Voices of Authorities and Shareholders Affect Voices of Processes

  • Petteri MussaloEmail author
  • Virpi Hotti
  • Hanna Mussalo
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 907)


There are several voices (e.g., needs or requirements) concern the business. In this paper, the voices of authorities, shareholders and processes are defined to be controlled voices the effects of which can be considered within functional domains and enterprise entities. The Voice of the Authority (VoA) is in common controls, the Voice of the Shareholder (VoS) is in corporate controls and the Voice of the Process (VoP) is in process controls. Three constructions are proposed to strength the meaning of the controlled voices. First, common, corporate, and process controls are mapped within two functional domains (i.e., control and operations) of the Industrial Internet Reference Architecture (IIRA) to illustrate the importance of the voices. Second, 11 related entities (i.e., control, course of action, data entity, driver, event, function, goal, measure, process, and service) of the Togaf 9.2 content metamodel are mapped within control and operations domains. Third, the definitions of the entities are mapped within the voices of authorities, shareholders and processes. The Voice of the Authority and the Voice of the Shareholder affect processes via contract, control, and course of action entities. We discuss the meaning of the constructions in the context the healthcare.


Voice of the Process (VoP) Voice of the Authority (VoA) Voice of the Shareholder (VoS) Control Functional domain Healthcare 


  1. 1.
    Finnish Government: Regional government, health and social services reform (2017).
  2. 2.
    The International Foundation for Digital Competences: VeriSMTM - a service management approach for the digital age. Van Haren (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Open Group: The TOGAF® Standard, Version 9.2 (2018).
  4. 4.
    The International Organization for Standardization: ISO 13053-2:2011(en) quantitative methods in process improvement—Six Sigma—part 2: tools and techniques (2011).
  5. 5.
    The International Organization for Standardization, the International Electrotechnical Commission: ISO/IEC 26551:2016(en) software and systems engineering—tools and methods for product line requirements engineering (2016).
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    The Industrial Internet Consortium: The Industrial Internet of Things Volume G1: Reference Architecture (2017).
  8. 8.
    Makola, D., Hotti, V.: Critical success factors for adopting enterprise architecture metamodels in the health sector: literature review. J. Health Inform. Afr. 1(1), 127–132 (2013). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adobe: Adobe Releases Common Control Framework (CCF) as Open Source (2017).
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Network Frontiers LLC: Unified Compliance Framework (2018).
  12. 12.
    HITRUST Alliance: HITRUST (2018).
  13. 13.
    Mussalo, P., et al.: Common controls driven conceptual leadership framework. Finnish J. eHealth eWelfare 10(1), 89–101 (2018). Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Parliament: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance) (2016).
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    ServiceNow: Use the Unified Compliance Framework (UCF) with Policy and Compliance Management (2018).
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    De Ana, F.J., Umstead, K.A., Phillips, G.J., Conner, C.P.: Value driven innovation in medical device design: a process for balancing stakeholder voices. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 41(9), 1811–1821 (2013). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cho, N.-E., Hong, K.: A kitchen with too many cooks: factors associated with hospital profitability. Sustainability 10(2), 323 (2018). Scholar
  21. 21.
    General Electric: What is Six Sigma? The Roadmap to Customer Impact (Unknown year).
  22. 22.
    Shewhart, W.A.: Economic quality control of manufactured product. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 9(2), 364–389 (1930). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Antony, J., Snee, R., Hoerl, R.: Lean Six Sigma: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 34(7), 1073–1093 (2017). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hachicha, W., Ghorbel, A.: A survey of control-chart pattern-recognition literature (1991–2010) based on a new conceptual classification scheme. Comput. Ind. Eng. 63(1), 204–222 (2012). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Montgomery, D.: Introduction to Statistical Quality Control. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orr, K.: Data quality and systems theory. Commun. ACM 41(2), 66–71 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    The International Organization for Standardization: ISO Online Browsing Platform (OBP).
  28. 28.
    Oxford University Press: English Oxford Living Dictionary (2018).
  29. 29.
    Cooper, R.G.: Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Bus. Horiz. 33(3), 44–54 (1990). Scholar
  30. 30.
    Benneyan, J.C., Lloyd, R.C., Plsek, P.E.: Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Qual. Saf. Health Care 12(6), 458–464 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khoury, M.J., Ioannidis, J.P.: Big data meets public health. Science 346(6213), 1054–1055 (2014). Scholar
  32. 32.
    Curcin, V., Woodcock, T., Poots, A.J., Majeed, A., Bell, D.: Model-driven approach to data collection and reporting for quality improvement. J. Biomed. Inform. 52, 151–162 (2014). Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bergman, B., Hellström, A., Lifvergren, S., Gustavsson, S.M.: An emerging science of improvement in health care. Qual. Eng. 27(1), 17–34 (2015). Scholar
  34. 34.
    Spiegelhalter, D., Sherlaw-Johnson, C., Bardsley, M., Blunt, I., Wood, C., Grigg, O.: Statistical methods for healthcare regulation: rating, screening and surveillance. J. R. Stat. Soc. 175(1), 1–47 (2012). Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mahajan, A., Islam, S., Schwartz, M., Cannesson, M.: A hospital is not just a factory, but a complex adaptive system - implications for perioperative care. Anesth. Analg. 125(1), 333–341 (2017). Scholar
  36. 36.
    Taner, M.T., Sezen, B., Atwat, K.M.: Application of Six Sigma methodology to a diagnostic imaging process. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur. 25(4), 274–290 (2012). Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    Hotti, V.: Framework-based data requirements for IT top management. Int. J. Digit. Inf. Wirel. Commun. 4(3), 299–304 (2014). Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rosenberg, L.: Are healthcare leaders ready for the real revolution? J. Behav. Health Serv. Res. 39(3), 215–219 (2012). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ComputingUniversity of Eastern FinlandKuopioFinland
  2. 2.Imaging CenterKuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland

Personalised recommendations