Product Vision Document
The stakeholder analysis is done for ensuring that activities of the project would be implied for listing the development of the operations and alignment of the effective evaluation of the stakeholders (Jonasson 2016). The project stakeholders would be deployed for forming the analysis of the supplementary development of the activities. The stakeholders of the project are customer, supplier, sponsor, end users, help desk, regulators, executives, project team. The stakeholders of the project would be responsible for user of the software system developed, provide materials required for the project completion, provide investment to the project team for doing the project, would utilize the developed project outcome, support and help for the progress of the project, changes in the project would be modified, would be responsible for taking effective key decisions in the project, and would have to carry out the operations of the project and form the achievement of the final deliverable (Hailes 2014). The stakeholder analysis for the software implementation project along with the patient management system for Medigood National Health Insurance is given below,
Name |
Roles |
Attitudes |
Authority |
Power |
Influence |
Customer |
User of the software system developed |
Neutral |
Accountable |
High |
High |
Supplier |
Provide materials required for the project completion |
Interested |
Informed |
Low |
High |
Sponsor |
Provide investment to the project team for doing the project |
Highly Interested |
Informed |
High |
High |
End Users |
Would utilize the developed project outcome |
Neutral |
Accountable |
High |
Low |
Help Desk |
Support and help for the progress of the project |
Interested |
Consulted |
Low |
Low |
Regulators |
Changes in the project would be modified |
Uninterested |
Responsible |
Low |
High |
Executives |
Would be responsible for taking effective key decisions in the project |
Highly Interested |
Accountable |
High |
High |
Project team |
Would have to carry out the operations of the project and form the achievement of the final deliverable |
Interested |
Responsible |
Low |
Low |
Product Vision Document |
|
Software Implementation in Medigood National Health Insurance |
|
Version: 1.0 |
Date: 5/4/18 |
Introduction: The document is developed for listing the product characteristics and description that would be required for the completion of the project of software for data management in Medigood National Health Insurance. |
|
Product overview: The implication of the software development for data analysis would be aligned for the implication of the effective management of the data along with the patient management system for Medigood National Health Insurance. |
|
Product Features: The product developed would act as the effective management of the data implication management. The supply of the effective integration would result in forming the deployment of the successive management operations. The registering in the system would help in monitoring the online operations by the Telehealth technology. The use of Telehealth equipments would also be useful for the modification of the operations development. The completion of the consultation would result in generation of the payment for both specialist and family doctor. |
|
Constraints: the qualifying patients must have appointment with the specialist |
|
Documentation Required: System design documentation |
The “As-is” Process Flow Diagram for the operations of Medigood National Health Insurance would be implied for the alignment of the operations for the development of the effective software processing in the organization (Jouen et al. 2015). The alignment of the effective process flow diagram would help in understanding the existing information processing as shown below,
“As-is” Process Flow Diagram for Medigood National Health Insurance
Explanation of information flow from the diagram above: The three main entity of the “As-is” Process Flow Diagram are Office Administrator or family doctor, medical specialist consultation, and Patients. The patients would have to initiate the information flow by requesting for the Medigood health insurance by applying for it (Hau 2015). The office administrator or family doctor would be responsible for analysing and evaluating whether the patient who have applied for Medigood National Health Insurance is applicable for the getting the insurance. The office administrator or family doctor would check the credentials of the patients for the criteria of over 65, indigenous, and suffering chronic disease. If the patient passes all these credentials, he or she would be approved for getting the insurance clearance. Else, the process of information flow would cease and the application or request would be rejected. After approving the patient for getting the Medigood insurance, the office administrator or family doctor would check with the medical specialist consultation if they would be available for meeting and examining the patient. The specialist’s time table and appointment list would be evaluated for finding out the possible day for meeting with the patient (Valacich, George and Hoffer 2014). The office administrator or family doctor would ensure that a date feasible for both patient and specialist and convey the appropriate time table to both of them. The specialist and the patient would get the meeting time and date and the process would be stopped.
User |
User Story |
Business Analyst |
As a business analyst, I want the implication of the software tools so that the software would help in easing the business of the Medigood insurance |
Customer |
As a customer, I want the user manual for the software tool so that I would be able to utilize the system comfortably |
Sponsor |
As a sponsor, I want the detailed report of the cost expended so that I would be able to calculate the net profit from the project |
Executives |
As an executive, I want the proper implication of the products and services so that the organization would achieve smart profit from the system. |
Project team |
As a project team, I want the completion of the project so that the project team would get the benefit of final deliverable. |
Constraints
Must have: Feasible software design
Should Have: Security of operations
Could Have: Cloud Conputing
Won’t Have: Tangible data storage
The use case is developed for successfully aligning with the development of the effective operations for the alignment of the improved operation development (Gonen 2014). The implication of the use case diagram would help in realization of the actor and the successful development of the process development for the operations. The implication of the successive development model would help in easing the information processing and execution of the processes for the organization of Medigood National Health Insurance. The following is the use case diagram for the existing system at the organization,
Use Case Diagram for Medigood National Health Insurance
Use Case #0005101 |
|
Use Case Name: |
Check if patient is applicable for insurance |
Scenario: |
The scenario has depicted the use of the information flow for knowing whether the patient would be applicable for the inclusion of the operation for the deployment of the effective operations. The scenario would show that the office administrator or family doctor would check if the patient who has applied for getting the Medigood is applicable for getting the support on medical insurance. The office administrator or family doctor would check if the patient is over 65, indigenous, and suffering chronic disease. The checking would be initiated from the submitted information and various health records. |
Triggering Event: |
Patient applying for Medigood Health Insurance and the existence of the information of the patient |
Brief Description: |
The office administrator or family doctor would be responsible for analysing and evaluating whether the patient who have applied for Medigood National Health Insurance is applicable for the getting the insurance. The office administrator or family doctor would check the credentials of the patients for the criteria of over 65, indigenous, and suffering chronic disease. |
Actors: |
Patient, office administrator or family doctor |
Stakeholders: |
Patient, Medigood National Health Insurance, office administrator or family doctor |
Preconditions: |
Patient had applied for the Medigood Insurance |
Post conditions: |
Patient would be either approved for getting Medigood Insurance or Rejected from getting Medigood Insurance |
Flow of Activities: |
Patient’s report à Office Administrator or Family Doctor à Health Database à Office Administrator or Family Doctor à Patient |
Exception Conditions: |
Patient would not be validated for getting the Medigood Insurance |
Use Case #0005102 |
|
Use Case Name: |
Search for suitable medical specialist |
Scenario: |
The scenario would depict the searching of a medical specialist by the office administrator or family doctor. The patient who have applied for the Medigood Health Insurance would be cross checked for the feasibility of the getting the approval of the insurance. The office administrator or family doctor would then check for any specialist for the patient. |
Triggering Event: |
Approval of the patient for getting Medigood and All criteria of over 65, indigenous, and suffering chronic disease are met. |
Brief Description: |
If the patient passes all these credentials, he or she would be approved for getting the insurance clearance. After approving the patient for getting the Medigood insurance, the office administrator or family doctor would check with the medical specialist consultation if they would be available for meeting and examining the patient. The specialist’s time table and appointment list would be evaluated for finding out the possible day for meeting with the patient. |
Actors: |
office administrator or family doctor |
Stakeholders: |
medical specialist, Medigood National Health Insurance, office administrator or family doctor |
Preconditions: |
Search for the appropriate medical specialist consultation would be initiated by the office administrator or family doctor |
Post conditions: |
Appropriate Medical Specialist Consultation would be founded for the patient |
Flow of Activities: |
Office administrator or family doctor à database of health records à record of medical specialist à office administrator or family doctor |
Exception Conditions: |
Patient would not be validated for getting the Medigood Insurance |
Use Case #0005103 |
|
Use Case Name: |
Meeting time is fixed and Patients consults with specialist |
Scenario: |
The scenario would depict office administrator or family doctor checking and going through the appointment list and time schedule of the specialist. The office administrator or family doctor would have to ensure that the approval of the patient for the Medigood would help in easing the patient by aligning a meeting between the specialist and patient. |
Triggering Event: |
Approval of the patient for getting Medigood and Specialist is available for the patient |
Brief Description: |
The specialist’s time table and appointment list would be evaluated for finding out the possible day for meeting with the patient. The specialist’s time table and appointment list would be evaluated for finding out the possible day for meeting with the patient. The office administrator or family doctor would ensure that a date feasible for both patient and specialist and convey the appropriate time table to both of them. |
Actors: |
office administrator or family doctor, medical specialist |
Stakeholders: |
Patient, Medigood National Health Insurance, office administrator or family doctor, medical specialist |
Preconditions: |
Appropriate Medical Specialist Consultation would be founded for the patient |
Post conditions: |
Scheduling of the time and date for meeting the patients and specialist would be narrowed down |
Flow of Activities: |
office administrator or family doctor à medical specialist à office administrator or family doctor |
Exception Conditions: |
medical specialist would deny the due to tight schedule for meeting the patient |
Use Case #0005104 |
|
Use Case Name: |
Apply for Medigoods Health Insurance |
Scenario: |
The scenario would depict the patient applying for getting the Medigood Insurance from the organization. The patient would go through a deal for submitting the application for getting the insurance along with the details of his or her medical history. |
Triggering Event: |
Inclusion of the Medigood Insurance by National Health Insurance and patient having prior information on the method of application for insurance |
Brief Description: |
The Medigood Insurance would be brought about by the National Health Insurance and it would allow the patients for getting medical insurance for the visit of the specialist doctor to them. The main criteria for the applying for Medigood insurance are the criteria of over 65, indigenous, and suffering chronic disease. The application would be dependent on the alignment of the effective operations. |
Actors: |
patient |
Stakeholders: |
Patient, Medigood National Health Insurance |
Preconditions: |
Patient would have knowledge for applying for the Medigood health insurance |
Post conditions: |
office administrator or family doctor would analyse and evaluate the credentials of the patient who have applied for Medigood Insurance |
Flow of Activities: |
Medigood National Health Insurance à Patient à office administrator or family doctor |
Exception Conditions: |
Patient would have no knowledge for applying for the Medigood health insurance and hence he or she would not apply for it |
Use Case #0005105 |
|
Use Case Name: |
Check if specialist/patient is okay with meeting time |
Scenario: |
The office administrator or family doctor would have to check whether the date and time fixed for the meeting between the patient and specialist would be feasible for both of them. The specialist’s time table and appointment list would be evaluated for finding out the possible day for meeting with the patient. |
Triggering Event: |
medical specialist would be available for checking the patient and the patient had cleared the cross examination of the application |
Brief Description: |
After approving the patient for getting the Medigood insurance, the office administrator or family doctor would check with the medical specialist consultation if they would be available for meeting and examining the patient. The specialist’s time table and appointment list would be evaluated for finding out the possible day for meeting with the patient. The office administrator or family doctor would ensure that a date feasible for both patient and specialist and convey the appropriate time table to both of them. |
Actors: |
office administrator or family doctor, patient, medical specialist |
Stakeholders: |
Patient, Medigood National Health Insurance, office administrator or family doctor, medical specialist |
Preconditions: |
Scheduling of the time and date for meeting the patients and specialist would be narrowed down |
Post conditions: |
Fixed time and date would be selected for meeting the patients and specialist by confirming from both of them |
Flow of Activities: |
office administrator or family doctor à patient à medical specialist |
Exception Conditions: |
Either Patient or Specialist or both would deny the date and time of meeting |
Class Name with attributes are given below,
Patient (Patient_ID [PK], Patient_Name, Patient_Address, Patient_healthrecords)
Doctor (Doctor_ID [PK], Doctor_Name, Doctor_Address, Doctor_bankdetails)
Specialist (Specialist_ID [PK], Specialist_Name, Specialist_Address, Specialist_bankdetails)
Office Adminsitrator (Office Adminsitrator_ID [PK], Office Adminsitrator_Name, Office Adminsitrator_Address, Office Adminsitrator_bankdetails)
Payment (Payment_ID [PK], Payment_Invoice, Payment_Amount, Payment_Date)
References
Borén, S., Nurhadi, L., Ny, H., Robèrt, K.H., Broman, G. and Trygg, L., 2017. A strategic approach to sustainable transport system development–part 2: the case of a vision for electric vehicle systems in southeast Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, pp.62-71.
Dennis, A., Wixom, B.H. and Tegarden, D., 2015. Systems analysis and design: An object-oriented approach with UML. John wiley & sons.
Fleming, Q.W. and Koppelman, J.M., 2016, December. Earned value project management. Project Management Institute.
Gönen, T., 2014. Electrical Power Transmission System Engineering: Analysis and Design. CRC Press.
Gupta, A.K., 2017. Response spectrum method in seismic analysis and design of structures. Routledge.
Hailes, J., 2014. Business Analysis Based on BABOK® Guide Version 2–A Pocket Guide. Van Haren.
Harrison, F. and Lock, D., 2017. Advanced project management: a structured approach. Routledge.
Hau, C.C. ed., 2015. Handbook of pattern recognition and computer vision. World Scientific.
Hosseinichimeh, N., Kim, H., Ebrahimvandi, A., Iams, J. and Andersen, D., 2017. A Stakeholder Analysis of Infant Mortality in Ohio: Key Behaviors and Their Formulations.
Jonasson, H., 2016. Determining Project Requirements: Mastering the BABOK® and the CBAP® Exam. Auerbach Publications.
Jouen, A.L., Ellmore, T.M., Madden, C.J., Pallier, C., Dominey, P.F. and Ventre-Dominey, J., 2015. Beyond the word and image: characteristics of a common meaning system for language and vision revealed by functional and structural imaging. NeuroImage, 106, pp.72-85.
Kan, T., Nguyen, T.D., White, J.C., Malhan, R.K. and Mi, C.C., 2017. A new integration method for an electric vehicle wireless charging system using LCC compensation topology: analysis and design. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 32(2), pp.1638-1650.
Kerzner, H. and Kerzner, H.R., 2017. Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Missonier, S. and Loufrani-Fedida, S., 2014. Stakeholder analysis and engagement in projects: From stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational ontology. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), pp.1108-1122.
Moon, S., Kim, B.C., Cho, S.Y., Ahn, C.H. and Moon, G.W., 2014. Analysis and design of a wireless power transfer system with an intermediate coil for high efficiency. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 61(11), pp.5861-5870.
Phillips, C.L., Nagle, H.T. and Chakrabortty, A., 2015. Digital Control System Analysis & Design. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Satzinger, J.W., Jackson, R.B. and Burd, S.D., 2014. Systems analysis and design in a changing world. 7th Edition. Cengage learning.
Schwalbe, K., 2015. Information technology project management. Cengage Learning.
Valacich, J., George, J. and Hoffer, J., 2014. Essentials of systems analysis and design. Prentice Hall Press.
Wieschowski, S., Silva, D.S. and Strech, D., 2016. Animal Study Registries: results from a stakeholder analysis on potential strengths, weaknesses, facilitators, and barriers. PLoS biology, 14(11), p.e2000391.