committee will critique the document contents and help you work through open issues
  • Goal: Leave with a complete idea of how you’re going to draft all the text for public comment
  • PC Prep Meeting (Januaryish)
  • Arrive with a draft Public Comment version of the document
  • Post a draft to the meeting folder one week before the meeting
  • The draft ?should? indicate which sections people can start reviewing(?) and which aren't ready
  • In particular, for each Complexity Point, include draft text for people to start thinking though
  • Include profile text for resolved uncertainty points (best) and clear Open Issues for those that depend on community feedback.
  • Committee will review in detail and vote it ready for public comment if it meets the following criteria
  • All parts of the profile are written (not in stone, but the parts are all in place)
  • All questions where you want or need input/confirmation/consent from the wider community are listed in the Open Issues section
  • Issues that have been decided but you want to avoid rehashing with the email reviewers who didn’t hear the discussion are documented in Closed Issues
  • Reviewers are permitted to re-open closed issues but they had better introduce new facts/considerations beyond what’s documented in the closed issue.
  • Goal: Leave with a ready to publish for PC (possibly after some remaining tidy-up edits)
  • TI Prep Meeting (Late March/Early Aprilish)
  • Arrive with
  • a draft Trial Implementation version of the document
  • a consolidated list of the received comments
  • completed resolutions for most comments
  • proposed resolutions for some comments, and
  • few or no comments with no idea on how to proceed
  • Committee reviews in detail and votes it ready for trial implementation
  • All open issues must be closed, one way or another.
  • Goal: Leave with a doc ready to publish for TI (possibly with some remaining tidy-up edits)
  • General Meeting Notes
  • You get allocated a number of time slots based on the estimated effort in your proposal
  • Most meetings spread your timeslots over a couple days so you can do homework overnight after the first day to work on issues/ideas raised
  • Ideally, post a draft document to the meeting folder a week in advance of the meeting
  • While it’s understood that some domain experts may not be able to attend for the entire duration of the face to face meetings, it is strongly recommended. Rather than leaving or doing email when Other Profiles are being worked on, stay tuned in. Learn by watching others while you're not in the hotseat, and frankly the point of IHE is for everyone to contribute to everyone else's work. Your viewpoint is valuable and we benefit from the breadth all your views bring.
  • That being said, if you have travel constraints, or if you have contributors who will be joining the meeting by phone from another time zone, contact the co-chairs so they can take those constraints into account when scheduling the agenda.
  • Also, it’s expected that a profile editor may set up tcons with their contributors to work on the profile between face-to-face meetings


  • Where do things go?
  • If you're not on it yet, get on it now. This is where all the announcements, discussions, etc. go
  • Includes links to Agenda (times, places, logistics) and Minutes
  • Post documents here. Structure of meeting folders varies randomly each year


  • Reading/Reference List

Annex: Kickoff Closing Assessment

At the end of the Kickoff Meeting, the Technical Committee assesses each workitem to make sure everyone is on the same page about the expectations and remaining potential risks.

The purpose is to get a clear picture of aspects the authors will need to focus on between now and the Public Comment Preparation meeting.

  • Paste the following checklist items into the minutes; discuss and record findings for each
  • Profile Name:
    • Describe gaps in Use Case coverage
    • Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?
    • Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right?
    • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
    • Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks
    • Describe potential practical issues
    • Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete
    • Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?
    • How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
    • How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)
    • If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
    • Have the promised resources manifested?
    • What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
    • What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap
    • How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?

It will be the responsibility of the Profile Editor to lead resolution of these issues before the Public Comment preparation meeting.

Resolution may involve:

  • Scheduling additional Tcons to complete the technical discussion
  • Reducing the scope of the profile to fit within the allocated % bandwidth
  • Including open issues in the PC Profile draft for wider comment (generally for issues that would not radically change the profile)
  • Changing the workitem from a profile to a whitepaper to explore the solution space if it is not ready for profiling.
    • Hopefully the whitepaper work is solid enough that it will be ready to profile next year and the same proposal will be selected again
  • Dismissing the workitem as not ready for profiling in the forseeable future.
    • This likely means there was something the TC should have caught during evaluation

For sample evaluations see: Rad_Tech_Minutes_2016-11-01_to_2016-11-04

Annex: PC-Prep Closing Assessment

Paste the following checklist items into the minutes; discuss and record findings for each

  • Profile Name:
  • Did we line-by-line the entire document
  • How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
  • Which open issues are risky, and why
  • Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
  • Which use cases need more input
  • Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
  • What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
  • Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
  • Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?
  • Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?
  • How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
  • How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
  • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
  • Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
  • Have the promised resources manifested
  • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
  • When will we have sample data/objects
  • Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting (See "PC Prep Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
  • How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
  • Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting

For sample evaluations see: Rad_Tech_Minutes_2017-02-28_to_2017-03-03

Annex: TI-Prep Closing Assessment

  • Paste the following checklist items into the minutes; discuss and record findings for each
    • Did we line-by-line the entire document
    • How ready is it to go out for TI: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
    • How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
    • Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?
    • Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.
    • Are all the open issues closed?
    • What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep
    • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
    • What residual risks are worth noting
    • Does it feel we've met all the use cases
    • Did the promised resources manifest
    • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
    • Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)
    • When will we have sample data/objects
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
    • Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Profile_Development_Process_for_First_Timers&oldid=131923"