RE: Gathering edits from several people

["Backer, Corinne" <CBacker -at- glhec -dot- org>]

I've used the process that Beth described in her original post, and liked it
very much. It's thorough, but not for the faint-hearted - you have to be
able to facilitate the meeting or things can go to hell in a handbasket very
quickly.

An additional benefit I've found is that it helps the SMEs see their
differences first-hand - in my case, I'm writing procedures for staff that
perform the same tasks, but in 3 different locations. The "group review"
often points out small, unimportant procedural differences that otherwise
would drive a writer to drink, due to the perceived need to document them as
exceptions. In a group review, the SMEs will often (maybe 60% of the time)
say, "Okay, we'll *all* do it X way or with Y method, so we're all the
same." This type of process "normalizing" is a nice fringe benefit of a good
group review.

I can't emphasize enough, though, the need for the SMEs to actually read the
document BEFORE the review. If you have someone who won't do this, and tries
to skim the doc as you go along, that person needs to be handled separately
(as Beth suggested).

Corinne

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Roberts [mailto:droberts63 -at- earthlink -dot- net]
Subject: Re: Gathering edits from several people

..a good system. An additional advantage is that the group review ensures
that
everyone agrees what the documentation will contain...


-----Original Message-----
From: Beth Kane <bethkane -at- tcisolutions -dot- com>
..All reviewers are given a hard copy and are asked to mark up all trouble
areas -- not necessarily with detailed notes; brief notes or even an X might
serve the purpose...