When people think of peer review it is often associated with reducing risk for upcoming changes. While this is true there is another dimension that deserves consideration.
When I supported financial institutions and ISPs change control was very serious and peer review was part of that process. I found it very insightful as I learned much about my coworkers through the review. The questions someone poses reveals much more than their answers. The peer review process created an environment that allowed us to better understand our coworkers and suddenly we could realize and respect the depth of their experience, insight, and ingenuity in a real way. This process creates TEAM!
My path is somewhat opposite of others in that I moved from 'stable' organizations to startups. I found that change control and consequently peer review was not much wanted in startups. In some cases I found this rational as a fellow in a startup may be a one person department and conducting peer review with oneself is tiresome.
When there is more than one person working in the same space or concern startups often avoid peer review in the name of speed and agility; DO NOT SLOW ME DOWN!
I argue waiting a day will never kill a project and the respect that can be developed during the peer review process will in the long term be much more valuable than any 'shoot from the hip' change. Peer review is an opportunity to create a team in a natural way. Take advantage of this and become a stronger organization.
Top comments (1)
the bit about questions revealing more than answers is the strongest part. a fast merge tells you nothing about the person next to you, a 'why did you do it this way' does. and waiting a day is also when you spot your own mistake once you've stepped away