How do you review documents (hands-on)?
And what do you do when the documents you receive are not in the more commonly editable formats? Or when you do not have a license of Microsoft Office / Microsoft Office 365?
So many questions, so many answers...
Note: Some of the considerations below assume you are using an Office Suite (that supports tracked changes and peer review comments).
Review roles
There should be a moderator for the review (the person that should make sure everyone reviews things in time and that makes sure a reviewed artifact comes out of the peer review activity). This could be the author, or not. All other involved are peer reviewers.Note: Some process definitions can differentiate the moderator from the author roles. For larger teams, it could make sense. For smaller teams and / or more informal organizations, the author could work as moderator.
Review Types
There are several types of (document peer) reviews. Think: Commentary, Walk-through, Full-reading (run from those ones!). We are talking mainly of the Commentary ones here.How do you peer review (The Process)?
Ideally you (as a moderator for the review) should ask for peer reviewers to edit inline trivial errors (such as typos); and comment the document with whatever needs commenting (a comment is a sentence regarding the selected text the comment is about). Comments should be done "near" the paragraph / section they are related to.The document could be reviewed simultaneously but it will be better (e.g. avoiding duplicated comments) to be circulated between all review members.
Circulation could be made by e-mail, or using the DMS and / or VCS: I will make my review and I will commit the version with my comments to the VCS (while warning the next person - or the whole review team - that the comment is free for the next reviewer).
This really depends on what your review process / procedure states in your QMS.
If the review team is not fully inside the subject of the the document, and/or the objective of the peer review, it might be a good idea for you to do a presentation of the document being reviewed (a meeting where the document and the objectives is presented; eventually the check-lists to use as input for the review could also be presented; and the schedules for the review are emphasized: "Do this for tomorrow, or else..."). In this meeting you could also explain how the review will be done (in sequence, all at the same time, using what tools for commenting, ...).
In the end of the rework (rework is made based on the peer review comments that are approved for implementation) the moderator could have the power to ask for a re-review. Mainly it will be a good idea if the rework that has been done was profound and if you feel that a new review (delta, or full) is needed to ensure the final document quality. Look at the review process / procedure in your company for rules on re-reviews.
Sometimes it will be mandatory for the review organizer to extract (or make a tool extract) the review metrics. That could include, #of comments, how many of them were acknowledged (and implemented), how many were dismissed, etc. A metrics repository could be fed with this (important performance) information. Ask about that part also (company dependent).
With what tools (The Supporting Tools)?
- If you are producing the document internally, deliver it internally for peer review in an editable format. If everyone has the app to edit it (and that app supports comments).- If someone does not have a license of Microsoft Office, try to see if free Office Suites are suitable for your document (some Office Suites will "damage" more complex documents; think: Open Office, Libre Office, ...). If so, recommend installation of those.
- "Google docs" allows you opening and commenting (MS Office) documents. So it could be an option. Just test it with the concrete document you need to review.
If you only have a PDF and you want to peer review it you could:
- Try to create an editable document from the PDF (several utilities can be found - google is your friend, but do test the conversion since more complex docs could not be well extracted/converted).
- Try to comment right away the PDF: https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/feature-details/acrobatpro/pdfs/adding-comments-to-a-pdf-document.pdf
Merging Comments (If possible, No)?
In the end, if you do a sequential comment workflow (which is recommended and will dispense you from having to merge all peer reviewers comments into a single document) the document owner (the one responsible to process and close all comments provided) will receive a single file, that went through all peer reviewers to process.If you have several documents with comments from several reviewers, do not dispair. Remember that MS Word has that wonderful feature to merge 2 versions of the same document (try to save one above the other and MS Word will offer to Merge contents). A tracked changed version (with all comments merged also) can be produced in this way.
Easy ain't it? :)
Note: If you opt to use an Office Suite like google docs (of Office365) that allow concurrent edits by several users at the same time (without frequent unsolvable merge conflicts that tear your hair apart), the merge part is not needed, of course.
Recap
Read the guidelines to peer review artifacts in your QMS. Know if there are check lists associated to check against, during the review. Know how to edit inline and comment a paragraph, Know how to circulate the document between the team. And be a good boy: do review technically and formally the stuff. Do not just point formatting and English issues (but do report those also).Further Reading (The Process stuff): For further info, look for your company's SUP03 - Verification Process and the Review Procedure documents (or equivalent), that shall detail the above considerations. Mine's are here: https://goo.gl/4EKKec (INTERNAL resource).
History:
@2017-04-26: Added INTERNAL QMS links; added Google Docs note; updated tags.
