Re: Documentation review

[Beth Agnew <beth -dot- agnew -at- senecac -dot- on -dot- ca>]

I think you are risking reviewer burnout with any schedule you come up 
with for that many documents in a short time frame. Even without 
overlap, the reviewers are going to get sick of reviewing publications. 
I suggest a little creative thinking to determine what absolutely has to 
be reviewed, what the review needs to consist of -- just typos or a 
full-scale content/technical review? -- and can any documents be bundled 
(yes, overlapped) or farmed out to other people.

The big concern is the length of meetings. I would not go beyond 2 
hours. That is about the limit of most people in a meeting. After that, 
you get the law of diminishing returns in operation. The quality goes 
down, people are tired, and you might as well be doing something else 
with your time. Perhaps 2 or 3 successive meetings a day apart would 
work better. Break that longer document up into sections. Does every 
reviewer have to see every section of that long publication? Are there 
some reviews that are just "mark up the copy" and others that need to be 
discussed?

I think most reviewers could take say, 3 shorter documents home on the 
weekend and review them. Or have 2-3 days for reviewing a bundle of 3 
without being overloaded. It may actually be easier, because they get 
into the frame of mind of reviewing. Try grouping similiar or related 
documents together. I would also give reviewers a covering list of what 
specifically you want them to look for, so that they focus their 
attention during the review.

Good luck with that!
--Beth

Lucero, Peggy wrote: