Content Tracker prioritisation criteria Project

Summary:

Development of prioritisation criteria to support prioritisation of the items on the IHTSDO Content Tracker

Scope of work: (proposed)

This sub group has been set up to develop prioritisation criteria for the issues on the IHTSDO Content tracker. This work involves:

• Identification of the prioritisation criteria
• A recommendation of how to apply the criteria
• A recommendation on the meaning of each of the priority levels
  • The number of priority levels available will be 3.
• Recommendations by the group on the priority of each 'component' on the IHTSDO Content Tracker 
• Recommending a time period for review of the priorities to confirm they are still current. 

It is noted that the work here may support prioritisation of the patterns on the Pre-coordination Pattern tracker. 

Out of scope:

• Prioritisation of individual issues on the IHTSDO Content Tracker
• Work to support the clean up of the IHTSDO Content Tracker (excluding that specified in the scope of work statement)

Timeline for work:

Actions: 

Meeting 4 August 2016: Plan and notes

• Showing of the Content tracker, Pre-coordination Patterns tracker (covered)
• Scoping of work and timeline for development (Input to be provided)
• Scheduling of meetings (input to be provided)
• Setting of actions in prep for next meeting (Completed)

Meeting 8 August 2016: Plan and notes

• Scope agreed.
• Timeline to be determined
• Meeting frequency and dates. Monday 2000UTC seems good for all. 
  • Fortnightly: 2nd and 4th Mondays
• Start development of criteria.
  • Group to read documents posted Content Tracker prioritisation criteria Project and start posting comments. 
  • CRI to pull comments together into groups in prep for meeting (day prior to meeting)
• CMAG update: CRI to provide.
• Recommendations will go to the broader CMAG group. They will also be provided to the Head of Content and Head of Terminology for sign off. 
• Link to SIRS request data presented April 2016: CMAG_SIRS_ContentTrackersFeb16_Meeting20160418.xlsx.xlsx

Meeting 22 August 2016: Plan and notes

• Discussion on input:
  • Potential to work on low hanging fruit- value of clearing fast track
  • Major changes- take longer 
  • Size- estimated and can change (still of value) Estimated upon inception at this point and at the end of the inception phase.
    • Effort is dependant on the number of concepts, complexity of issue, amount of stakeholder engagement required and whether the change can be managed in an automated way or needs to be done manually. 
      • E.g 10 concepts but very complex or 1000 concepts but simple.. potential to separate out
    • Ability to measure - qualitative and quantitive e.g. number of descriptions
  • What issues are insolvable at that this point?
    • • Parked until solvable
      • Issues should be reviewed- 1-2 years. 
      • Degrees of in-solvability
      • List kept
  • Test the criteria as developing. 
  • Major and minor criteria different to major and minor change
  • Member Forum priorities - issues that are within the scope of work for a MF priority - should be managed as part of that stream of work. 
    • SIRS requests not within that scope. 
  • In prep for next meeting:
    • John- redraft of major/minor changes - draft a framework. Outcome and effort focused. Will post for group discussion. Aim for 2nd September. Group to feedback on document.