2019-05-30 Platform Architecture Meeting notes

Date

30 May 2019

Participants

• @Sharnita Riley

• @Ken Rubin @Lorraine Constable @Scott Narus @Bo Dagnall

Goals

• OMG Meeting Review

  · Where we landed?

  · Goals

  · What’s the game plan for a cadence to move this work forward?

  · How do we start to action, some of these activities?

  · Does anyone have anything else they want to cover today?

Discussion topics

NOTES

OMG Meeting: one of the topics of the discussion

o What are some potential immediate next steps?

o Try to get the reference architecture and the platform work.

o Try to move this forward where we pre coordinate all this is unlikely,

o Come at it the opposite direction

· Work from the bottom up, frame out a high level, architectural backdrop or framework

· What are some specific activities, artifacts, next steps that could be taken can that would help advance the overall reference architecture?

· Try to drive toward converting if common backdrop of international framework.

BO:

· What's the end game?

· What we're trying to create from this?

· Is it just a guide, role description that sort of represents collective thinking or best practice?

· Is it going to be used to define the capabilities we put in the future versions of the sandbox?

· Is it part of the criteria for compliance framework that HSPC ultimately implements, review and approved, PC or approved apps that go on the marketplace?

· Going to seal of endorsement?

Ken

· Primarily two of the above

· Part of the blueprint for the HSPC platform specification is serving as an enabler for certification platform

· Identifying gaps in the portfolio, that would have affected the roadmap.

· Visual depiction of how the different pieces of this thing kind of fit together.

· Micro level focus on a tool, technology or dimension of the problem, all what's at the expense of all the others.

· There are very few or no places to look that show how the pieces fit together.

· Showing how the pieces fit together, our intent and are intended to work together and engineered to work together to work together is one of the keys comes with it.

BO

· Push towards being a guide being implementable as reference, as criteria, as in the sandbox

adding and terminologies are the sandbox, step towards the realization of additional services that add value in a sandbox that shows you a working implementation.

· Reference Enterprise Architecture reference model

· Look for common that stand *the pick your favorite five reference frameworks

o Business Information

o Processing knowledge systems

o Security,

· What we have in HSPC roadmap

· Column the capabilities use an implementation was an attempt to start to stratify that down

· Meta levels

· Need to improve the labels and probably tighten these things up.

· M to meta level, for those that know the Amsterdam to stratification,

· High level capability orientation for each of the creature,

· The columns the uses:

o How we expect these things to be?

o How do you manifest this?

o Make it consumable implementation

o Is it adapting?

· This is a meta model *an instance level that's, that's in effect is what we tried to characterize

· The framework soft

· Started at that capability level,

o What instances would have help enumerate

o What capabilities would be required to understand the business

o When across each of the columns we went down to the implementation level,

o What you expect to see an implementation realizes, that will be manifested from this,

o This architectural {platform concepts)

o Ended up somewhere in between

o We identified what were the platform

· Computationally independent model, the platform independent model, and a platform

· Have specific artifact that could conceivably start to produce each of these things atomic.

· There are cross dependencies there, that are not convoluted, that you can't stop on one without the other.

· Example: Getting on paper from the Mayo meetings

o Articulated value proposition

o Putting into a one pager is something that somebody could go to.

o Someone could be identified *who are the core stakeholders that we're trying to reach out to both as consumers producers and contributors to this.

· Get a body of work

· See if we could start to identify

· What are the top couple or three activities that we want to start to make some headway on see if we can get some hands to go up to take a crack out?

· Continue to be exhausted across cell.

o Covering some of the other trends that are going on, relate to them and fit into a framework?

o All fields and big data model kind of conversation.

Terms of the framework:

· Where you're going with it?

· The value and why you're doing it.

· Identify an order sequence of things we want to do that show value, early and often.

· Try to identify the use of small things that can-do specific value, producing smaller tasks

· Start prioritizing

· Product definition

· What does an MVP look like?

· When this the first version of this goes out the door?

· What it's trying to achieve?

· The first couple of releases (what the elevator description of what the value of provide)

First step of a brainstorming,

o Look across the landscape and identify candidates

o Classify where those candidates fifth.

o What are the pieces that should be investing in that will add value to the high-level use cases that kind of fell alluded?

o Are there 1 or 2 or small number of ends of the things where for instance, that systems to capability map

· Doing a capability to service map and a platform is one of the artifacts we elect to do, and populate that out that becomes a specific challenge deliverable that someone could get started on

· Try to get to what deliverables and activities should we be working on?

· like grids are useful for very large architectural organizations to figure out what we're doing is just where we don't exist in that context, right.

· Understaffed product, concise definition of the shorter-term artifacts that going to be produced.

· The framework, recognizing center specific deliverable

· Clear separation of concerns in terms of what was done and not done

· 3 or 4 potential objectives in mind,

· Settle on 1 or 2 short term objectives and the specific activities that we can work on.

· How many activities we take on based upon the capacity of people who are going to do the work.

o Take some of the diagrams, combination, perspectives, and the Justice key ones, in your contemporaries

o Take platforms are global concrete enough for people to understand

o What’s the reasoning is?

· Provide development groups, HSPC, the ability to align

· From technical perspective, look at different integrations EU. Fire sandbox, anti-sandbox and others, make platform specific suggestions on some of the problems and solutions that are encountered

· Get given a candidate set of services along the lines of press and described, wouldn't be difficult to in parallel, describe those capabilities and those services produce and sort of use one of the limit tests or the other.

· What are the what are we trying to influence by doing it in the sandbox, that performance all those things that you had an app better thing that you shared? I

· Terminology work, and then VPN work, and the sandbox work marketplace,

· This can help inform by some cohesion process, I think it will go along.

· Compliment to the roadmap, the roadmap is kind of an articulation of what the activities are, but it doesn't say how they fit together.

· What do you have discovered from?

o part of the scope on purpose, we get to define what that is one of its purposes and form but in a relationship between projects.

Capabilities and systems would be a tremendous starting point that might be consider the version one or phase one.

· Once sort of consensus, then overlaying the information, artifacts, process artifacts, the knowledge artifacts are the things that make new stuff

· Next Step propose we do it in that sequence, because talking about information and knowledge and process without having pieces.

· Do we want to do this to the start of stage one?

o Old crosswalk diagram showed in the video the blueprints, but the mapping business concerns the capabilities to do we haven't defined articulated business concerns.

· Pull from existing Enterprise Architecture artifacts. Start to strike the ones that we don't think are applicable in a cross institutional setting.

· Look at the stakeholders- make sure we avoid the fire conundrum where “we're speaking really loudly to one audience, but not necessarily other audiences.”

· Get health providers on board and the professional societies is crucial

· Additional layer showing how the capabilities relate to something services components the right, denominator is?

· Does that answer the mail for your average institution?

o Nothing to control us, which the technical side. It's mapping to the business function, talking about with a feature, there is some benefit to be able to say, from the outside world, this is because a commissioner provider, even technical ones….

§ Don't look at our list of capabilities and see their business there that mapping to talking the key with the thing that I think is important.

o Challenges on the firing consistencies or something concrete from the other direction and both top down and bottom up?

· Do we want to try to go in parallel?

· Name leader for each of the activities, and then start to run them in parallel.

· Use some sort of forum

· Activities had working call. Example - roadmap work that are pulling the HSPC, each swim lane of the roadmap had own calls and

· Work their own areas autonomously

· Make sure that there is cross pollination, etc.

Action items

Decisions