How should you Approach Changes to Growth Review Format?
Based on the assessment of growth reviews, we might feel the need to change different parts of the Growth review.
This concept addresses how to handle changes to the review format.
Cognitive Load and Overload:
Changing the review format can significantly increase cognitive load for participants, as they must first understand the new format before they can effectively engage with the content. This change can temporarily reduce efficiency as participants adjust to the new approach.
Before implementing any format changes, it is crucial to evaluate whether the potential benefits justify this increased cognitive load. If the change adds significant value or clarity, it may be worth the initial disruption.
Building Common Understanding:
To minimize the need for frequent revisions, it's important to develop a common understanding of the review format with all key stakeholders from the outset. This involves clarifying what elements are essential for the review, such as whether an executive summary is required, or if a snapshot of key results should be formatted as a table or a pre-read document.
This upfront alignment helps ensure that the format serves the review's objectives and meets the needs of all participants, thereby reducing the likelihood of needing frequent changes.
Handling Ad-Hoc Analyses and Deep Dives:
Instead of regularly adjusting the review format to include ad-hoc analyses or deep dives, consider placing these in an addendum. If references to these analyses become frequent and necessary, they can be integrated into the main review format.
This approach keeps the main review focused and manageable while providing the flexibility to include more detailed analyses when they prove to be consistently relevant.
Takeaway:
When considering changes to the format of growth reviews, assess the impact on cognitive load and ensure changes add clear value.
Build a common understanding with stakeholders to establish a robust format from the start, and manage detailed analyses separately unless they become central to regular discussions.
This approach helps maintain review efficiency and effectiveness.