October 21st, 2009
STC San Francisco
Documentation Review:
Get It Done!
1. About Today’s Session
2. “Tops and Flops” Game
3. “Version Madness” Game
4. “Open vs. Structure Collaboration” Game
5. Take-Away and Demo: The TPS Reports Case

1. About Today’s Session
What are we talking about today?
Today’s session is about:
 Technical documentation review
 Optimal collaboration
Why is it important?
LiveTechDocs research shows optimal collaboration leads to better
documentation review:
 Qualitatively: Less frustrations, better review
 Quantitatively: Docs get reviewed 50% faster
What are our objectives today?
 Share experiences and learn about the way we collaborate
 Experience collaboration best practices
 Have fun!

Documentation Review:
Get It Done!
1. About Today’s Session
2. “Tops and Flops” Game
3. “Version Madness” Game
4. “Open vs. Structured Collaboration” Game
5. Take-Away and Demo: The TPS Reports Case

2. “Tops and Flops” Game
Share your reviewing success story:
 Why is it your favorite?
 How did you communicate with people?
 Who coordinated feedback? How?
Share your worst time waster during review:
• I have to chase people around for feedback via email
• I get feedback in many different forms and formats
• I spend too much time keeping track of all the versions circulating
Individual exercise Group exercise Review results
Your best top & flop Select best top & flop Group representative
3 minutes 3 minutes 3 minutes

2. “Tops and Flops” Game
Results from workgroups session:
Flops Tops
Lack of collaboration Create a collaborative environment
- Doc published without review - “War room” - Everyone in one room
- No or late feedback - Doc is low priority - Ask for team commitment prior starting review
- Refuse to review because too much work
No or wrong tools Set up your own tool
- Multiple copies and formats send for review - Edit directly in my file - saves time but…
- Time consuming to incorporate comments - Color coded pen to cover area of expertise
- Feedback is left out
- Managing conflicting comments
Sub-optimal review process Enforce a well defined process
- Reviewers comment on everything - Identify SMA (Subject Matter Areas)
- Conflicting comments - Assign SMA to SME (accountant review)
- Unstructured reviews - Quick-off - roles, planning, progress tracking
- Feedback on grammar/sentence structure
- How feedback is handled (reviewer concern)

Documentation Review:
Get It Done!
1. About Today’s Session
2. “Tops and Flops” Game
3. “Version Madness” Game
4. “Open vs. Structured Collaboration” Game
5. Take-Away and Demo: The TPS Reports Case

3. “Version Madness” Game
Part 1: Writers gives reviewers their own version
Dear Writer, you have two minutes to distribute this document to the
reviewers and Subject Matter Experts of your group, and collect their
feedback.
2 minutes
Part 2: Writers share a central version
Dear Writer, you have two minutes to have your team review this
document.
2 minutes

3. “Version Madness” Game
Results from workgroups session:
Cons Pro
One separate - Someone needs to merge - Good when doc returned
feedback in one doc
document/version
- Duplicate comments
for each
writer/reviewer/SM - Conflicting comments
E
One central and - Lack a leader - Collaborative experience
shared - Time consuming for people - Doc gets reviewed
involved in meeting
document/version - Everyone agrees
on which everyone
collaborates
=> Game showed to all groups that working collaboratively on one
shared documents enhances the documentation review (quality, time).

Documentation Review:
Get It Done!
1. About Today’s Session
2. “Tops and Flops” Game
3. “Version Madness” Game
4. “Open vs. Structured Collaboration” Game
5. Take-Away and Demo: The TPS Reports Case

4. “Open vs. Structured Collaboration” Game
Part I: Open collaboration a-la-wiki
Dear documentation team and stakeholders, here is a document, feel
free to take one, edit and comment, and have it reviewed in two
minutes.
2 minutes
Part II: Structured collaboration workflow
Dear Manager, please mobilize your writers and reviewers and have
this document reviewed in two minutes.
2 minutes

4. “Open vs. Structured Collaboration” Game
Results from workgroups session:
Cons Pro
- Time consuming - Everyone is involved
- Conflicting comments - Make myself heard
Open Collaboration - Duplicates
- Non-relevant feedback
- Not everybody had - Clear what “I” need to do
understood the process
Structured - Requires less time to review
Collaboration - Less feedback; better quality
=> Game showed to all groups that structured collaboration (everyone has a
defined role and attributions) produces better results (time, experience) for
documentation review than open collaboration (no rules, a-la-wiki).

Documentation Review:
Get It Done!
1. About Today’s Session
2. “Tops and Flops” Game
3. “Version Madness” Game
4. “Open vs. Structured Collaboration” Game
5. Take-Away and Demo: The TPS Reports Case

4. Take-Away and Demo
Tops and Flops
- Doc review is at its best when the team is engaged
- Effective doc review can only be achieved with the right tools
- Doc review requires a clear process
Version Madness
- Collaboration fails when people work on separate medium
- Reviewing time is reduced by working on a central document
-Open vs. Structured Collaboration
- Reviewing docs requires a structured workflow and defined roles
- Open collaboration works better for crowd sourcing than project mgt

4. Take-Away and Demo
LiveTechDocs is our approach to solving documentation
review through structured online collaboration.
Watch how LiveTechDocs helps Dunder Mifflin manage the TPS Reports!

Have something to say. We want to hear it!
Follow us on Twitter
Join our community and contribute!
Subscribe to LiveTechDocs RSS feeds