How to Build a Creative Review Process that Works
It’s not exactly rocket science. The larger your team, the weightier and more complicated the review process becomes — partly due to the number of stakeholders and the unclear distribution of responsibility.
From chasing reviewers to defusing conflicts and managing feedback loops, it’s enough to make your head spin. The worst is when the process bottlenecks because valuable team members are simply unavailable to approve. The result: Missed deadlines.
The majority of creatives will tell you that working within a large team can be exciting and rewarding. Still, the endless red tape will quickly kill the creative spirit.
That’s why I set out to develop the ultimate creative review process. It had to be agile, it had to be transparent, and it had to include value feedback from experts, peers and responsible stakeholders.
After hours, months and even years of tinkering, trial and error, I’m finally ready to unveil my creative review management brainchild. It’s a process we currently use at Lightspeed to streamline our approach to everything from creative projects, illustrations, specifications, web pages, etc.
And like most things, it’s always a work in progress.
The 3 types of reviewers
1. The person with the last word
Choose one person from your team to make the final call. Everyone (with one exception, as you’ll see in reviewer type #2) must accept and adhere to their decision. If it’s a creative project you’re working on, maybe this person is your Product Manager. For text illustrations, maybe it’s the actual requestor.
2. The people with veto power
These high-level team members have the authority to say “NO” to any project. They could be Head of Design, Head of Product or VP of Marketing. Of course, the person exercising the veto must be in a position to justify its use. The project can move forward once the sticking point is resolved.
Here’s the kicker: Don’t wait around for members with veto power to react — otherwise, you’ll find yourself back in that bottleneck. They’ll intervene if they see fit. And if they don’t, the project isn’t delayed (win-win).
3. The people with expert opinions
Invite in-house experts to chime in. They’re cool people just bursting with invaluable knowledge. Of course, your experts may be busy with their own tasks and may not be familiar with the details of your project — including your deadline and limitations. If the person is available, take the time to sit down and go over the project. Ultimately, the creator can take the advice or ignore it.
Keep the process open to everyone
Most importantly, the review process must always be public. When the process is public, you make it easy for reviewers to participate and ensure transparency. At Lightspeed, we announce the review in a dedicated Slack channel. The team then publishes their work with clear instructions for feedback and a deadline. For example, you can provide a link to your design and ask for comments in Figma, Jira or any other project management tool.
Set a deadline for feedback. After all, your project has a deadline. If reviewers want their input taken into account, they must respond on time.
My final piece of advice: Embrace the process at every stage
The key to great feedback: Submit your work to peer review several times — not just at the finish line. Feedback is most valuable while the project is in progress, and there’s still time to make changes. Not when you’re up against the deadline, and it’s too late.
Pro tip: Wherever you are in the process, always define the scope and pinpoint where you are in the project lifecycle. Plus, don’t forget to share research that backs up your work, from published articles to internal data and more.
For example, when presenting concept sketches, make it clear they’re not the final product. If your project is small and limited, include those details — otherwise, you run the risk of being bombarded with feedback that’s outside the scope.
Finally, remember that reviews are not exams. You’re not graded; there’s no pass or fail. The sole purpose of the review process is to cultivate knowledge sharing, rational problem solving and teamwork. And if everyone follows the process — including your three types of reviewers — projects shouldn’t bottleneck or spin. Isn’t that the dream?
