Content Tracker prioritisation criteria Project

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

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. 

• 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. 

Meeting 26th September: Plans and notes 

• Agreement on framework structure
• Submitters to be asked to provide predefined information e.g. number of concepts
• Guidance material should be provided to support submission of information
• Framework needs to be easy to apply
  • Needs to allow current issues to be managed quickly and suitable for future issues. 

• Submitter to provide (this is still in development)
  • Identification of existing concepts - concepts affected, number used as a target value in an attribute relationship
    • New- more difficult (may be an educated guess)

• Plan:

  • Prior to next meeting on 3 October:

    • Group to review the criteria in framework document over next week

    • John to update document on 3 October (NZ time)

    • Cathy to select Content Tracker issues ready for testing

  • 3 -17 October Group to test criteria

    • 17 October: meet to discuss results 

  • Update to be provided at Face to Face meeting. 

Meeting 3 October: Plans and notes

• Note- Our meeting needs to finish 10mins to the hour as there is a back to back meeting on the same GTM account and access is required a few minutes prior to the start of that meeting.  
• Discussion on framework- decision to use the revised version. 
  • Explanation section
    • Needs to be further developed so it is clearer for those using it.
      • Build in further examples.
    • Clinical impact- needs a decision on how clinical priority is to be determined. Cathy to raise with Jim. 
  • Efforts section
    • Keep at 3 levels in scoring.
    • Add tooling to resource section.
  • Group to add any additional comments and Cathy will finalise.
• Criteria to be tested over next two weeks. Cathy to finalise tracker list on Tuesday 4th October. 

Meeting 17 October: Plans and notes

• Comments and feedback on the framework
• Time taken to review trackers?- not asked. CRI noted easy to apply.
• Review of results
• Plan for:
  • Cathy to update framework and seek input from Jim on Clinical Impact
  • Daniel to review the individual ratings for each tracker reviewed to determine consistency. 
• Comment: Process for applying? CRI noted recommendation by submitter and review and determination by an internal Content team member. Suggestion raise that it may be of value to have more than one person do the rating to ensure consistency. 

Meeting 12 Jan: Plans and Notes