User Story Meeting 05-03-2010

Notes from User Story Review Workgroup

Status of Notes: DRAFT
Date: May 3, 2010
Time: 11am-12pm
Attendees: Arien Malec, Honora Burnett, Steven Waldren. Susan Torzewski, Andy Heeren, Hank Fanberg, Robert Lynes, Peter DeValut, John Moehrke, Lee Jones, Steve Krsacok, Dan Russler, Teri Byrne and Paul Tuten
Actions from this Week

#	Date	Action	Status	Owner	Due Date
34	5/3/10	Arien will mark State public health agency reports public health data to Centers for Disease Control User Story as a “Should”	Closed	Arien Malec	5/10/10
35	5/3/10	Arien will post to blog and send out to mailing list, call for endorsement at IG level for User Stories	Closed	Arien Malec	5/10/10
36	5/3/10	All organizations will vote on May 6th meeting for IG endorsement, and Arien will remind those that will not be attending to vote on the grid	Closed	All organizations & Arien Malec	5/10/10
37	5/3/10	Arien will change the meaning of priority to 1st, 2nd and 3rd	Closed	Arien Malec	5/10/10
38	5/3/10	Arien will change the language to reflect that all user stories will be considered, but the first set are ones we intend to accomplish in the calendar we’ve set out for ourselves	Closed	Arien Malec	5/10/10

Actions from Last Week

#	Date	Action	Status	Owner	Due Date
28	4/26/10	Vote on consensus for User Stories: User Story Workgroup Endorsement	Open	All	5/3/10
29	4/26/10	Create a Long Term Care Story	Closed	Arien	5/3/10
30	4/26/10	Create a Quality Reporting Registry	Closed	Arien	5/3/10
31	4/26/10	Update the stories that are links that are not complete & stories without links about Public Health	Closed	Noam Arzt	5/3/10
32	4/26/10	Update the stories that are links that are not complete & stories without links about Quality Reporting	Closed	Will Ross	5/3/10
33	4/26/10	Make clear when there are dual criteria for hospitals/providers that are reflected in the mapping and the story	Open	Will Ross	5/3/10

Notes
Proposal to split priority column to reflect policy/technology

• Individual involvement issues: concern from John that the way we’re doing prioritization doesn’t reflect the discussion we’re having, the technical design must fit the story
• Proposal to split priority column to reflect policy/technology
• Don’t paint ourselves into a corner
• Identify the mechanisms used to implement these as a first step
• Round robin on splitting

Comment from Steven Waldren

• Proposal is to split the column making it clear that there are must stories for implementation priorities and also from a technology perspective

Comment from Susan Torzewski

• Separating out won’t be that successful

Comment from Andy Hernan

• Separation might lead to confusion
• What would an end user take away?

Comment from Steven Waldren

• Consumer involvement: a patient send information to a provider
• Consumer community saying that we are not interested in patients offering information
• This vs. the HITPC communication about patient -> providers are very important
• Is the technology solution completely going to ignore this, or just paint it as a policy/technology question?
• Show the consumers that we are working on their problem

Comment from Lee Jones

• Confusing to split them out

Comment from Steve Krsacok

• Add something to the definitions to say that they should all be considered musts

Comment from Dan Russler

• Conversation from S&T, how do we authenticate? What are the business processes? What is the related messaging?
• Third column that group these around policy/ pre-conditions

Comment from Paul Tuten

• Clarify definitions as to what we currently have in place – the problem could be handled by

Comment from Hank Fanberg

• Project management 101
• Changing must/should to first and second

Comment from Peter DeVault

• Adding another column would be confusing
• Additional information about what challenges lie ahead
• Must has to mean: these are the things we are doing now, and unless we accomplish them we haven’t been successful

Comment from Arien

• Saying all the stories in the main stable are all in scope from a specification level
• But we are focused on all the stories from implementation level
  • All stories in main table are “in scope for specification consideration”
  • Must -> Phase I
  • All user stories will be considered, but the first set are ones we intend to accomplish in the calendar we’ve set out for ourselves

Quality Reporting User Stories
· Will Ross created a new User Story: State public health agency reports public health data to Centers for Disease Control
· Arien will mark State public health agency reports public health data to Centers for Disease Control User Story as a “Should”
· Arien will post to blog and send out to mailing list, call for endorsement at IG level for User Stories
· All organizations will vote on May 6th meeting for IG endorsement, and Arien will remind those that will not be attending to vote on the grid
· Arien will change the meaning of priority to 1st, 2nd and 3rd
· Arien will change the language to reflect that all user stories will be considered, but the first set are ones we intend to accomplish in the calendar we’ve set out for ourselves