Need to mark a review item with "Don't Care"

Options
[Deleted User]
[Deleted User] Posts: 160
edited October 2016 in
For the Review Center Approver options it would be very helpful to add a "don't care" option.  We have multi-disciplinary review teams and there are items that are not applicable to that particular reviewer, but the person doesn't feel comfortable or have the knowledge to mark "Approved".  This leaves the Moderator when looking at status with partially completed reviews not certain if the Approver did not complete, or only marked certain items.

An example would be a mechanical engineer reviewing the mechanical part of a requirement, but not commenting on the software section.  It would be preferable for that person to mark "don't care" for items they have looked at / acknowledged, but not marked Approved.  Then the Moderator could know they have finished the review.

Comments

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 911
    edited June 2016
    Options
    Thanks for the idea, Jeff! I think it'd be ideal to have custom statuses for marking reviews, as business needs might vary by sector and more granular options are needed.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 70
    edited May 2015
    Options
    Customizable marking fields are a real good idea. We ran into the same problem and have addressed some feature requests in the old forum regarding this issue.

    We have some rules to get a traceable (official) review result:
    - All reviewers are invited as "approvers"
    - All reviewers have to review the complete specification (if not defined differently in the invitation)

    Our users don't feel comfortable with the wording "Approved", if they are invited as "approvers". Therefore, we added another rule:

    - If you cannot judge on an item leave it open and add a comment in the final comment field (missing time, knowledge, ...)

    Personally, I don't like this option. From my point of view a reviewer should review all parts of a specification (again: if not defined differently) to:
    1. get a high quality specification
    2. to check that there aren't any contradictions e.g. between hardware and software requirements.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 81
    edited September 2016
    Options
    We had submitted a request to have a "n/a" selection.  In our scenario, it would be nice if those reviewing items could "n/a" those items that don't pertain to them.  For instance, I might have expert knowledge on system A and no knowledge on system B; however items are included in a review for both systems.  I would not feel comfortable "approving" items for system B, but rather would want to "n/a" them.

    We have currently worked around this scenario by either:
    1) Approving all items and then adding a comment (either on the item or the overall review) on what is specifically being approved.
    2) Sending out separate reviews for each system to those that it pertains to.

    We don't really like option 2 as sometimes overall context can be lost as changes to system A could impact system B.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 70
    edited May 2015
    Options
    I'm not sure "n/a" is the correct wording for our use case. What does "n/a" mean? What is the difference between "n/a" and not marked.

    If "n/a" means

    "I have checked the item, I don't see improvement potential (e.g. with respect quality of the requirement) AND the item doesn't affect the system I'm responsible for. However, I can't judge the content, because it isn't my work topic"

    I agree. However, from my point of view this is already covered by the "Approved" marking. I know that the software engineer can't evaluate whether the resistor in the hardware specification is correct. But if the software engineer doesn't read the hardware spec, he/she doesn't know which MCU the hardware engineer uses.

    I think this is a individual issue. It really depends on the company's processes. Therefore, I like Kristina's idea to have configurable markings. I think we would rename the "Approved" button to "Reviewed" to take off the pressure from the developers.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 2
    edited September 2016
    Options
    We would really like a not applicable or N/A option in the review center.

    Our reviews go across several engineering disciplines. The moderator needs to know everyone looked over all of the document. The reviewer would use this option when their is an item which they can not provide input.

    We do not want reviews leaving any item unmarked nor do we want them blindly approving items.
  • Andrea Huey
    Andrea Huey Member Posts: 3
    edited April 2020
    Options
    It looks like this request is several years old, but we would also greatly benefit from a "Don't Care" option in Review Center. Different people on our team are responsible for different sections of requirements, but need to see all requirements to understand the context for the ones they are responsible for. Right now, we are defining the "Approve" option as "Okay to move next workflow state," regardless of if the underlying reasoning is a genuine approval or a don't care. It would be simpler to have a direct "Don't Care" option.

Categories