Collaborative Review Workflow Graph for Document Sections
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing document review workflows do not effectively manage reviews at the individual portion level, leading to inefficiencies and the need for external communication tools to coordinate changes, which adds complexity.
Innovation Solution
A system that generates a review workflow graph for collaborative documents, allowing for the assignment, monitoring, and visualization of review processes at the section level, enabling detailed tracking and status updates of document sections through a timeline.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Measurement precision
If document review workflows are implemented at the document level with approvals, then the review process can be tracked and managed, but the system cannot focus on particular portions of the document or source code to ask specific review questions
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the document into distinct sections (e.g., paragraphs, code blocks, figures) and assigns review workflows to individual sections rather than treating the entire document as a single unit. This allows reviewers to focus on specific portions and ask targeted questions about particular sections, achieving fine-grained review precision without requiring complex external communication tools.
2Ease of operation
If external communication tools are used to coordinate and comment on changes, then specific portions can be discussed, but the system adds complexity rather than improving the implementation
Solution Approach 1:
The patent merges the communication and coordination features directly into the document review workflow system. Reviewers can ask questions, provide comments, and coordinate on specific document sections within the same interface where the review workflow is managed, eliminating the need for separate external communication tools and reducing overall system complexity.
3Reliability
If document level approvals are required before review workflow continues, then the overall document quality is ensured, but the review process cannot proceed on individual sections independently
Solution Approach 1:
The patent divides the document into reviewable sections and enables independent review workflows for each section. Multiple sections can be reviewed in parallel by different reviewers, significantly improving review efficiency. The system maintains reliability by requiring that all sections be approved before the overall document is considered complete, ensuring comprehensive quality assurance without blocking productivity.
Data Source
AI summary
A review workflow graph (e.g., graph database) is provided that is a graphical representation of a review workflow assigned to a document and/or an individual document section. In particular, contents of the document may be stored as nodes in the review workflow graph. As the reviewers perform the review workflow, results associated with one or more review processes may be recorded and stored in the review workflow graph with relationships to the content nodes. In aspects, the graph of nodes may be materialized into a view of the document and/or a review timeline. For instance, portions of the document that have been completed may be materialized, but content that is not yet complete (e.g., reached a milestone) may not be materialized. Additionally, the review timeline may be a visual or other representation of the temporal progress of the review workflow, including intermediate milestones as well as an ultimate completion deadline.