- Are the current criteria appropriate and sufficient to evaluate Initiatives?
- Are there additional criteria within the four categories that should be included?
- Group everything on Relevance in one place (including applicability to EBM and Research Goals)
- Add a section on costs and potential savings / benefits. It may be hard, but any good organization estimates costs and benefits before initiating projects.
- Develop a way to determine available resources, and ensure that each project / initiative specifies resource needed for success, INCLUDING volunteer resources.
- Ensure that the prioritization process includes adequate industry input from providers, payers, vendors and consumers. Each project should have input from affected industry stakeholders, not just assessments from HIT FACAs.
- Drop weights, and use simpler scoring criteria, recongizing that weights are subjective and that initiatives cannot be compared to each other
There are two things that the prioritization process also needs to account for. One is that there must be an opportunity to say NO to an initiative. HITSP never had that opportunitity and was expected to "scale up" 100% year over year. If NO cannot be said to a proposed S&I initiative, then the same problem will appear there. Also, S&I needs to account for, and allow for initiatives to fail. Failures teach as much or more as successes. If we aren't failing, we aren't trying hard enough.
Tomorrow (or Wednesday if I run out of time), I'll post my assessment of the initial proposals...