The Review Process
Reviews can be time consuming. A thorough review process begins with a statement of intent that the document's authors can circulate at the initial stages of the review. This statement puts the document in the proper context for the review team.
The authors can offer the review team a variety of review types:
- Managerial
- User
- Technical
- Subject Matter
- Editorial
- Sponsor
In order to keep the reviewer on task, it is best to give each reviewer a list of specific questions to complete which are pertinent to their area of involvement only. This will keep the reviewer focused on their area of responsibility.
Time is important to the process and schedule, thus it is important to make sure the reviewer has enough time to complete their own portion of the review.
When you send the document to the review team, there are a couple of options for distribution. Each of these options has its advantages and disadvantages. For a complete listing of the attributes of each distribution channel, please consult the text.
- Sequential circulation - begins with one reviewer who subsequently passes the document on to the next reviewer in an orderly fashion. Usually there is a routing note attached to the document so that the order of review is pre-determined. This is a less expensive way to do things (only one copy is needed) but it can be very time consuming if the document become buried on one of the reviewer's desks.
- Simultaneous circulation - involves the distribution of multiple copies of the document to be reviewed circulated at the same time to all reviewers. This method, of course, can be faster because each reviewer works independently at the same time.
The most significant difference between the two methods is the manner with which the reviewers supply their remarks. In sequential circulation, the reviewer will see the marks of the previous reviewer thus limiting the amount of marks that come back to the author. In simultaneous review, the reviewer is free to mark up all the aspects of the document. It seems that simultaneous review might yield a more thorough examination because each participant starts at the same point and must look at the entire document (free of other's remarks).
Be personal
The document's author/originator must always be aware of the fact that those people who make up the review team are doing him/her a valuable favor by lending their time to the review process. Because of this commitment from the reviewers, the originator of the document must keep a few things in mind:
- Explain your review goals thoroughly when distributing the document for review
- Reinforce the relationship you have with the review team (complement and thank them often)
- Explain the benefits of participation on the review team (the final product benefits from each reviewers expertise)
- Describe how you would like the reviewer to comment i.e.) marks, colors for each reviewer
- Give the reviewers a firm date to return the draft to you
- When the review is returned, make sure that you acknowledge each reviewer's particpation
Figure 7. 4 provides a good example of a review sheet that can be given to the review team
Final Discussion
It's imperative to know what you're asking for from the review team. Make sure that each reviewer understands the differences between:
- Reviewing - uncontrolled environment with many comments
- Testing - controlled environment with few participants
- Editing - professional environment with a single editor
This chapter focuses on review only. Reviews provide the document's author with a quality end product because all of the project's stakeholders (reviewers) will have had the opportunity to comment on the document and the project will be kept on a tight schedule that management will appreciate.
The earlier you begin the review process, the better it will go because the important background information will be discussed more often with the team before the project becomes too involved.
Keep your review team informed and engaged and they will probably work hard for you. If differences arise amongst the reviewers, you must be diplomatic and fair because you will need the reviewers in the future. You can't afford to alienate your team.
Finally, consider doing a walkthrough with the review team at some point during the project. The walkthrough brings all the stakeholders together for a intensive, one hour meeting. The walkthrough, if kept on task, will allow the document's author/originator the opportunity to record and compile a great deal of information in a short time. This will shape and refine the document and give all reviewers the opportunity to collaborate. Most likely, the greatest benefit of the walkthrough involving many reviewers is the opportunity to shape the document in such a way that it will elicit minimal negative feedback in the final stages of review.
Our thoughts
The key to effective document review is a cohesive review team. Keeping the team informed in all phases of the review process will create a more comprehensive and usable document in the end. People like to be heard and it's not difficult to allow this to happen if you plan the review process from the beginning.
In summary, follow these five steps as review process guidelines:
- Ask politely for involvement from reviewers
- Explain why they are important to the project
- Keep the team informed (always) not just when you need them
- Thank the reviewers when they have completed their task
- Show the reviewers the final product with changes
Thank you, Vanda and Lance (Team 7)
12 comments:
Good post Vanda and Lance. I've been involved in a lot of review cycles over the years; this chapter does a nice job of capturing they key points. Most projects that I have been involved in also require a legal review. Ten years ago a lot of projects followed a sequential process with work passed on from one reviewer to the next via interoffice mail. In today's global environment companies have moved to simultaneous reviews. It's easy to simply email documents to reviewers.
Terrific summary! This chapter ensures that we won't leave out any of the important steps in the review process. Perhaps the most important part is the good will generated by including people in the process and responding to their suggestions.
This chapter offered a lot of useful information. I found especially useful the information about the different review types, and liked this information presented in a table form, as it makes it easier to refer back to. I also thought the advice offered under the heading “Be Personal” was very important to keep in mind as well, as well as the information contained in the final discussion because as well as you know all of the definitions of all of the italicized key terms, keeping these tips in mind will increase the chances of a well-conducted, useful review.
Good review.
I particularily like the simultaneous review. My personal experience is that each reviewer should have their own input without seeing another person's view. It can give more depth to a document.
I found this summary to be very clear, concise, and helpful. The subject of this chapter was interesting, and I wonder how much technology is changing the way that reviews are done. As Gary commented, so much of the review process is done online now and across geographical space. Simultaneous reviews seems the way to go, especially if you're using something like Google docs which even cuts out the step of emailing the document.
I agree that simultaneous review is great and can give more depth to a document. However, there are definitely positive outcomes for using a sequential review. As I review things, I like to see what other people have contributed. It's a great learning tool and may expand the thoughts of the upcoming reviewers. It may open up new ideas that they wouldn't have thought of before.
This post is a really nice summary! I have to say, I didn't realize that there were the five different types of reviews... I guess I hadn't really thought to give it a "thought" - I had been introduced to the steps of a review before, but not with the types of reviews that Campbell discussed. I think it's just another way to let us know that every phase of our writing needs to take our audience into account.
This chapter was an eye opener for me. Normally, when I think about document review, I'm thinking from the perspective of the reviewer, not the author. As a reviewer, I try always to be cognizant of the potential insecurities of the author--it can be nerve wracking to have other people look at your work and some people are quite sensitive about their writing. What this chapter showed me is that documentation authors have to be just as sensitive to their reviewers if they expect the review process to move along smoothly. It's a two-way street, and mutual respect is the key.
The author made a good point that it is important to let the reviewers know what your expectations and goals for the review are. Having a set of questions that give them guidance seems like a great idea.That way, you won't have people wasting their time or yours in providing input that you aren't really asking for. It also seems helpful to personalize the requests according to the reviewer's expertise and experience. Chances are, you don't have the same expectations for all those performing a review. When we ask for input from other departments, we often will direct individuals to specific parts of the document, but also allow them to comment on other areas if they desire to.
At our office, we always do a sequential circulation of documents, and so I found it especially interesting the notes on simultaneous circulation in this chapter. I really think either/or can be helpful dependent upon the document.
I have done sequential circulation before (I made up a new brochure for the office) and then all of a sudden when I had already printed off 300 brochures, another staff member goes: “I think you should change the brochure title.” She had already looked at the brochure, but was probably relying on someone else to catch any mistakes or suggestions for changes. Nice comment, but too late.
Anyway, just a note that I think both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Great summary! I was not aware of the details that go into review process before reading the summary and the chapter. I was not familiar with any of this. What I take away from this chapter is: deciding on the type of review needed is important and having clear schedule and expectations keeps everyone on track. I also learned the difference between editing and reviewing.
Thanks, you two, for the well-done summary!
I think I benefitted most from this chapter through the addressing of the two methods of circulation. To me, simultaneous seems to make the most sense. First off, just because in sequential circulation the document gets passed from one person to the next, it doesn't mean that the first person is making the job easier for the next person. I see it as actually more of a concern, because you are not only reading the text but also other markup. With simultaneous, all edits and ideas are brought together later on, which will eliminate the clutter. Still, there are benefits to sequential, as one editor may find something another editor marked up as right, wrong, or interesting, and the process may be more thorough.
I don't know if I am being cynical here, but the rest of the ideas just seemed unnecessary to me. I think it's somewhat sad to have to write down how to perform proper etiquette in a textbook. As adults, we should be courteous, open to suggestion, and grateful. Maybe I just think that since I don't constantly have to remind myself to be kind, I find these points as common sense?
Post a Comment