HL7 Inc. Strategic Review Task Force Products and Services Subgroup Title: Product Branding Strategy Question: How do we position/brand V2 vs. V3? Discussion: Basic question of whether V2 and V3 should be positioned as product line continuum or whether they are essentially two different products addressing different requirements and target markets. Version 2 (V2) is used in over 90% of American hospitals Other countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and Japan (and very likely others). Thus: Not just an issue for a very limited number of realms – especially if weighed by existing market size for H-IT products. Also, as the ROI to move from 2.x to 3.0 is not obvious (and maybe not existing), it will take some time before outside pressures will motivate an “upgrade”. Version 3 (V3) Is used and deemed necessary especially in the context of community, regional and national health information network initiatives such as NHS Connecting for Health (UK), Health InfoWay (Canada), various European and Asian countries, and many others. Recommendation: HL7 should position HL7 V2.x as: An HL7 success story it delivered results and has shown the way. Important existing work-horse on which real-world deployments are based and this will continue to exist in production mode for some time to come. A standard that will continue to get maintained (i.e. errata) and supported. (Note: I would love to be able to say that HL7 stops any further development on V2 but I suspect that the marketplace/users would let us get away with this. Issue which warrants further discussion) HL7 V3.0 as: The only internationally accepted, industry strength, standard to achieve interoperability within and across the HC enterprise. The standard upon which new deployments should be based The foundational standard of choice for regional, national and trans-national exchange of health information. Designed for the 21st century (i.e. HL7 is responsive to the marketplace and its requirements) In short, V3 is the future but we will not drop V2 any time soon. HL7 should not try to position V2 as “enterprise edition” and V3 as “RHIO edition”. Doing so will make it only hard to, over time, move from V2 to V2/V3 mixed environments and ultimately pure V3 environments. Also, as V2 and V3 are recognized brands, developing a new brand around a different name would proof to be VERY difficult and confusing. HL7 Inc. Strategic Review Task Force Products and Services Subgroup Potential Tactics: Positioning Whitepaper No more than 4-5 pages. We’ll not talk about the RIM, we’ll not talk about “semantic interoperability”. We focus on what it does for you – not how it does it. “HL7 Messaging standards in a fortune cookie”. Section 1: Healthcare and Interoperability Standards (Intro) Section 2: HL7 V2.0 – the original HL7 success story. Position V2.0 as success for early movers way back when, but also as legacy pointing out its short-comings for the 21st century (i.e. HL7 is response to the marketplace and its requirements) Section 3: HL7 V3.0 (Intro) - The only internationally accepted, industry strength, standard to achieve interoperability within and across the HC enterprise. The foundational standard of choice for regional, national and trans-national exchange of health information. Section 4: V2.0 and V3.0 mixed environments. How some countries tackle it (e.g. UK, Germany). It is not easy, but it can be done (because it has to be done). Section 5: V3.0 – the standard of the future. Speak especially to the issues of emerging countries and regional/national health information networks. Section 6: Short summary (V2 was as success and will be around for some time to come, V3 is the next generation). Aggressive “outreach campaign” Focus on adoption of V3 in green field environments (esp. emerging economies) and for regional, national and trans-national health information networks Adoption of V3 in RHIO type environments will create pressure over time towards transition from V2 to V3 to have a coherent V3 end-to-end environment rather than more costly V2/V3 mixed environments. Focus Marketing resources on V3. When we talk about healthcare messaging standards, we should be talking about V3. Question: How do we overall position our various standards products Discussion: In the past, HL7 was synonymous with the one standard it developed. This has began to change with V2 vs. V3 and continues to become more significant with the introduction of new products such as CDA and the RIM. HL7 Inc. Strategic Review Task Force Products and Services Subgroup Recommendation: HL7 should identify what it deems to be its core standards products and develop a brand hierarchy which helps the marketplace to better understand the relationship of the products to each other and to the overall organization. For example: Organizational Brand: HL7 Product Brand: Messaging, CDA, RIM Version: 2.x, 3.0 So we would refer to “V2” as “HL7 Messaging V2”. HL7 should stop to use release numbers and develop a brand around it (either intentionally or unintentionally). It confuses the marketplace. Potential Tactics: Task the marketing committee to develop the appropriate brand hierarchy.
Pages to are hidden for
"Brand Strategy Question - DOC"Please download to view full document