Why is it that document reviews are generally seen as a weakness in organizational performance?
It is our position that a substantial contributor to this problem is that most organizations focus attention solely on review processes and not whether review practices help achieve desired outcomes. While it is important to address the “who” and “when” of review (review process), what is sorely absent from most considerations is attention to the “why” and “what” of review (review practice).
Most of the problems with review come from learned habits of review, habits learned through the reviewer's and author's experiences in the review process.
We've learned from years of surveys and conversations with clients that though many in an organization may think that the review process is ineffective, they are uncertain how to change the ingrained habits. That's where we come in.
Through examples from our years of experience in document development, and an analysis of your documents and review team's habits, we can demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses in your review process and practices, providing actionable solutions to make your reviews more strategic, efficient, and cost-effective.
|
Problems with Reviews
After years of observing and surveying
our clients, and working with them to improve the quality of their
reviews, we've put together a list of common problems associated with
document reviews:
- Expectations of reviewers are unclear;
reviewers are not provided with instructions or training for how to
review documents, nor are there defined standards of document quality
or a common vocabulary on what is or is not good quality.
- Reviewers spend too much time focused on lexical and syntactical
elements of the document and not enough time on the strategically
important issues and messages of the document.
- Authoring and reviewing activities are not in sync. Key decision-makers are involved too late in the writing process.
-
Drafts are sent simultaneously to many individuals for different review
purposes, leading to duplicate work and author confusion on how to best
handle issues and conflicting comments.
- Review meetings are poorly organized and often ineffective.
|
|