Critical Mass?

Well the dust has settled from the 2007 MMIS conference, and I think Mikey has finally digested the last of the fish burritos he scarfed down on Old Town. At the conference, we heard that many states are either actively engaged in or contemplating the performance of a MITA State Self Assessment. We also heard that CMS is on their way to formalizing both a MITA governance process and some kind of MITA repository. At the conference this year, there seemed to be less of an air of skepticism surrounding the reality of MITA and more of a resigned acceptance that MITA is the path that MMIS systems development will follow going forward. “Critical Mass” is defined as “the minimum amount of fuel needed in the core of a nuclear reactor in order to start a self-sustaining chain reaction.” Has MITA reached the critical mass necessary to sustain itself?

A quick assessment of the MITA Framework 2.0 document suggests that, although the level of enthusiasm may have reached critical mass, there remains much work to be done before there is sufficient substance to support the coalition of the willing in turning MITA theory into reality.

The Business Architecture is close to being complete but is missing important elements of the Business Capability Maturity Matrix, including conformance criteria, that are essential to both conducting an SS-A and developing requirements based on the To-Be description of a new system.

The Technical Architecture is more than just a skeleton but far behind the BA in terms of completeness. The Technical Functions/Areas need to be reviewed and refined and the technical capabilities that describe these technical functions are missing for many of the maturity levels in the Technical Maturity Matrix. Along with completing the descriptions, there need to be measurable qualities developed for each level of technical maturity. In addition, the specifics of the Application Architecture need to be supported with details and requirements.

The Business Process Model requires a companion data model. The MITA Information Architecture has neither a conceptual data model nor logical data model upon which data architects in the states can build a physical data model.

Some of this work is dependent upon the completion of the BA; some of the work can be begin right away. Who will perform this work? How will it be directed and coordinated? How do we ensure that everyone with a stake in the process has a voice?

There is no doubt (in Mikey’s mind) that MITA has a solid foundation, has reached critical mass, and has a good chance of becoming the model for future Medicaid systems implementation. So, what are the priorities going forward into the next year of the MITA journey? Does anyone visiting this site have an opinion?

Mikey is lonely…