| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|
| 5 min | Welcome and Intros | |
|
| 10 min | Governance Process | | - Modeled after the HL7 governance structure, the healthcare standard organization with 20+ years or experience.
- Education challenges have a lot of commonalities so we based the governance on the healthcare experience.
- Tier 1 voice of the stakeholder: are the work groups, advisory groups and special interest groups which prepare or review proposals and provide it to the Tier 2 group.
- Tier 2 is formed of advisory board, the Ed-Fi Alliance staff and the community. As needed the board might decide to poll the community for feedback on proposal received.
- Tier 3 is the executive committee and the leadership council which is being formed now.
- Communication is bi-directional, higher tiers might ask for opinions or changes to lower tiers and vice-versa.
- Provides transparency and communication between community members.
- Vehicle for communication is a project plan that lays out what the group is proposing. Start with a use case then the project plan goes forward for approval.
|
5 min | Roles and expectations | | - Itzel Torres primary role is to support the group and make it easier for all members to contribute. Questions, help finding docs, etc. let her know by email, slack or comments on techdocs RVWG space.
- Co-chairs lead the effort
- Members participate! Provide feedback and work on deliverables. This is a work group so contribution is appreciated and expected.
- We have a big challenge ahead of us, if it were easy it would have been done already!
|
| 10 min | RVWG Focus Areas | | - Technical Issues:
- Limitation of types, the implementation did not have enough buckets to roll up metrics.
- Understanding the calculations, we ended up having things rolled up that shouldn't have been.
- Slow/execution of calculation
- Issue reconciling data from vendors and how the calculations usage. Visibility of the metric calculations is nebulous.
- Hard to know what resources are required.
- Hard to understand where/data comes from or gets used. Is the data not being sent by the vendor? Is it not being used by the dashboard?
- Long/difficult learning curve.
- Grading period types/descriptors not all data is handled as expected.
- Usability/Adoption:
- Variability in data values between LEA's to be able to make it meaningful to their own implementation. Balance between standard/detailed information.
- Timeliness of information is important. Some of the SIS are comenting that performance is an issue.
|
| 10 min | Questions | | - Challenges to keep in mind:
- How to communicate to existing dashboard users that already have a big investment in current dashboards that they expect to last about 2 years.
- Existing dashboard users and implementations, training and required resources.
- The BI work is usually narrowly focused and arround a single use case. We need to provide an sheareable package so that there is less need to heavily customize.
- Resources needed to implement/maintain.
- Meeting schedule:
- Bi-weekly, monthly were the top suggestions. We will start with monthly cadence and will ramp up as needed once we have a clear set of milestones and deliverables from the approved work group charter.
|
| 5 min | Next Steps | | |