tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post6288686096418818319..comments2024-03-23T05:28:35.472-04:00Comments on Healthcare Standards: Demystifying SAEAF...maybe (SAIF)Keith W. Boonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16883038460949909300noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-64451344413715039402010-01-29T11:48:22.064-05:002010-01-29T11:48:22.064-05:00It is good news that HL7 is finally starting to or...It is good news that HL7 is finally starting to organize around the analysis processes needed to support real organizations. The first difficulty for HL7 applying this model is to pick the "Enterprise" that HL7 needs to support (which includes specific governance policies, finanical business models, etc.<br /><br />Just some background information...<br />1) This whole model was popularized along with OO Analysis in the 1994 by Ivar Jacobson, "The Object Advantage: Business Process Reengineering..." <br /><br />2) Skill sets required: Today, one must understand OO Analysis of organizations in addition to OO software analysis in order to be an enterprise architect. Few people have enough familiarity with both sides of that skill set to effectively write specifications based on enterprise architecture "perspectives" using the IEEE Std 1471 and the supporting ISO 10746 (RM-ODP) specification standard. <br /><br />So, the challenge for HL7 in using enterprise analysis modeling standards is picking the "enterprise" that HL7 wants to model. In healthcare, will the "Enterprise" be the NHS, the NHIN, the Canadian provinical government, or some other abstract "merged model" enterprise that attempts to represent some aggregate of what happens internationally?<br /><br />In any case, it is good to see HL7 engaging more fully in standards-based efforts occuring outside of HL7!Dan Russlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13090501696687796254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-35671505946535712102009-10-03T04:07:08.486-04:002009-10-03T04:07:08.486-04:00For reference, the multi-perspective / multi-view ...For reference, the multi-perspective / multi-view approach (where "view" and "perspective" are orthogonal, not synonymous!) derives from the Zachman Framework (good overview article in Wikipedia with links to efforts in other domains, such as the US Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework, and the DoD Enterprise Architecture Framework).Harry Solomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01135539798417593756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-13404136242257596722009-09-30T23:09:04.687-04:002009-09-30T23:09:04.687-04:00You’ve come up with a concise, comprehensible over...You’ve come up with a concise, comprehensible overview of SAEAF—I’ll be referencing it.<br /> <br />A few comments:<br /> <br />- "business perspective (which should need no further explanation)"-- the term "enterprise/business viewpoint" is defined in RM-ODP as being "concerned with the purpose, scope and policies governing the activities of the specified system within the organization of which it is a part." Depending on the topic/domain, I think that specifying the roles played by the system in its organizational environment at the right level of abstraction can be challenging and non-obvious.<br /> <br />- a NASA and JPL team using RM-ODP to design a Space System Architecture chose to rename the "Computational Viewpoint" to the "Functional Viewpoint". As Keith implied, "computational" is used as a "term of art" that is likely to be misunderstood by much of the audience. I would like to see SAEAF use "Functional Viewpoint" instead.<br /> <br />- I liked the concept of the second matrix a lot. I would suggest using row headings of Business Viewpoint, Information, Functional and Engineering. The Analyst heading made me think of a target audience role (which is captured in the column cells under the heading), rather than a viewpoint of that target audience "which defines distribution through functional decomposition on the system into objects which interact at interfaces".Don Jorgensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13882692422935845163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-33058300323361737642009-09-30T23:04:51.128-04:002009-09-30T23:04:51.128-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Don Jorgensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13882692422935845163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-91233884153885977402009-09-25T10:59:31.504-04:002009-09-25T10:59:31.504-04:00Thank you for this article.
I wonder how SAEAF di...Thank you for this article.<br /><br />I wonder how SAEAF differs from frameworks used in other industries and how a specific one for HL7, and healthcare in general, is helpful. What can we learn from other industries' sucesses and failures?<br /><br />The boundary between what is and isn't healthcare is fuzzy, especially from a consumer's viewpoint. So I wonder how the business viewpoint in SAEAF incorporates consumers' various information interaction needs.<br /><br />Your point about baseline measurements is well-taken. It is hard to assess improvements without it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-38341447664157769662009-09-25T09:18:05.083-04:002009-09-25T09:18:05.083-04:00It seems like a good summary of the HL7 EAF - ther...It seems like a good summary of the HL7 EAF - there is a lot of value in the EAF - and it is being rewritten to be understandable by mere mortals. See also http://r.im/1xrx where I discuss some other issues related to Interoperability paradigms that may be resolved by the EAF.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12894756432231557042noreply@blogger.com