In order to conduct an effective review, everyone has a role to play. More specifically, there are certain roles that
must be played, and reviewers cannot switch roles easily. The basic roles in a review are:
-
review coordinator, who has the following sub roles:
- moderator
- recorder
- responsible
-
reviewers
The moderator makes sure that the review follows its agenda and stays focused on the topic at hand. The moderator
ensures that side-discussions do not derail the review, and that all reviewers participate equally.
The recorder is an often overlooked, but essential part of the review team. Keeping track of what was discussed and
documenting actions to be taken is a full-time task. Assigning this task to one of the reviewers essentially keeps them
out of the discussion. Worse yet, failing to document what was decided will likely lead to the issue coming up again in
the future. Make sure to have a recorder and make sure that this is the only role the person plays.
The responsible role is the author of the work product under review. The presenter explains the work product
and any background information needed to understand it (although if the work product was not self-explanatory, it
probably needs some work). It's important that reviews not become "trials" - the focus should be on the work product,
not on the presenter. It is the moderator's role to make sure that participants (including the presenter) keep this in
mind. The presenter is there to kick-off the discussion, to answer questions and to offer clarification.
Reviewers raise issues. It's important to keep focused on this, and not get drawn into side discussions of how to
address the issue. Focus on results, not the means.
As discussed above, the moderator plays a crucial role in keeping the review from losing focus. It's important that the
moderator be focused on keeping the review on track; the moderator should not have reviewer responsibilities. The role
of the moderator is to elicit discussion, ensure equal participation, and to defuse contention. This is a full-time
task. Failure to moderate effectively causes reviews to drag on beyond their intended conclusion, and to fail to
achieve their goals.
Reviews are most effective when they are brief and focused on well-identified objectives. Because it is difficult to
maintain focus for long periods, and because reviewers have other work to do as well, limit reviews to no more than two
hours. If a review is expected to go longer, break it into several smaller and more focused reviews. Results will be
better if reviewers can maintain focus.
The key to doing this is to have a well-identified agenda and clearly articulated goals. These should be communicated
when the review materials are distributed, and the moderator should reinforce them when the review meeting begins. The
moderator must then consistently (and sometime ruthlessly) reinforce these goals during the meeting.
|