The Reviewer Is On Your Team – And Is A Mentor/Teacher
A reviewer does not wake up thinking, 'today, I'm going to make that ID's life miserable.' Trust me they have enough problems of their own and don't really care much about your life and day.
When we send our SB for review, we are basically asking the reviewer to judge it. And sometimes the line is smudged. The judgment is made not only about our work but by extension about us [the person]. This is very human thing to do. Often, as far as the seniors are concerned we are as good as our last SB. This is life. Accept it. Know that it is difficult process to go through for both writers and reviewers.
Now, there are multiple variables that affect this experience.
Part played by each role in the life cycle of a project:
IDs: They know the content best. However, they might not always understand the business need the content has to fulfill (mostly due to lack of experience). If the ID is someone just out of college or someone with absolutely no knowledge of the business vertical – they are not expected to always know everything. They only know what is given in the source content. But often the source content might not provide the relation of the content with the business need explicitly.
So they need to be trained properly at the start of the project. They should be told how their content relates to the business need of the course. This can be done either by the ID lead, delivery head or whoever is responsible for client communication.
IDs should remember that they take the final onus of their SBs. No arguments about this. The IDs should never say – I did whatever changes given by reviewer/SME without understanding why. At the end of the day – the SB belongs to you. Take pride in what you do and understand why you have been asked to modify your SB. This is the only way to learn. There is no training except asking question and understanding the logic behind the feedback.
If you have not been informed about the business need of your course – ASK. It is your job to get all the information necessary to make your course a good fit. Others will always be too busy to help you out. So unless you ask question, you might not get the answers to make your SB relevant.
You have the onus - you created it so take responsibility for it and do it well.
ID reviewers: They are expected to know how the content fulfills the business need, whether the approach taken by the ID is the best possible solution for the given audience. They are the ones who sign off the SB. They are the ones responsible to ensure that the client is happy.
However, their feedback is always a suggestion and not mandatory. This means that even though they make suggestion, the IDs have to understand and agree with it before implementing the changes. If there is a standoff then the matter should be escalated to the ID lead.
ID reviewers should study the client requirements and audience background in detail so that they can ensure that the client expectations are met. They should also ensure that they give constructive feedback. Also give reasons for the comment in the SB. This way, an ID would know why you have asked for the change and won’t come and disturb you later. The only time they will come is if they don’t understand a particular comment or if they don’t agree with it. So, know why you are giving feedback at all time.
ID leads: They are the ones who communicate with the client and understand their requirements and communicate it to the team. In case of an escalation, they are the shield between the team and the client. They are expected to bear the brunt of escalations. They are to handle all escalation while ensuring that the client or delivery head don’t de-motivate the team members with their scathing remarks. They carry out SB audits to ensure that the SBs sent to the client are of best quality.
They are also responsible for developing their team’s skill set. They are the ones who handle the standoff between the IDs and ID reviewers as they are expected to know the client requirements best.
Now that we have seen the part played by each role in the life cycle of a project, let’s move on to the challenges of ID-ID reviewers relationship and how to overcome them.
Challenges faced by Reviewers:
There are many factors that add to these challenges. These are:
Lack of training:
The reviewer doesn’t know that the feedback has to be about the work and not about the person [causes most problems]. This happens when people are not given any training before being told to fulfill the role.
Reviewer’s past:
What happens when the reviewer has never had a good reviewer/role model to imitate? If the reviewer doesn’t know a good review from a bad review then there won’t be a reference point for them judge how they provide the feedback.
Reviewing experience:
How long has the reviewer been doing this task. Often due to lack of training, the reviewers learn on the job. So the more experience a person has reviewing other people’s work, the better they become at doing reviews.
Has it been a good day?
How the reviewer’s day been before they started reviewing a SB also affects the feedback they give. After all, reviewers are humans too.
Trust me when I say that what they reviewed before they started your file, what meetings/emails they received - influences their tolerance towards your SB. Just like the feedback you received influences your day.
When your SB review is the first task of their day, the comments are generally more constructive. However, when the SB is being reviewed towards the end of the day, after a particularly bad earlier review or some real crazy meeting/email, the reviewer is less tolerant of the errors in the SB. So, sometimes you may get the raw deal in terms of reviews.
What IDs can do about it:
Assimilate the feedback:
If the reviewer has given you a specific feedback twice before, the same mistake should not be reflected in the third SB. When the reviewer has to review two or three SBs per day – patience becomes the virtue of saints. And reviewers are not saints. So do a self review before sending your SB.
Keep communication channels open:
To overcome getting stressed out by review comments, keep a communication channel open with the reviewer. If the feedback is particularly bad [you know what I mean – the comments are more personal or the reviewer had been okay with similar thing in past but is treating it as a major issue today] have a discussion with the reviewer.
Discuss first, escalate last:
If you have not understood a particular comment or are not sure whether the suggestion is correct, discuss it with the reviewer (first) only if the two of you can’t come to an agreement escalate it to the lead.
Give feedback:
If you feel that the comments are personal and they hurt you, speak with the reviewer. Tell that person that you are not okay with the type of comments.
However, handle such a discussion in a professional manner. At no time should the writer and reviewer forget that they are professional workers.
Maintain relations; learn to work as a team, to discuss disagreements without losing your cool and you will soon find yourself climbing up the ladder.
When we send our SB for review, we are basically asking the reviewer to judge it. And sometimes the line is smudged. The judgment is made not only about our work but by extension about us [the person]. This is very human thing to do. Often, as far as the seniors are concerned we are as good as our last SB. This is life. Accept it. Know that it is difficult process to go through for both writers and reviewers.
Now, there are multiple variables that affect this experience.
Part played by each role in the life cycle of a project:
IDs: They know the content best. However, they might not always understand the business need the content has to fulfill (mostly due to lack of experience). If the ID is someone just out of college or someone with absolutely no knowledge of the business vertical – they are not expected to always know everything. They only know what is given in the source content. But often the source content might not provide the relation of the content with the business need explicitly.
So they need to be trained properly at the start of the project. They should be told how their content relates to the business need of the course. This can be done either by the ID lead, delivery head or whoever is responsible for client communication.
IDs should remember that they take the final onus of their SBs. No arguments about this. The IDs should never say – I did whatever changes given by reviewer/SME without understanding why. At the end of the day – the SB belongs to you. Take pride in what you do and understand why you have been asked to modify your SB. This is the only way to learn. There is no training except asking question and understanding the logic behind the feedback.
If you have not been informed about the business need of your course – ASK. It is your job to get all the information necessary to make your course a good fit. Others will always be too busy to help you out. So unless you ask question, you might not get the answers to make your SB relevant.
You have the onus - you created it so take responsibility for it and do it well.
ID reviewers: They are expected to know how the content fulfills the business need, whether the approach taken by the ID is the best possible solution for the given audience. They are the ones who sign off the SB. They are the ones responsible to ensure that the client is happy.
However, their feedback is always a suggestion and not mandatory. This means that even though they make suggestion, the IDs have to understand and agree with it before implementing the changes. If there is a standoff then the matter should be escalated to the ID lead.
ID reviewers should study the client requirements and audience background in detail so that they can ensure that the client expectations are met. They should also ensure that they give constructive feedback. Also give reasons for the comment in the SB. This way, an ID would know why you have asked for the change and won’t come and disturb you later. The only time they will come is if they don’t understand a particular comment or if they don’t agree with it. So, know why you are giving feedback at all time.
ID leads: They are the ones who communicate with the client and understand their requirements and communicate it to the team. In case of an escalation, they are the shield between the team and the client. They are expected to bear the brunt of escalations. They are to handle all escalation while ensuring that the client or delivery head don’t de-motivate the team members with their scathing remarks. They carry out SB audits to ensure that the SBs sent to the client are of best quality.
They are also responsible for developing their team’s skill set. They are the ones who handle the standoff between the IDs and ID reviewers as they are expected to know the client requirements best.
Now that we have seen the part played by each role in the life cycle of a project, let’s move on to the challenges of ID-ID reviewers relationship and how to overcome them.
Challenges faced by Reviewers:
There are many factors that add to these challenges. These are:
Lack of training:
The reviewer doesn’t know that the feedback has to be about the work and not about the person [causes most problems]. This happens when people are not given any training before being told to fulfill the role.
Reviewer’s past:
What happens when the reviewer has never had a good reviewer/role model to imitate? If the reviewer doesn’t know a good review from a bad review then there won’t be a reference point for them judge how they provide the feedback.
Reviewing experience:
How long has the reviewer been doing this task. Often due to lack of training, the reviewers learn on the job. So the more experience a person has reviewing other people’s work, the better they become at doing reviews.
Has it been a good day?
How the reviewer’s day been before they started reviewing a SB also affects the feedback they give. After all, reviewers are humans too.
Trust me when I say that what they reviewed before they started your file, what meetings/emails they received - influences their tolerance towards your SB. Just like the feedback you received influences your day.
When your SB review is the first task of their day, the comments are generally more constructive. However, when the SB is being reviewed towards the end of the day, after a particularly bad earlier review or some real crazy meeting/email, the reviewer is less tolerant of the errors in the SB. So, sometimes you may get the raw deal in terms of reviews.
What IDs can do about it:
Assimilate the feedback:
If the reviewer has given you a specific feedback twice before, the same mistake should not be reflected in the third SB. When the reviewer has to review two or three SBs per day – patience becomes the virtue of saints. And reviewers are not saints. So do a self review before sending your SB.
Keep communication channels open:
To overcome getting stressed out by review comments, keep a communication channel open with the reviewer. If the feedback is particularly bad [you know what I mean – the comments are more personal or the reviewer had been okay with similar thing in past but is treating it as a major issue today] have a discussion with the reviewer.
Discuss first, escalate last:
If you have not understood a particular comment or are not sure whether the suggestion is correct, discuss it with the reviewer (first) only if the two of you can’t come to an agreement escalate it to the lead.
Give feedback:
If you feel that the comments are personal and they hurt you, speak with the reviewer. Tell that person that you are not okay with the type of comments.
However, handle such a discussion in a professional manner. At no time should the writer and reviewer forget that they are professional workers.
Maintain relations; learn to work as a team, to discuss disagreements without losing your cool and you will soon find yourself climbing up the ladder.
Comments
Post a Comment