The Experts below are selected from a list of 270 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Stan F Shaw - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Manju Banerjee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

C. Clark - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • IPCC (2) - Creating and using a Web-based online Review tool
    IPCC 98. Contemporary Renaissance: Changing the Way we Communicate. Proceedings 1998 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (Cat. No, 1998
    Co-Authors: T. Auston, C. Clark
    Abstract:

    The typical process for Reviewing documents under development involves printing, binding, and distributing hardcopy drafts to a Review team. This hardcopy Review process poses certain inefficiencies. Reviewing document drafts online can improve the Review process, saving paper, labor, time, and money. However, simply going online doesn't necessarily result in an efficient process. The right online tool must be used. To determine which tool is best, one must determine the criteria that must be met to improve the process. Then, the available tools must be analyzed to see if one meets all the criteria. The authors looks at several tools for improving the Documentation Review process. They share their criteria, their findings from their available tools analysis, and their decision to create their own Web based online Review tool. The authors then Review the benefits of their new Review tool.

  • Creating and using a Web-based online Review tool
    IPCC 98. Contemporary Renaissance: Changing the Way we Communicate. Proceedings 1998 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (Cat. No, 1998
    Co-Authors: T. Auston, C. Clark
    Abstract:

    The typical process for Reviewing documents under development involves printing, binding, and distributing hardcopy drafts to a Review team. This hardcopy Review process poses certain inefficiencies. Reviewing document drafts online can improve the Review process, saving paper, labor, time, and money. However, simply going online doesn't necessarily result in an efficient process. The right online tool must be used. To determine which tool is best, one must determine the criteria that must be met to improve the process. Then, the available tools must be analyzed to see if one meets all the criteria. The authors looks at several tools for improving the Documentation Review process. They share their criteria, their findings from their available tools analysis, and their decision to create their own Web based online Review tool. The authors then Review the benefits of their new Review tool.

  • Changing the way we Review document drafts: is online a better way?
    IPCC 98. Contemporary Renaissance: Changing the Way we Communicate. Proceedings 1998 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (Cat. No, 1998
    Co-Authors: T. Auston, C. Clark
    Abstract:

    The typical process for Reviewing documents under development involves printing, binding, and distributing hardcopy drafts to a Review team. This hardcopy Review process poses certain ineffiencies. Reviewing document drafts online can improve the Review process, saving paper, labor, time, and money. However, simply going online doesn't necessarily result in an eflicient process. The right online tool must be used. To determine which tool is best, one must determine the criteria that must be met to improve the process. Then, the available tools must be analyzed to see if one meets all the criteria. The authors look at several tools for improving the Documentation Review process. They share their criteria, their findings from their available tools analysis, and their decision to create their own web-based online Review tool. The authors then Review the benefits of their new Review tool.

B. Wilkinson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • How Spreadsheets Get Us to Mars and Beyond
    2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2009
    Co-Authors: J. Hihn, S. Lewicki, B. Wilkinson
    Abstract:

    Spreadsheets, spreadsheets everywhere and nary a page of Documentation. JPL is NASA's prime center for deep space missions. In all of our missions, spreadsheets have played a major role in managing parts lists, managing requirements, monitoring progress, planning budgets, developing the initial concept designs, and providing the backbone of our infrastructure. In this paper we will share our lessons learned in building various spreadsheet intensive systems and applications. Based on our experience in developing and using these various systems we will propose a number of exploratory ideas as to the dimensions of spreadsheet system complexity. In addition, we will share our approaches to Documentation, Review, and verification of these types of systems.

Ping Yu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A Review of data quality assessment methods for public health information systems
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2014
    Co-Authors: Hong Chen, David Hailey, Ning Wang, Ping Yu
    Abstract:

    High quality data and effective data quality assessment are required for accurately evaluating the impact of public health interventions and measuring public health outcomes. Data, data use, and data collection process, as the three dimensions of data quality, all need to be assessed for overall data quality assessment. We Reviewed current data quality assessment methods. The relevant study was identified in major databases and well-known institutional websites. We found the dimension of data was most frequently assessed. Completeness, accuracy, and timeliness were the three most-used attributes among a total of 49 attributes of data quality. The major quantitative assessment methods were descriptive surveys and data audits, whereas the common qualitative assessment methods were interview and Documentation Review. The limitations of the Reviewed studies included inattentiveness to data use and data collection process, inconsistency in the definition of attributes of data quality, failure to address data users' concerns and a lack of systematic procedures in data quality assessment. This Review study is limited by the coverage of the databases and the breadth of public health information systems. Further research could develop consistent data quality definitions and attributes. More research efforts should be given to assess the quality of data use and the quality of data collection process.