Session 03: Handling Project Updates

Hello! Welcome to this session of the Content Review Decision Tree project where I am creating a tool to determine what level of review support is needed for content creation. In the previous session, I had established the review tiers and the parameters that determine which review tiers are necessary for projects and other content. In this session, I will research which parameters will determine what review tiers are needed for project updates – which is different than projects.

Here is the table of parameters that was revealed in the last session. If the content is formal, it needs to have Proofread Support, if the content is Formal/Conceptual, it needs to have Confidant Support, and finally, if the content is Formal/Conceptual for Mostly Internal audiences to External audiences, then it needs to have 2D Support.

Here is the same algorithm written in a decision tree format:

1. Is the content Informal?
   • Yes: No review needed
   • No: Move on to Question 2.
2. Is the content Informative or Conceptual?
   • Informative: Only Proofread Support is needed
   • Conceptual: Proofread Support is needed, Confidant Support is needed and move on to Question 3.
3. Is the content solely intended for an Internal Audience?
   • Yes: Then no further review is needed.
   • No: Then 2d Support is needed.

So, what makes project updates different from the content addressed in the decision tree? For one thing, breadth. If the content in question is a single word replacement, for example, that would not require reviews but if two major sections were rewritten to be consolidated into one, then perhaps that would require some review – at least a proofread.

So, what determines if a project update has enough of a change to trigger review support? Maybe I can use the same triggers for projects as clues.

If a project is informal then, like other content created, updates won’t require a review. That’s easy enough.

Updates for formal but informative content is rare. I will assume that those will not need to be reviewed or at least they should only require reviewing with drastic changes. But how drastic is drastic? A complete rewrite? That sounds about right.

If the update is a for a conceptual formal project, then perhaps the only time Confidant Support is necessary is if the nature of the concepts are changed/updated. Same goes for rules regarding 2D Support. What would that be called? Paradigm shift? Conceptual disruption? “Are the changes drastic enough to disrupt the concepts?” I like the sound of that but is there a way to say that without negative connotations? Conceptual shift? Bend? Bend works. Conceptual bend.

So how does this algorithm look?

1. Are the updates for content that is Informal?
   • Yes: No review needed
   • No: Move on to Question 2.
2. Are the updates for content that is Conceptual?
   • Yes: Go to Question 3.
   • No: Go to Question 4.
3. Do the updates bend the concepts enough that they are completely different?
   • Yes: Then follow protocol as it were a new project.
   • No: Go to Question 4.
4. Do the updates entail complete rewrites?
   1. Yes: Get Proofread Support.
   2. No: No review needed.

So now that the algorithm for the tool is established, the next step will be to draft an introduction for the tool and start the review process. Ultimately, this tool will be posted to the site. After this project is complete, there will be a need to update the project management standard guide to incorporate the tool.

In the next session, I’ll tackle the instructions. See you there.

Action Items

• Update Project Management Guidelines to incorporate Content Review Decision Tree
• Update Project Management Guidelines to incorporate new terminology for reviews.
• Update Project Management Guidelines to incorporate Proofread Support.