Assessing User-Designed Dashboards: A Case for Developing Data Visualization Competency

  • Aprisa ChrysantinaEmail author
  • Johan Ivar Sæbø
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 551)


Health information dashboards, which are collections of relevant indicator visualizations for management, have become a common feature and strategy for improved information use in the health sector. They should provide any manager with quality information in a format that points out the performance of health service provision, and thus necessitate good knowledge of visualization techniques to both develop and interpret. Since health management is a dispersed and decentralized activity, dashboards need to be relevant to varied users, and various administrative levels of the health services. This can be achieved by enabling all users to make their own dashboards, based on the indicators they need, and presented in a suitable manner to track the local priority activities.

In this study we examine user-defined dashboards in Indonesia, which has implemented a flexible and open source platform for health management (DHIS2). While the technical flexibility of the platform has been taken advantage of by providing platform customization training, the study finds that the quality of the dashboards created face numerous challenges. These challenges point to poor visualization competence. We conclude by calling for such competence to be addressed by the training curricula, as well as by utilizing existing “best practice” dashboards from WHO now available for the same platform.


Dashboard design Open source platform Data visualization literacy Capacity building 


  1. 1.
    Walsham, G.: ICT4D research: reflections on history and future agenda. Inf. Technol. Dev. 23(1), 18–41 (2017). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mukherjee, A.S.: Empowerment: the invisible element in ICT4D projects? The case of public health information systems in India and Kenya. University of Oslo, Norway (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heeks, R.: Do information and communication technologies (ICTs) contribute to development? J. Int. Dev. 22(5), 625–640 (2010). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dittrich, Y.: Software engineering beyond the project–sustaining software ecosystems. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(11), 1436–1456 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Msiska, B., Nielsen, P.: A framework to assess and address human capacities needed to leverage open source software platforms in developing countries. In: Choudrie, J., Islam, M.S., Wahid, F., Bass, J.M., Priyatma, J.E. (eds.) ICT4D 2017. IAICT, vol. 504, pp. 81–92. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braa, J., Hedberg, C.: The struggle for district-based health information systems in South Africa. Inf. Soc. 18, 113–127 (2002). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roland, L.K., Sanner, T.A., Sæbø, J.I., Monteiro, E.: P for platform. Architectures of large-scale participatory design. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 29(2), 2–34 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hanseth, O., Bygstad, B.: Flexible generification: ICT standardization strategies and service innovation in health care. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 24(6), 645–663 (2015). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saugene, Z.: Customization of generic open source software for health sector in developing countries. University of Oslo, Norway (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Few, S.: Information Dashboard Design. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gorgen, H., Kirsch-Woik, T., Schmidt-Ehry, B.: The District Health System Experiences and Prospects in Africa: Manual for Public Health Practitioners. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pappaioanou, M., et al.: Strengthening capacity in developing countries for evidence-based public health: the data for decision-making project. Soc. Sci. Med. 57(10), 1925–1937 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wickremasinghe, D., Hashmi, I.E., Schellenberg, J., Avan, B.I.: District decision-making for health in low-income settings: a systematic literature review. Health Policy Plann. 31(suppl_2), ii12–ii24 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    WHO: Analysis and use of health facility data: general principles (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Poppe, O., Sæbø, J.I., Nielsen, P., Sanner, T.A.: Standardising through software. Sel. Pap. IRIS 8(2017), 4 (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mutale, W., et al.: Improving health information systems for decision making across five Sub-Saharan African countries: implementation strategies from the African health initiative. BMC Health Serv. Res. 13(2), S9 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schield, M.: Information literacy, statistical literacy and data literacy. IASSIST Q. (IQ) (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carlson, J., Fosmire, M., Miller, C.C., Nelson, M.S.: Determining data information literacy needs: a study of students and research faculty. portal: Libr. Acad. 11(2), 629–657 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Suchman, L.: Located accountabilities in technology production. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 14(2), 7 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K., Mead, M.: The case research strategy in studies of information systems case research. MIS Q. 11(3), 369–386 (1987). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cavaye, A.L.M.: Case study research: a multi-faceted research approach for IS. Inf. Syst. J. (1996).
  22. 22.
    Fakultas Kesehatan Masyarakat Universitas Hasanudin: Buku Kurikulum: 8 Kompetensi Sarjana Kesehatan Masyarakat. Universitas Hasanudin, Makassar (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kementerian Kesehatan RI: Keputusan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia tentang Standar Profesi Bidan (Nomor 369/MENKES/SK/III/2007). Kementerian Kesehatan RI, Jakarta (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations