Iteration Fatigue!
Jun 23, 2022
We create learning modules and online ed for a number of government agencies. We deliver storyboards that often are reviewed by 6-12 people with various levels of expertise or subject matter expertise. As a result, we are managing huge numbers of edits per iteration. How are folks managing version control? What do we need in place to keep things clean as they are being passed upward for review, back down to us for correction and back up again for the various pieces (often the storyboard and slides?
We're drowning and could use some structure tips? Many thanks
3 Replies
Aside from comments that are only about fixing typos and similar errors, all comments should be considered "suggestions." Just because one reviewer wants something said or done a certain way doesn't mean others will agree.
If possible, establish one person who has "final say." After collecting comments from the group, that person should go through the review file and indicate which comments to implement. This helps solve conflicts before you make the edits. And, hopefully, it'll help you avoid re-revising the same piece.
If there just isn't one person who has that power, it might help to set up a meeting to discuss comments and decide which suggestions to use.
Be sure to stress at the start of each review cycle what people should be looking for -- and what has already been approved (and will, therefore, cost extra to revise). That's especially important for audio and video scripts.
Hi Marguerite. That's a very frustrating but also not uncommon challenge many of us face. It's time-consuming for us to reconcile all those edits. Plus, the agency is spending a lot of time on reviews and may be able to get a similar level of accuracy for a lot less work.
I'll second everything Judy mentioned and add on to her list:
Hi Marguerite, I also make eLearning for the US Federal Government and it can be exhausting. Here are some suggestions that may or may not work for your situation.
Before each course-building project, create a detailed project plan that indicates how many revisions you will do. For example, I like to keep the working group small (preferably 1-3 people) and talk with them each week as I'm building the first draft. Make sure the project owner (the decision-maker for the client) signs and agrees to the project plan. Make it formal.
Once the first draft is done we have two stakeholder reviews where larger groups of stakeholders review the course and provide suggestions. I make no changes to the course during this time. Once all the comments are in, we go through the comments with the working group and decide if those suggestions are in or out. I make the changes, and then we have the second review, which is run the same way.
If there are people who have "veto" power, or the power to say what must be in or out in the course, then that person has to be part of the working group. They can assign a proxy, but only if they are willing to accept the decisions their proxy makes.
Once the two review are done, (or however many formal review you agree to at the beginning of the project) then that's it. The client has to start paying extra for every additional review. Once they know it will cost them money, they will usually pull back. Also let them know there may be charges for out-of-scope changes.
Also understand that in the government, many people feel it's necessary to get their two-cents in, and what they say could have less to do about what they think the course should actually contain, and more about them trying to make a point, or get their pet projects to be covered in the course. So the scope should be carefully defined.
I went through a project last year that took way too long, and no amount of detailed project plans or stern conversations about scope would help. Sometimes there's just no help. Good luck to you!