Owner: Rebecka Hall

What business value does this roadmap item create? / Which problem is this roadmap item trying to solve?

Review analyses results are updated continuously within one publication cycle and between versions. Removing the step of having to update and cross-reference analysis results would reduce the time spent by authors, the ME and the Copy editor. 

Feedback from user survey: "Prompts to update other sections if critical changes (e.g., to Analyses) are made. For instance, if the author updates Analysis 1.1 other areas in the Review where that analysis is linked could show warnings that they need to be updated."

How can the value delivered be measured?

Compare the time spent on correcting analysis data in a an average sized review with or without the feature. How is adoption of RevMan Web increasing after release and launch of the feature?

Which assumptions are made in relation to the value?

The time spent on cross-referencing analysis results is substantial.

What are the dependencies for fulfilling the business value?

CRGs seem to have different views on which format the results should be reported in. We would not like to re-do this in CK-editor 5 so it's ideal to implement after the move to CKEditor 5.  

What are the risks related to this roadmap item?

The feature will likely impact RevMan 5 compatibility. This might be hard to communicate. 

The dynamic links might impact copy editing if it's not done in RevMan. 

If the users don't trust the feature, they will check the results anyway. 

What is included in the scope of this solution?

RMW-885 - Getting issue details... STATUS

How much time do we estimate to implement this roadmap item?

This is a guesstimate made by the Review Production Team based on known information about the roadmap item and the capacity of the team at the time of estimation (June 2020).

Small = Less than 1 sprint = Less than 2 weeks. 

Owner: Rebecka Hall

What business value does this roadmap item create? / Which problem is this roadmap item trying to solve?

Review analyses results are updated continuously within one publication cycle and between versions. Removing the step of having to update and cross-reference analysis results would reduce the time spent by authors, the ME and the Copy editor. 

Feedback from user survey: "Prompts to update other sections if critical changes (e.g., to Analyses) are made. For instance, if the author updates Analysis 1.1 other areas in the Review where that analysis is linked could show warnings that they need to be updated."

How can the value delivered be measured?

Compare the time spent on correcting analysis data in a an average sized review with or without the feature. How is adoption of RevMan Web increasing after release and launch of the feature?

Which assumptions are made in relation to the value?

The time spent on cross-referencing analysis results is substantial.

What are the dependencies for fulfilling the business value?

CRGs seem to have different views on which format the results should be reported in. We would not like to re-do this in CK-editor 5 so it's ideal to implement after the move to CKEditor 5.  

What are the risks related to this roadmap item?

The feature will likely impact RevMan 5 compatibility. This might be hard to communicate. 

The dynamic links might impact copy editing if it's not done in RevMan. 

If the users don't trust the feature, they will check the results anyway. 

What is included in the scope of this solution?

RMW-885 - Getting issue details... STATUS

How much time do we estimate to implement this roadmap item?

This is a guesstimate made by the Review Production Team based on known information about the roadmap item and the capacity of the team at the time of estimation (June 2020).

Small = Less than 1 sprint = Less than 2 weeks.