Projects like ngGONG generate a veritable tsunami of documents—memos, reports, plans, agreements, requirements, charters, and more. This is the reality of managing even moderately complex projects: Projects = Paper.
Managing all these documents starts with establishing ownership. Every document needs an accountable person for drafting and delivery. From this first draft, the paper moves through rounds of review, edits, formal sign-off, and—finally—official submission. Sometimes this process involves a handful of simple steps, but serious documents can require dozens of sign-offs or approvals. And when you multiply all these approval steps by the number of documents created, you can quickly find yourself underwater.
An example of this is the ngGONG Design Execution Plan (DEP). The National Science Foundation (NSF) mandates that every project have a detailed execution plan, and the NSF Research Infrastructure Guide (RIG) sets specific expectations and formats. In the ngGONG proposal, the DEP was in reasonably robust shape, though we acknowledged a few sections needed updating upon award funding.
Well, funding has been awarded, and now the DEP must be updated. It also means that the document needs to be routed through an internal review process, and then submitted using the NSF’s prescribed workflow. There are a half-dozen or more internal participants in this review and approval loop.
Early in any scientific project, there will be several “important” documents like this circulating. As the project matures, the number of important documents grows quickly, creating a challenge for even the most organized teams.
To keep control over document states—who has to review what, who has signed off, when each step needs to occur, and so on—it’s vital to implement a systematic and controlled process. This can start simple: a Word checklist, a spreadsheet, or, for more complex processes, tools like Jira or dedicated workflow software. For ngGONG, until we bring on a dedicated systems engineer for document management, a Google Sheet is used to track every major document’s progress and approval status. The format is less important than using it with discipline, making sure every critical party reviews and signs off in the correct order.
Here’s how the best document sign-off workflows succeed:
Assign clear ownership for drafting and shepherding the document. There has to be one and only one person who “owns” the document from start to finish. For our DEP, that would be moi.
Define the review order and responsibilities upfront, including all essential stakeholders. Even a relatively simple document like our DEP will require several people to look at it, some more critical than others. It can be time consuming—not to mention disheartening—to edit a document, sign off, and pass it along… only to have someone downstream of you kick it back for major revisions. Give the document to the harshest editors first if you can so that you’re not wasting downstream reviewers’ time.
Use structured checklists or trackers for each major document. As mentioned above, the tool is less important than the workflow. I took thirty minutes to put together a basic spreadsheet template, complete with drop-downs and places for document links, and then beta tested it with the DEP as our test particle. We’ll make any modifications based on how well the spreadsheet works and move on. Oh, and try to make the process as friction-free for the reviewers as you can; e.g., include clickable links to the documents, insert drop-down menus for statusing, and so on.
Brief reviewers on the process, due dates, and other expectations to avoid confusion. It’s useful to let people know what the process is, what’s expected of them, and the need-by dates. I introduced the DEP process at our last progress meeting. And we’ll continue with this as the model for future documents as they’re added.
Follow up regularly to avoid delays and bottlenecks. Contractually, we have 45 days to get our DEP updated, so there’s really no time to spare. Communication is therefore paramount to keep the document moving through the review process.
Document lessons learned about how well your process is working. Even minor changes to the tool or process can pay dividends with upcoming documents. There’s a Japanese concept called Kaizen, or continuous improvement, that the best projects follow.
Investing a bit of time up front to get the process organized invariably pays off. With well-defined workflows, tools that match the project’s scale, and clear sign-off chains, you can ensure that every deliverable meets requirements and is ready for scrutiny—by internal teams, sponsors, and external reviewers alike.
Getting organized before the document tsunami hits is one of the key differences between struggling and successful projects.