Review: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
=Introduction= | =Introduction= | ||
Review is desired within an open | Review is desired within an open organization - on anything that can lead to organizational learning. The goals are: | ||
#Providing mid-course corrections as necessary | #Providing general feedback | ||
#Providing mid-course corrections as necessary | |||
#Identifying key missing resources that prevent goals from being met | #Identifying key missing resources that prevent goals from being met | ||
#Assessing proper allocation of resources and shifting resources around if necessary | #Assessing proper allocation of resources and shifting resources around if necessary | ||
==Key Elements of Review== | ==Key Elements of a Review Submission== | ||
#Clear presentation of results - allow review to happen rapidly. Brevity and clarity are key, without which it is impossible to go through all of a person's materials. | #Clear presentation of results - allow review to happen rapidly. Brevity and clarity are key, without which it is impossible to go through all of a person's materials. | ||
#Verifiable - results are easily verifiable, increasing the likelihood that | #Verifiable - results are easily verifiable, increasing the likelihood that | ||
Revision as of 23:06, 24 January 2015
If you have suggestions, use our Review Form
Introduction
Review is desired within an open organization - on anything that can lead to organizational learning. The goals are:
- Providing general feedback
- Providing mid-course corrections as necessary
- Identifying key missing resources that prevent goals from being met
- Assessing proper allocation of resources and shifting resources around if necessary
Key Elements of a Review Submission
- Clear presentation of results - allow review to happen rapidly. Brevity and clarity are key, without which it is impossible to go through all of a person's materials.
- Verifiable - results are easily verifiable, increasing the likelihood that
Organizational Review
Key questions:]
- Clarity - What is the mission of the company and what is its unique approach? How is that approach implemented? For OSE, it's the Developing an ethical, open source economy.
- Strategy - does the core work of the company adhere to its core mission?
- Coherence - is every piece of the company aligned with the core mission? What could be better?
- Resource allocation - are people matched to their skill set?
- Projects - are the projects priorities chosen in a way that helps the company grow, while considering constraints and opportinities?
- Learning - what mechanisms are built in so that the company is a learning organization?
Technical Review
Send to forums, publish on blog, Facebook, and send to Subject Matter Experts, etc.
Post the results on a wiki page and link to it in the Development Board for the respective project.
Implementation
Currently, OSE uses the following review process:
Organizational/Technical
- Core contributors maintain a daily Work Log showing all results and progress.
- Staff maintains a Project Review framework consisting of a Critical Path Diagram and a spreadsheet of all supporting tasks
- Core staff writes a monthly planning and review in their work log - 1. summary of accomplishments, 2. What worked. 3. What didn't. 4. Plan for next month.
- Staff meet with ED once a month for the Project Review