The first reviewer was the most junior level manager. He decided the other three knew much more that he did and would catch any errors. The second reviewer was more senior than the first and she decided that the first reviewer would catch anything obvious and the third and fourth reviewers would catch all of the more difficult problems. The third reviewer was sure that the first two would catch any errors and the fourth reviewer would make any important decisions. The fourth reviewer decided that if there were any problems, one of the other three reviewers would have found and corrected them before the document came to her for review.
Thus, each of the four reviewers signed the document and none of them reviewed it at all. So, what is the answer to this apparent puzzle. There are two answers that should be applied in all cases of multiple document review:
- When developing a process procedure there should always be a specific expectation as to what each reviewer is to be responsible for checking and correcting.
- Regardless of what the procedures say, each person assigned to review a document is to consider that she or he is the only one who is checking the document. Therefore, if there is an error to be corrected or a decision that needs to be made, there is no expectation that anyone else will do it. This attitude ensures that a document receiving multiple reviews get more attentions, not less, than one receiving a single reivew.
If you come across some internal control puzzle, such as four signers none of whom actually review anything, or you have more ideas on when to specify multiple reviews or how to make sure all reviewers do what is expected of them, send a message to Stu on Patrol or use the comment feature of this blog to get back to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment