3 ms·
I’m working for a customer at the moment that has a rather intense review board. It’s “difficult” because it’s thorough and is supposed to be rather confronting
by AmericanChopper 5y ago
I’m working for a customer at the moment that has a rather intense review board. It’s “difficult” because it’s thorough and is supposed to be rather confronting in regards to design compromises or any oversights that might be discovered. But how you feel about that I think is a matter of perspective, I don’t think there’s any animosity involved. Personally I think every intense review session I have makes me better at my job. The most frustrating thing that can happen is when a significant controversy arises during the review session (which is pretty much what the author is describing in their), but this usually only results from a failure in stakeholder management (which seems to be the general lesson the author took from their experience).
Just don’t be apprehensive about failing in front of an audience, don’t excessively defend or justify mistakes, and then these types of processes become rather easy going.
- nicbou 5y agoI think that it's perfectly possible to be thorough without being an ass about it. You can grill someone without bringing them to tears.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago> You can grill someone without bringing them to tears Perhaps the reviewers in the OPs story could improve their tone a bit, but I really don't think this assertion is true at all. Fear of failure, fear of having your failures exposed, and fear of confrontation are all incredibly commonplace. A thorough review is always going to expose "failures" on some level, even if they were necessitated by project constraints. People who struggle with those fears will always find that kind of process incredibly difficult, regardless of the demeanour of the reviewers. I would even suggest that overcoming those fears and anxieties is a rather fundamental part of the human condition in general.