Select. First, make a strategic decision about two things. For this project, what work products will be put through the formal peer review process? (For more on this, see the previous section.) Then, for each of those products, who will do the reviewing? Selecting the right review groups is essential to holding productive reviews. Such groups typically fall into one of two categories: upstream stakeholders and downstream stakeholders.

Upstream stakeholders may be people who . . .

• Provided content for the material;

• Are affected by a commitment contained in the material;

• Oversaw production of the material.

Downstream recipients may be people who...

• Work with the received material;

• Will need to approve resulting work products;

• Will be accountable for the suitability of the resulting work product.

Look at the makeup of the project’s stakeholder groups. Comparison with the attributes in the foregoing lists will identify the best reviewers for the project.

Plan. The peer review process should be instituted as part of the project management methodology. The steps in the process should be planned, and the plan executed and monitored (the definition of project management). The plan for any particular project need not be complex or overly detailed, but it should contain what every good plan contains: the who, what, and when of the work. For peer review plans, here’s a core set of data to consider for inclusion.

• The work products that will be reviewed;

• The stakeholders who will review each product;

• The expected dates for individual review periods and review meetings;

• A brief description of the process, procedures, and tools available; and

• Identification of the process manager and meeting facilitators.

Distribute. With the work product completed and the reviewers informed, send out the material to them. This can be achieved by “pushing” it out, as through an e-mail. Or the relevant documents can be “pulled” down from a preset Web site. Whichever path is chosen, it’s important to make sure that the material is easily accessible.

Review. Once the work product has been distributed to the right stakeholder groups, give them time to inspect it on their own. Here are three tips to make this review period productive.

• Allow people plenty of time to review the work. Don’t spring it on them.

• Provide guidelines for how to critique the work. In other words, let the reviewers know what elements of the work they should be scrutinizing. (These guidelines will naturally be contingent on the type of work product under review.)

• Provide tools to aid the review. Most often this is a blank inspection report, a form the reviewers can use to record their notes and comments and rate issues as they appear.

This kind of preparation should ensure that the selected reviewers are ready to contribute productively to the upcoming peer review meeting.

Convene and comment. Here’s the visible act of the peer review: the review meeting. (Actually, most of the work should come before and after this middle step.) Here everybody comes together to discuss the work according to their review notes. This is an opportunity to ask questions, clarify understandings, raise issues, and generally discuss the quality and suitability of the product. Treat this review as a formal meeting. Ensure that it’s properly facilitated, that a note taker or recorder has been appointed, and that attendees have been properly prepped to contribute accordingly.

Revise. The wisdom of peer reviewers will help make a project’s work products better. Through the act of reviewing, convening, and commenting, the review team will provide a set of changes—some perhaps small, others perhaps large—that can be applied to the work to make it acceptable to all parties. Take this input now and revise the work accordingly. Depending on the extent of the revision, another peer review round or only a quick informal review may be required. Either way, a point close to general consensus and approval has now been reached.

Baseline. A baseline is an essential ingredient for coordinated work. It represents the official version of a document. The main intent of the peer review process is to get a team satisfied enough with the state of a work product that it can be baselined. Once it’s baselined, the project team can work from it with confidence; by default, it represents the official version of the information at hand. Without recognized baselines, teams may end up working with outdated or unapproved materials, or with current data sets mixed among current versions—typically resulting in backtracking, rework, and efforts at reorganization. With a baseline, people can more readily work in agreement and in the same direction.

Change control. This is really the final destination of any peer review process: control of the approved baseline. The process itself provided the steps needed to get certain material in front of a particular set of eyes; from there it was scrutinized and refined for value; and from there its final form was approved. A common consensus regarding this material now exists. Here’s where change control comes in. From this point on, any changes to the material should go through a formal procedure that is itself a type of mini peer review: Requests for changes are documented, assessed, and decided on by duly recognized members of the project team. With adherence to this coordinated sequence, change does not get out of hand and products do not drift out of shape. Through change control, the integrity of baselined work products remains intact. This is illustrated in Figure 15-1.