Current debate I'm having at work regarding use of track changes:

I'm being asked to author a document, including formatting. My preference is to write the document and submit for review. Reviewer uses track changes to propose edits and sends back. I accept or reject and send to the final submitting party, i.e. a clean document with no track changes, no comments, etc.



The person that submits the document doesn't like this. He or she will sometimes provide a template. They are asking that I "author" and format the document in track changes, as well as the reviewer's comments being put in track changes. Every time it comes back around, there are more track changes. The submitting party wants to see every change in track changes so they can accept before submittal. Literally confuses me just trying to explain it. It's almost as if this person wants to be the author, reviewer, and submittal person, which makes sense because he or she likes to control ALL processes his/her way.

Just curious if anyone agrees with me and can provide insight into the process based on your own experiences.

Big question is who signs the checks?
Who is responsible for the final work?

My President, who doesn't have an issue with my method. Bottom line, I've never heard of someone creating a document in track changes. Seems like a drastic aversion from SOP.

If you are using OneDrive, you will have the Version History as well. I think the Track Changes can be useful in some ways, even if it may be cumbersome.
I would use all the document properties and add appropriate Authors and Comments at least.
It "smells" of someone who may use that "control" to ensure they receive credit for their input, at best.
I would suggest you try the Track Changes, but share the file via Onedrive so YOU have control of the file and File Version history.

This is nonsensical. The person dictating this 'requirement' needs to take a basic course in management - which is not the same as micro-management. Word 101 wouldn't go astray, either. Moreover, comments and changes are not the same thing; inputting both as tracked changes is stupid, plain and simple.

__________________
Cheers,
Paul Edstein
[Fmr MS MVP - Word]

I always avoid revision tracking as much as possible and only use it sparingly when someone else NEEDS to review the changes. Anything that is 'down in the weeds' like formatting, punctuation or spelling corrections should not be revision tracked as it adds no value to have someone review it.

If a large proportion of the document is revision tracked, the point of it is lost. The important changes (that need someone else's attention) gets lost in the noise of the non-important changes.

If I was authoring and someone wanted to see ALL the changes then I would keep a copy of the original and work without revision tracking anything. Once I finish I would then do a compare documents so that person can see all the changes.

__________________
Andrew Lockton
Chrysalis Design, Melbourne Australia

All responses have justified my feelings on the matter. Thanks to all for the input and insight.