Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


Content Tracker Prioritisation Criteria


Please be aware that I am trying to outline a framework for approaching the assessment of priority. The criteria I use are only examples to illustrate how this system might work. There will need to be group input to define the numbers of criteria and the definition and scoring for each criterion.

 

This framework is a criteria-based scoring process that will place requests on a value continuum (e.g. -220 to 225) with the highest priority given to the request with the highest score. It therefore adds a quantitative rather than purely qualitative approach to request assessment. These scores can be arbitrarily assigned into three priority groups if desired e.g.: -220 to 0 lowest, 1 to 150 middle and 150 to 225 highest. The scoring system will further prioritise within these groups.

This approach should allow the development of a process that will be:
Transparent – anyone can understand how the framework functions
Reproducible – any two individuals, with appropriate knowledge, should obtain the same or similar scores
Flexible – the scoring system can be easily modified

Furthermore, the framework will allow re-assessment of priority overtime. For instance, a single Member request may start at a relatively low score, however, if over a period of time multiple Members make the same request, the score (and priority) will increase.

The framework will assess both the benefit resulting from individual requests and the effort required to reach this benefit.

Benefit Assessment


This area is split into major and minor criteria. The major criteria relate to high level issues with the minor criteria as sub-divisions within each. All criteria carry a numeric value, with the highest value reflecting the greatest benefit. For instance (examples only):

Major criteria

  • Error in existing content
  • Member request
  • SIRS request

Each of these major criteria has a range of minor criteria:

Error in existing content 

  • Minor criteria
    1. Major error with potentially significant clinical implications
    2. Error impacting existing implementations
    3. Error impacting an intended implementation
    4. Error with little impact on the terminology but needs correction at some time

Member request

  • Minor criteria
    1. Request made by more than ten Members with high international value
    2. Request made by two to ten Members
    3. Single Member request with little international impact

SIRS request

  • Minor criteria
    1. Request that will support active or intended international implementation(s)
    2. Request that will support national implementation(s)
    3. Request that will support a single vendor or organisation
    4. Routine SIRS request

All these major and minor criteria will be assigned a value (see Figure 1.) which, when summed, will provide the 'benefit score'.

However, to reach a final score it is also important to assess the effort required to achieve the assessed benefit.

Effort Assessment

While a significant benefit may accrue from a given request, the resources or effort required to reach this benefit may render the request unreasonable. Another value set is therefore necessary to assess the effort requirement and subsequent final ranking of a request's priority.

Rather than major and minor criteria as seen in the benefit assessment, this approach only has one set of criteria with associated values. Notably some of the effort values can be negative (see Figure 1.) allowing recognition that a high benefit request may in fact not be reasonably achieved due to the resourcing required (again the following are examples only):

  1. Ease of work
    1. Routine
    2. Minor effort required
    3. Major effort required
    4. Requires investigation to identify solution
    5. Unsolvable at this time

  2. Time requirement
    1. Minor
    2. Moderate
    3. High
    4. Very high
    5. Unreasonably high

  3. Subject matter expertise requirement
    1. Not required
    2. Minor
    3. Moderate
    4. High
    5. Very high

Figure 1.

 

Criteria

Sub-value

Value

Error in existing content

50

 

  • Major error with potentially significant clinical implications

25

75

  • Error impacting existing implementations

20

70

  • Error impacting an intended implementation

5

55

  • Error with little impact on the terminology but needs correction at some time

0

50

Member request

40

 

  • Request made by more than ten Members with high international value

25

65

  • Request made by two to ten Members

15

55

  • Single Member request with little international impact

0

40

SIRS request

25

 

  • Request that will support active or intended international implementation(s)

25

50

  • Request that will support national implementation(s)

15

40

  • Request that will support a single vendor or organisation

10

35

  • Routine SIRS request with no immediate benefit

5

30

 

 

 

Ease of Work

 

 

  • Routine

 

50

  • Minor effort required

 

40

  • Major effort required

 

10

  • Requires investigation to identify a solution

 

0

  • Unsolvable at this time

 

-100

Time requirement

 

 

  • Minor

 

50

  • Moderate

 

20

  • High

 

0

  • Very high

 

-50

  • Unreasonably high

 

-100

Subject matter expertise requirement

 

 

  • Not required

 

50

  • Minor

 

40

  • Moderate

 

10

  • High

 

0

  • Very high

 

-50



Next Steps
If the sub-group feels that the framework is a useful way to proceed with the assessment of content tracker priorities, then next steps include:

  • Identifying suitable criteria
  • Applying values to those criteria
  • Testing and modifying the framework
  • No labels