Technology Evaluation Review Committee Year in Review and The Year Ahead

1. Technology Evaluation Review CommitteeYear in Review and The Year Ahead Prepared by: Technology Evaluation Review Committee

2. Agenda • Review overall goals • Year 1 in review (November 2009 – November 2010) • Goals for Year 2 (Starting December 2010) • Quick process review • Summary of organizational benefits • Wrap-up and general feedback

3. Review Overall Goals • CTO/Infrastructure Strategy Executive Committee • Ensure that we are effectively evaluating technologies and their potential impact • Ensure that we are taking positions on technologies in support of business goals • Technology Evaluation Review Committee • Establish a structure for review of technology evaluation, templates, tracking, and reporting • Maintain a website containing a list of evaluations, committee recommendations, evaluation activities and results which can be distributed more broadly • Facilitate sharing of significant evaluation results in forums such as the Infrastructure Strategy Executive Committee and Technology Evaluation Review Committee The Technology Evaluation Review Committee is a review body that provides best practices and guidance for your evaluation deliverables; the review committee is not an approval body for your evaluation.

4. Committee Members Technology Evaluation Review Committee • Susan Stanton, Chair • Sue Cohen • Rich Desimone • Steve Flammini • Rich Hatch • Bill Henderson • Jim Marra • Mark Osinski • Brendan O’Neill • Demetri Papayannopoulos • Brent Richter • Manuela Stoyanov • Scott Taylor • Douglas Todd Infrastructure Strategy Executive Committee Steve Flammini, Chair Jennings Aske Cindy Bero Julie Berry Mary Buonanno Bill Henderson Diane Keogh Jeff Kessler Jim Marra Jim Noga Sue Schade Cindy Spur Susan Stanton Tim White

5. Year 1 in Review • Technology Evaluation Review Committee • Establish a structure for review of technology evaluation, templates, tracking, and reporting • Maintain a website containing a list of evaluations, committee recommendations, evaluation activities and results which can be distributed more broadly • Facilitate sharing of significant evaluation results in forums such as the Infrastructure Strategy Executive Committee and Technology Evaluation Review Committee

6. Year 1 Results Communication out to 15 different IS sites and groups resulted in a knowledge base that contains the following:

7. Year 1 Evaluations Submitted by Site/Group

8. Year 1 Learnings • Communication is key and evident in the number of identified evaluations • Evaluators need to stay connected with Committee: • Evaluators being present is important to understanding their evaluations • Evaluators need to return and present their findings • Continue to provide clarity and understanding across different IS processes (AC, App Questionnaire) • The practice of evaluation review has had a positive impact on evaluators

9. Success StoryPanasonic Tough Book Evaluation at BWH/NICU Evaluation description: • In preparation for EMAR in the NICU and Well Baby areas at BWH they were evaluating the Panasonic Tough Book and its ability to withstand liquid spills and accommodate space constraints Evaluator: Bayn Baxter-Smith said: • “At our meeting, the members of the committee instantly got on their own laptops and started searching the Web for additional options than those I had, so I could then follow up on my own with more research,” she said. “Along the way, they helped me understand a bit more about hardware requirements, too. And they put me in touch with other people and teams around Partners who were looking for similar hardy laptops or who had experience using them.” • “Their advice was good – that I should focus on talking with users directly rather than through using a form.” • All in all, Baxter-Smith said working with the Technology Evaluation Review Committee was “a very helpful process. One of the things I learned was that you need to know what you think you are looking for before you go in, but always be open to suggestions – they have lots of ideas that I hadn’t considered.”

10. Year 2 Goals • Continue communications • Ask the Directors about evaluations in their areas • Push out evaluation findings to all the Directors • More site and group meetings • Publish information in IS/Site newsletters • Implement measures within the knowledge base • Site/knowledge base usefulness • Tracking disposition of evaluations (revisit, moving forward with technology) • Committee education to aid evaluators • Security direction • Emerging technology trends

11. Technology Evaluation Submission Checklist Technology Evaluation Review Committee (TERC) identifies, reviews and publishes evaluation activities of infrastructure technologies IF YOU ARE: • Investigating • Assessing • Evaluating • Piloting ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: • New or emerging hardware or software products and vendors • Hosted services for infrastructure, a platform or software • New capabilities for existing products and technologies Register your evaluation in the knowledge base at http://sharepoint.partners.org/phs/technologyevaluations

12. Review Process

13. Summary of Organizational Benefits • Creates a knowledge base of evaluations that are being conducted • Share and leverage the results more broadly across groups and the organization as a whole • Facilitate discussion of technology evaluations and the impact of these evaluations in support of business goals • Establish and maintain best practices in technology evaluation • Collaboration among groups performing technology evaluations by identifying common areas of inquiry and opportunities to leverage an evaluation to address multiple groups’ needs

14. Wrap-up and General Feedback • Some areas for discussion • Process • Review Committee • Communication • Site knowledge base Give us your feedback at http://sharepoint.partners.org/phs/technologyevaluations