Review

General

Kaizen in continuous quality improvement in a Learning Organization. One step to this is review. Review refers to any aspect of OSE's work, though primarily to the review of OSE's products. OSE's review process is open to the public, in that all review documents are published online. Review can also occur on other levels - such as organizational learning or development processes.

To enable technical review of product design in particular, we publish a Google Presentation that goes through conceptual design, CAD, or pictures of a machine - and requests feedback on certain specified items. Individuals can participate in a formal review meeting, or they can use the Review Form in an ad-hoc fashion below to submit comments and suggestions. Pull Requests can also be reviewed. Working Team members are usually given edit access to prepare review documents.

OSE Review

Review Form Micro-Review

There are 2 ways to do this. One is a formal one, and the other one is the simple Review Form below which can be used to capture learnings. The Review Form below is fully open for access, such that anyone in the project can submit specific review points:

Formal Review

Whether it's the build of a module, machine, house, or of a development process or enterprise concept - the formal review should take place in the form of a detailed point-by-point presentation with pictures, videos, and other supporting information. This should be a cloud editable document that can be marked up. Pictures should have arrows pointing to specific features. Small videos can be uploaded to discuss specific details via webcast. The second half of formal review is an audience:

1. Submission to the OSE Network using the Minds platform.
2. Submission to OBI Advisors, OSE Advisors, and other Subject Matter Experts
3. Active recruiting of SMEs should be engaged by the HR Team.

If you have suggestions, use our Review Form

This applies to technical review of machines, or organizational and process review.

Results

edit

Scope of Review

Review is desired within an open organization - on anything that can lead to organizational learning. The goals are:

1. Providing general feedback
2. Providing mid-course corrections as necessary
3. Identifying key missing resources that prevent goals from being met
4. Assessing proper allocation of resources and shifting resources around if necessary

Key Elements of a Review Submission

1. 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.
2. Verifiable - results are easily verifiable, increasing the likelihood that the feedback is useful

Organizational Review

Key questions:]

1. 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.
2. Strategy - does the core work of the company adhere to its core mission?
3. Coherence - is every piece of the company aligned with the core mission? What could be better?
4. Resource allocation - are people matched to their skill set?
5. Projects - are the projects priorities chosen in a way that helps the company grow, while considering constraints and opportinities?
6. Learning - what mechanisms are built in so that the company is a learning organization?

Technical Review

You can use this form to submit technical review. If you want others to submit technical review, use various communication channels to solicit a response.

Implementation

Usually, OSE asks specific subject matter experts (SME) for feedback on specific design points. Formally, Review is an item in OSE's official Development Template.

Proper Procedure

• To engage in proper review, a Google Slides presentation should be created going through the build in a comprehensive manner. Use arrows to point to various things and to annotate build procedures. This could be fun when certain humane elements are pointed out in the build process.
• Each step should be graded for effectiveness, strong and weak points.
• Clear suggestions should be made for the next build
• The culmination of a proper review is deciding upon a specific list of changes committed for implementation in the next build. This document should be available for the subsequent development cycle, and should be made available to the general public for transparancy of the development process.
• For review, a more ambitious format than a slide presentation is taking existing pictures and videos, and doing a recorded video screencast going through all issues. Attention should be made to keep such a video tight, so dead spots should be edited out.

Organizational/Technical

1. Core contributors maintain a Work Log showing all results and progress.
2. Staff maintains a Project Review framework consisting of a Critical Path Diagram and a spreadsheet of all supporting tasks
3. 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.
4. Staff meet with ED once a month for the Project Review