1 / 12

V2 vs. V3 product positioning

V2 vs. V3 product positioning. V2 Situational Analysis. Version 2 (V2) of the HL7 standard used in over 90% of American hospitals Other countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and Japan (and very likely others)

meredith-pugh
Download Presentation

V2 vs. V3 product positioning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. V2 vs. V3 product positioning

  2. V2 Situational Analysis • Version 2 (V2) of the HL7 standard used in over 90% of American hospitals • Other countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and Japan (and very likely others) • Not just an issue for a very limited number of realms – especially if weighed by existing market size for H-IT products

  3. V3 Situational Analysis • Used and 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. • Multi stakeholder environments/Crossing organizational boundaries • (Potential) Standard of choice in • Green-field environments • Realms with centralized decision making bodies

  4. V2 vs. V3 Situational Analysis • V3 not really V2++ • Entirely different paradigm • No straightforward transition path • ROI for “upgrade” not obvious • Mappings and co-existence possible, and often necessary, but not trivial

  5. Branding Choices

  6. Brand -Name vs. -Association • Option 1 (Change Brand Name): • From “HL7 V2” to “HL7 Enterprise Edition” • From “HL7 V3” to “HL7 Extended Enterprise Edition” • Problem: Significant name recognition for V2 and V3. May result a lot in additional confusion in the marketplace • Option 2 (Change Brand Association): • V2: Originally designed of the requirements of a single enterprise. HL7’s claim to fame. The legacy work-horse for many early adopters of HC information exchange within the context of a single enterprise. Now superseded by the next generation V3. • V3: Designed for a broad spectrum of requirements. 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.

  7. V2 to V3 positioning strategy • Migration of existing V2 legacy unlikely to happen rapidly due to cost and unclear ROI • Don’t try to push it. It is a waste of energy • Let “natural” system upgrade cycles take care of it • Sooner or later cost of legacy support will be higher than cost of upgrade • 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 towards transition from V2 to V3 to have a coherent V3 end-to-end environment rather than more costly V2/V3 mixed environments

  8. V2 to V3 positioning strategy(Articulate in Whitepaper) V2 V2 V2 Single Enterprise Yesterday V2 V2 An Enterprise – HC Service Provider (Hospital, Clinic, Physician) Its “business partners” (Payers etc.)

  9. V2 to V3 positioning strategy(Articulate in Whitepaper) V2 V3 V3 Single Enterprise V3 V3 Today for legacy Environments (degree of V3 adoption varies between deployments) V3 V2 V3 V2 V3 Single Enterprise V2 V3 V3 V2 V2 Single Enterprise V2 V2 V2

  10. V2 to V3 positioning strategy(Articulate in Whitepaper) V3 V3 V3 Single Enterprise V3 V3 V3 V3 Today for Green field And transition Target for legacy V3 V3 V3 Single Enterprise V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 Single Enterprise V3 V3 V3

  11. V2 to V3 transition strategy(Articulate in 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 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 networks. • Section 6: Short summary (V2 was as success and will be around for some time to come, V3 is the next generation).

  12. Branding: In Summary • HL7 V2.0 • An HL7 success story. • Success for early movers, delivered results and has shown the way. • Important existing work-horse on which real-world deployments are based • HL7 V3.0 • Designed for the 21st century (i.e. HL7 is responsive to the marketplace and its requirements) • 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.

More Related