Based on information within the Member Forum meeting minutes, 24 member countries were in attendance to contribute to the workshop in Seoul on October 20th.
Within the MF minutes from the 19th November meeting, it states:
The Chief Terminologist stated that another survey aims to obtain an accurate ranking. SI needs broader input from all Members to capture their priorities and ensure participation. Current figures are not as accurate or representative, hence the need for a new survey.
Within this latest Briefing Note it states there were 23 responses to the follow up survey.
Question 1: Does SI plan to elicit further input from members given the latest response rate and previous comments or is the view that members have had sufficient time/opportunity to provide their input?
The BN states that the focus of the follow up survey was to understand “new” content development areas. This differed from the focus of the Seoul workshop, which also included existing content developments.
Referencing some of the BN content relating to the Seoul workshop:
…This suggests that improving the quality of existing content is of higher priority to members than the addition of new content…
... new content development, which was felt to be of less importance than nearly all other content development activities…
.. A general impression was that “cleaning up” existing content is more important than adding new content in the short term..
.. A sizable proportion of the topic areas listed are already being addressed by ongoing activities…This suggests the rate of progress is not meeting the needs of users…
Question 2: Is it clear whether members value prioritising new content development projects vs existing content development activities / how will SI prioritise between the two?
The Seoul workshop asked members what their short-term (1-2 years) and long-term (3-5 years) content development priorities were. The questions from the latest follow up survey did not make this distinction.
Question 3: How does SI plan to prioritise the top 5 content development areas / associated activities identified in the December survey?
Question 4: Will members get visibility of what QI work is being undertaken relating to the final content development priorities? E.g. Will release schedules/notes give members the detail of changes being made by the QI project that relate to priority content areas/activities?
Within the ‘Next Steps’ section of this BN, it states that the top 5 content development priorities identified in the December survey will be included in the Content Development Roadmap. Before any final decisions are made as to what is included in the Content Development Roadmap, I would like to see what feedback is submitted by the 15th Feb deadline, for all feedback to be discussed at a future Member Forum meeting (e.g. April Business meetings in Oslo) and for the Member Forum to collectively agree to the finalised rankings before they are presented to the GA.
Paul Wright - thank you for your comments. See below for my response to your questions
Question 1: Does SI plan to elicit further input from members given the latest response rate and previous comments or is the view that members have had sufficient time/opportunity to provide their input?
Given the two opportunities for input and the relative consistency between them, there is no plan to seek additional input at this time. As the content development plan is implemented over the next couple of years, there may be additional opportunities for member input to ensure that current needs are being addressed.
Question 2: Is it clear whether members value prioritising new content development projects vs existing content development activities / how will SI prioritise between the two?
Input from the workshop in Seoul provided evidence that improving current content is a high priority for multiple members. All areas of content development will have some support with resources allocated to both new and existing development activities. It is often the case that new development overlaps with existing work so that both areas benefit. The potential for collaborative authoring to support new content development is also being investigated in an attempt to speed up the process.
Question 3: How does SI plan to prioritise the top 5 content development areas / associated activities identified in the December survey?
The prioritization process gathered information on how many members felt that a content development area was of importance to them. Those areas with higher member support will be addressed first, although it is possible that multiple areas can be addressed concurrently.
Question 4: Will members get visibility of what QI work is being undertaken relating to the final content development priorities? E.g. Will release schedules/notes give members the detail of changes being made by the QI project that relate to priority content areas/activities?
Visibility of work being done is currently being made through various communication methods, i.e. early visibility site, briefing notes and release notes. Much of the QI work overlaps with new content development priorities (e.g. surgical procedures, imaging) and will be communicated using the existing channels.
Hope this answers your questions. Please let me know if you need additional information
3 Comments
Paul Wright
My feedback:
Based on information within the Member Forum meeting minutes, 24 member countries were in attendance to contribute to the workshop in Seoul on October 20th.
Within the MF minutes from the 19th November meeting, it states:
The Chief Terminologist stated that another survey aims to obtain an accurate ranking. SI needs broader input from all Members to capture their priorities and ensure participation. Current figures are not as accurate or representative, hence the need for a new survey.
Within this latest Briefing Note it states there were 23 responses to the follow up survey.
Question 1: Does SI plan to elicit further input from members given the latest response rate and previous comments or is the view that members have had sufficient time/opportunity to provide their input?
The BN states that the focus of the follow up survey was to understand “new” content development areas. This differed from the focus of the Seoul workshop, which also included existing content developments.
Referencing some of the BN content relating to the Seoul workshop:
…This suggests that improving the quality of existing content is of higher priority to members than the addition of new content…
... new content development, which was felt to be of less importance than nearly all other content development activities…
.. A general impression was that “cleaning up” existing content is more important than adding new content in the short term..
.. A sizable proportion of the topic areas listed are already being addressed by ongoing activities…This suggests the rate of progress is not meeting the needs of users…
Question 2: Is it clear whether members value prioritising new content development projects vs existing content development activities / how will SI prioritise between the two?
The Seoul workshop asked members what their short-term (1-2 years) and long-term (3-5 years) content development priorities were. The questions from the latest follow up survey did not make this distinction.
Question 3: How does SI plan to prioritise the top 5 content development areas / associated activities identified in the December survey?
Question 4: Will members get visibility of what QI work is being undertaken relating to the final content development priorities? E.g. Will release schedules/notes give members the detail of changes being made by the QI project that relate to priority content areas/activities?
Within the ‘Next Steps’ section of this BN, it states that the top 5 content development priorities identified in the December survey will be included in the Content Development Roadmap. Before any final decisions are made as to what is included in the Content Development Roadmap, I would like to see what feedback is submitted by the 15th Feb deadline, for all feedback to be discussed at a future Member Forum meeting (e.g. April Business meetings in Oslo) and for the Member Forum to collectively agree to the finalised rankings before they are presented to the GA.
Paul Wright
SI UK Member Forum Representative
Jim Case
Paul Wright - thank you for your comments. See below for my response to your questions
Question 1: Does SI plan to elicit further input from members given the latest response rate and previous comments or is the view that members have had sufficient time/opportunity to provide their input?
Given the two opportunities for input and the relative consistency between them, there is no plan to seek additional input at this time. As the content development plan is implemented over the next couple of years, there may be additional opportunities for member input to ensure that current needs are being addressed.
Question 2: Is it clear whether members value prioritising new content development projects vs existing content development activities / how will SI prioritise between the two?
Input from the workshop in Seoul provided evidence that improving current content is a high priority for multiple members. All areas of content development will have some support with resources allocated to both new and existing development activities. It is often the case that new development overlaps with existing work so that both areas benefit. The potential for collaborative authoring to support new content development is also being investigated in an attempt to speed up the process.
Question 3: How does SI plan to prioritise the top 5 content development areas / associated activities identified in the December survey?
The prioritization process gathered information on how many members felt that a content development area was of importance to them. Those areas with higher member support will be addressed first, although it is possible that multiple areas can be addressed concurrently.
Question 4: Will members get visibility of what QI work is being undertaken relating to the final content development priorities? E.g. Will release schedules/notes give members the detail of changes being made by the QI project that relate to priority content areas/activities?
Visibility of work being done is currently being made through various communication methods, i.e. early visibility site, briefing notes and release notes. Much of the QI work overlaps with new content development priorities (e.g. surgical procedures, imaging) and will be communicated using the existing channels.
Hope this answers your questions. Please let me know if you need additional information
Jim
Paul Wright
I have noted your comments Jim, thanks Paul
Add Comment