Re: Peer Reviews

[Beverly Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL>]

Paul Cheverie wrote-->
      Boy, do I ever wish you luck. The peer review system, if it is no
  closely (and I do mean closely) monitored will turn the process of career
  development into institutionalized character assissination. The whole
  prupose behind peer review is to subject people to the criticisms of
  colleagues who have a vested interest in furthering their own careers. It is
  conflict of interest, pure and simple. (Unless of course you are one of
  those poor people who actually believe that the average human being is
  motivated by altruistic principles.)
      I would never work in those conditions for any more than two weeks
  (long enough for notice of resignation), ever. The only people qualified to
  judge my job performance are my customers and my employers. Their only
  vested interests in so far as I am concerned are centred on how well I do my
  job.
==================
Ut oh. I deleted the original message about peer
reviews...without reading it. I'm wondering which definition of
peer review was the topic of discussion: the one Paul describes
(which is becoming popular as part of the self-managed team
concept) or the peer review process associated with reviewing
specific work products as part of the project life cycle.



   =*=   Beverly Parks -- bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil   =*=
   =*=     Huachuca : That's pronounced "wah-CHEW-ka"     =*=
   =*= "Unless otherwise stated, all comments are my own. =*=
   =*=   I am not representing my employer in any way."   =*=