Difference between revisions of "SSE Meeting 24"
(Created page with "INCOSE UK Service Systems Engineering Working Group Meeting: 27 March 2017, Keynsham, Bristol == Attendees == Andrew Farncombe, Alan Crawford, John Davies, Iain Cardow, S...") |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Review of Health Care Case Studies== | ==Review of Health Care Case Studies== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Healthcare sources=== | ||
Two sources of Case Studies were considered. | Two sources of Case Studies were considered. | ||
| − | NHS CHAIN - Contact, Help, Advice, Information Network. [[http://www.chain-network.org.uk/chain/index.html]] | + | * NHS CHAIN - Contact, Help, Advice, Information Network. [[http://www.chain-network.org.uk/chain/index.html]] |
| + | * US Institute of Healthcare. [[http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/CaseStudies/default.aspx]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Both of these contain many Case Studies, but the Case Studies are about medical or organisational decisions and the effect on patients. None were found that related to the Health Care Service and how it was provided. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===INCOSE IS2017=== | ||
| + | Three papers were tagged a Healthcare: | ||
| + | * van der Watt: Healthcare Facility Commissioning – The Transition of Clinical Services | ||
| + | * Uger: Comprehensive Approach to Systems Engineering Capability Development in GE Healthcare. | ||
| + | *Beasley and O'Neil. Selling Systems Engineering by Searching for the Sweet Spot. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Having reviewed these: | ||
| + | * van der Watt describes a new hospital and bringing it into operation. It uses SoS terminology - so talks about a National Health System rather than a Service. This paper should be good for comparison of a Systems of Systems view and a Service view. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Uger: is about Systems Engineering Capability Development not Healthcare. | ||
| − | + | * Beasley and O'Neil. Is about Selling Systems Engineering not Healthcare. | |
| + | |||
| − | === | + | === Example Service Representation === |
| − | + | Simon W presented work looking at how to define/represent/model . | |
=== Stakeholders === | === Stakeholders === | ||
Revision as of 10:52, 31 March 2017
INCOSE UK Service Systems Engineering Working Group
Meeting: 27 March 2017, Keynsham, Bristol
Contents |
Attendees
Andrew Farncombe, Alan Crawford, John Davies, Iain Cardow, Simon Wright
Review of Health Care Case Studies
Healthcare sources
Two sources of Case Studies were considered.
Both of these contain many Case Studies, but the Case Studies are about medical or organisational decisions and the effect on patients. None were found that related to the Health Care Service and how it was provided.
INCOSE IS2017
Three papers were tagged a Healthcare:
- van der Watt: Healthcare Facility Commissioning – The Transition of Clinical Services
- Uger: Comprehensive Approach to Systems Engineering Capability Development in GE Healthcare.
- Beasley and O'Neil. Selling Systems Engineering by Searching for the Sweet Spot.
Having reviewed these:
- van der Watt describes a new hospital and bringing it into operation. It uses SoS terminology - so talks about a National Health System rather than a Service. This paper should be good for comparison of a Systems of Systems view and a Service view.
- Uger: is about Systems Engineering Capability Development not Healthcare.
- Beasley and O'Neil. Is about Selling Systems Engineering not Healthcare.
Example Service Representation
Simon W presented work looking at how to define/represent/model .
Stakeholders
John D presented a table of Stakeholders concerned with services and relating them to Artefacts of Services and then considering these against the example services we have been considering. It was felt that these should be linked to process/lifecycle. The lifecycles in the SE Handbook were considered. It was felt that ITIL and TOGAF were being used extensively for IT services the lifecycles associated with these should be considered.
Groups of Services
John D had investigated grouping suggested at ASEC but found not major differences to the Characteristics groupings. He had then considered using the Artefacts as a means of grouping, but this had not got very far.
Famework for Service Systems Engineering
It was generally felt that current work was missing a framework that would cover/relate major aspects: lifecycle, process, artefacts, stakeholders, lines of development etc. and that providing such a framework would be a major contribution that this group could make. TOGAF and ITIL provide some of this for IT-based services. Our work needs to include this as well as the non-IT aspects - Equipment, People, Support, etc. Agreed that our next meeting will focus on providing this through consideration of an example service.
Next Meeting
Monday 27 March 2017 11-30 to 15-30, Babcock, Keynsham, Bristol.
