Confluence Service Maintenance Alert - This service is undergoing planned maintenance. The service is unavailable. Please close this window and do not use the platform until the maintenance is complete.
Considerations:
- What are the criteria?
- Is there an order the criteria should be applied in?
- Weighting? Spider graph?
- How many is too many?
- Comments on being able to review priorities
Draft list of criteria (not in order and under development)
- Issues impacted by Content request submissions
- Consider if there is a cut off e.g. if a tracker is only impacted by 4 SIRS request should it still have top priority?
- Foundational hierarchies
- Support Member priorities
- High usage areas e.g. very common disorders
- How's that determined?
11 Comments
Daniel Karlsson
One way to categorize criteria would be internal (to the terminology, examples include foundational hierarchies, facilitate modeling, increase consistency, ...) and external (to implementation projects, examples include SIRS, members priorities (by vote??), usage). Do we in any way prioritize criteria which can be measured vs. those which are based on opinion?
Cathy Richardson
From group call: Weighting of the criteria needs to be considered. A spider graph may be a tool to support this.
Cathy Richardson
Comments by Linda Parisien from Content Tracker prioritisation criteria Project
Hi Cathy and Elaine,
Thank you for providing us with the two documents. This is helpful to set the mindset, although it contains a lot of information...
I think as a starting point, some items should be more defined such as:
While looking at the Content tracker, I had a hard time to relate the 'Component' items to the 'Unresolved:By Priority' information on this page: /projects/IHTSDO/summary/statistics
First, to me the Member Forum Priorities defined on a yearly basis is a top-1 priority, then if a request is being made for an imminent implementation, that would be a top-2 priority, which would be followed by QA issues (top-3 priority) and other RFCs (top-4 priority). Of course there are more complex use cases that could potentially modify the priority such as:
Then there is the level of effort required to achieve the changes to X number of concepts. This information will be useful to determine when and if the changes can be achieved within a time frame. That information coupled with the priority would perhaps be easier to manage... I am not sure about the categorisation but let's say level of effort (LE) 1= 1-99 concepts, 2= 100-999 concepts, 3=1000-4999 concepts 4= + 5000 concepts.
From the Content Project document, we have clear criteria for when a project is assigned. That information is not currently available from the tracker information. I would suggest a mention to the 'Component' or otherwise that identifies what is requiring:
We could use for the Content Project the same LE indicator for the level of effort required or number of concepts that need to be changed.
Cathy Richardson
Type of change:
Minor change: small number of concepts or simple changes with low impact.
Major change: change to concept model, impacts a significant number of concepts, impacts on users, vendors, software
Fast track projects:
Current word templates for content tracker projects. Note under review outside of this group. Provided here just to show the difference. The first three documents are those used during the 'regular' process. The last of the three is just the first two combined. The last document is what is used for fast track projects.
Comments:
John Fountain
Hi All,
I've expanded my thinking on a criteria framework for assessing content tracker priorities as requested. The emphasis is on the framework itself and whether this may be a workable approach rather than the actual criteria/values themselves.
I look forward to critique of the attached.
Cheers
John
Daniel Karlsson
Thanks John,
some comments (or just thinking out loud):
Elaine Wooler
Thanks John. An excellent approach to this.
Criteria look workable and are along the same principles as the Criteria and Guidance for Initiating a SNOMED CT Content Project. This is important as the more information we use in priority setting that we expect to be provided by the initiator the better. Sections in this document also echo Daniel's suggestions above:
The impact of a change will generally be higher if:
So when initiating a project we would expect the above information to be available and stated in the issue document. It is also expected that the initiator will provide information about any SIRS related request and will have looked for linked issues.
An additional item (from the guidance for initiating a project) which is similar to what John has included:
There could also be consideration if it relates to work in the current content work plan or relates to one of the member priorities.
Cathy Richardson
Thank you John for the development of the framework. It’s a good basis for our work.
Comments in addition to those already provided:
Daniel Karlsson
All,
since these criteria could be considered screening tests for priority focus should be on ease with which criteria could be collected and determined. There should be some time left for doing actual work once the work items have been prioritized
/Daniel
Linda Parisien
Hi, Thanks John for the drafted Framework.
As Cathy asked, I am not sure how the Member request (in the Major criteria) is different from the SIRS's request. I would like to see that the Member countries priorities' related content requests be prioritised when that is appropriate.
I am in agreement with Daniel and Elaine's comments above requesting for measurable criteria. For the effort assessment, I wonder if the 'Ease of work' Category should be called the Complexity Category, where combination of actions required would score higher for effort requirements. This would allow to identify things like dependencies, concept model changes, tooling changes, editorial changes, etc. It seems to me that the number of concepts in play is very important and perhaps having a specific category to represent that information would make more sense that trying to combine this with other info that are also crucial.
Linda
Elaine Wooler
Apologies for missing the meeting today - wondered where you all were when I dialled in at 9,00! Unfortunately I had it in my NHS diary for 9 and had forgotten we said an hour earlier. I'm sure I'll catch up.