A User Study on How to Render Criticality in Interfaces that Visualize Process Maps

  • Federico Cabitza
Conference paper


This paper addresses the main shortcoming that was reported by the users of ProDoc, an electronic document system that we developed to enable users to navigate electronic documents according to predefined process maps: how to render criticality. Criticality is a dimension that pertains to process modeling and for which a graphical way to represent it in flowcharts and process modeling notations does not exist. We report a questionnaire-based empirical user study where we sound out respondents of heterogeneous expertise and attitude on the importance of representing this dimension, as well as on the efficacy of some graphical solutions to integrate it in flowcharts representing work processes. The results we obtained are statistically significant: they show that current notations are inadequate and that a solution to convey flow criticality exists and can be used in software applications that visualize processes


User Study Electronic Document Graphical Solution Business Process Modeling Notation Activity Criticality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cabitza F et al (2009) PRODOC: an electronic patient record to foster process-oriented practices. In Proceedings of ECSCW09, Springer, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cabitza F et al (2007) Providing awareness through situated process maps: the hospital care case. In Proceedings of GROUP07, ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birkett NJ (1986)Selecting the number of response categories for a likert-type scale. In: Proceedings of the American statistical association,1987 Annual Meeting, ASA, Alexandria, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hill T, Lewicki P (2005) Statistics: methods and applications. StatSoft, TulsaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Panella M et al (2003) Reducing clinical variations with clinical pathways. IJQHC 15 (6):509–521Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Randelli et al (2010) Infectious and thromboembolic complications of arthroscopic shoulder surgery. JSES 19(1):97–101Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica, Sistemistica e ComunicazioneUniversitá degli Studi di Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations