Criticising your friend's work
12 May
Feedback by mecredi (flickr)
Since the first term at the Software Engineering and Management programme we’ve gotten used to review other people’s work. I first saw it as a daunting task when the lecturer first imposed it in the project work. First of all having to read someone else’s crappy English, fiercely trying to understand the content, and then in an as positive manner as possible deliver the feedback.
The crash course given at the lecture basically contained three elements:
- Focus on errors
- Don’t discuss solutions
- Take notes
(Yes, I cut out the bureaucratic documentation requirements that were also in the list somewhere. Pardon me.)
Three semesters later it has become a natural part of the projects I participate in. Brainwashed or not, the fact is that it increases the quality of my and other people’s artifacts! However, one should bear in mind that it didn’t come to this without an effort.
In order to have a successful peer-review session one needs to practice giving and taking feedback. The review is a dialogue between the reviewer and the receiver – keep it as such. It is a lot easier to get your ideas and remarks out and understood if there’s communication. But, be clear that you’re only trying to help, don’t make it personal. Finally, have patience. You may have your own version of how you would like to see it, the one under review another. In the end, it is the one who is getting feedback to incorporate the changes or not.
Additionally, I try to make something “extra” at the actual peer-review meeting. Be it having the review over a coffee or helping out with brainstorming on a particular problem, it helps keeping good relations. So the day that you need an artifact reviewed, you know who you can trust to get help.
Do you have any review nightmare stories? What good practicies do you use when reviewing someone’s work?
I tend to “review” code more than documents, but the rules are the same.
In the beginning I assumed that there were small errors everywhere, now I tend to just skim through and note things which makes me confused or break the pattern.
After the big errors are corrected, smaller ones tend to disappear / surface during your second read.
@klaar, the right level of abstraction is definitely necessary. There’s no point correcting grammar mistakes if you expect the entire paragraph to be rewritten. Imo, this is also one of the reason patience is great characteristic of skilled reviewers! Something which also requires practice.