Hello and welcome to this inaugural session for the the Content Review Decision Tree where I will make a tool for determining what capacity new or modified content needs to be reviewed. This session will be dedicated to planning – identifying what the problem is and conceptualizing solutions.
This project was brought about during the Review Forum project, specifically during the production session since the updates being conducted were not as robust to feel like a project but were new enough that it didn’t feel right to publish without at least a second pair of eyes to review. As my instinct is always to “not reach out” in a gray area of “does this warrant reaching out for help” I thought it would be more trusting to create a tool to help make the decision for me.
Finding The Need
Quite simply, I need help determining when a project requires external review and at what capacity.
The Ideal Solution
The ideal solution would be a decision tree or a series of “case statements” that would succinctly identify the proper protocol for clearly defined parameters for project updates.
This solution would live on the projects site under a menu item called “Tools” for easy retrieval.
Sussing out the Scope
This project seems pretty straightforward. I will need to identify the types of review capacity options and the parameters in which those capacities would be okay.
I don’t know what would be considered to be “outside of scope” for this project. Or maybe I’m so hyperfocused on a possible solution that I’m blind to pitfalls. Maybe I should have a list of scope categories to help define what the boundaries are for typical projects. This could divide out into project scope and product scope.
- Format: Text format hosted directly on the web
- Availability: Freely available on projects.cryptiquest.com
- Breadth: This tool will have two sections: an introduction and the solution.
- Subject Expertise: The content will be based on Cryptiquest standards and guidelines.
- Target Audience: Internal to Cryptiquest though might appeal to external developers.
- Deadline: Up to December 13th. This should give enough slack before starting January’s goals.
- Duration: This shouldn’t take too much time; arbitrary estimate is 8 hours.
- Direct Stakeholders: Me
- Indirect Stakeholders: Reviewers
- Invisible Stakeholders: Future consumers, Independent developers who may one day use CQ Project Tools
- Materials: None
- Direct Expenses: None
- Indirect Expenses: Website costs
To create a decision tree for determining what type of review process is required for Cryptiquest content.
Here are the objectives that will determine whether the project is successful or not:
- This project followed Cryptiquest Project Management guidelines.
- This project was finished by December 13, 2019.
- The product is accessible freely to anyone who can access the website.
- The product can be easily updated (where easily updated is defined less than a day to simple content update and post) based on user feedback.
- Draft Retrospective Framework
- Draft the solution
- Draft the instructions
- Conduct internal review
- Conduct need-analysis
- Prepare drafts for review
- Conduct confidant review
- Edit and conduct second-draft review
- Conduct second-draft edits
- Upload content to website and update navigation
- Assess the need-analysis
- Create marketing materials
- Launch to market
- Review the life of the project
- List issues
- Analyze issues
- Record action items
- Identify loose ends
- Tie up loose ends
- Update Project Management Guidelines with project scope items