Reviewing Tool - Not Convinced to Use One (take II)

[Geoff Hart]

Lauren noted: <<I'd go insane if I received an email everytime *I*  
submitted a draft, let alone somebody else.  I think that a tool like  
that should be able to be programmed to send a list of submissions at  
a specified time, like once a week or when the author chooses to send  
the update.>>

Good point. In fact, I neglected to mention that our homegrown  
version of the tool only sent e-mail to the next person (or people)  
who were responsible for doing something, not to everyone. These  
individuals were defined by the software for each step in the  
workflow, so whenever we created a new manuscript workflow, we  
defined who would be involved at each stage and never had to worry  
about naming people from that point onwards -- everything was  
automated. Tasks were automatically added to the relevant person's  
task list as soon as a previous step was completed, so the software  
could remind them of deadlines, and were removed from the task list  
once the task was complete. All completed steps were archived rather  
than deleted so we could go back and review them when necessary.

The system also tracked completion times so we could collect the  
statistics so dear to everyone's heart. Those stats came in very  
useful when we subsequently needed to tweak steps.

In terms of overall status, there were no specific advisories. Anyone  
could open up the Outlook folder containing a specific manuscript to  
see what steps had been completed, what ones were pending, and what  
ones were delayed or had missed their deadline, but only a few folks  
(including me! <bwahahaha>) had power to modify any details.


----------------------------------------------------
-- Geoff Hart
ghart at videotron.ca / geoffhart at mac.com
www.geoff-hart.com
--------------------------------------------------
***Now available***  _Effective onscreen editing_
(http://www.geoff-hart.com/home/onscreen-book.htm)