DrawingDeskA review should survive a change of reviewer
Drawing reviews are often interrupted by leave, competing deadlines or a change in project responsibility. Without a deliberate handover, the next person receives a marked-up PDF but not the thinking around it. They may repeat completed checks, overlook untouched sheets or close a comment without knowing why it mattered. A good handover does not attempt to transfer every thought in the original reviewer's head. It provides a map: what was being reviewed, how far the work progressed, which decisions remain open and where the next useful action begins.
Identify the exact package and purpose
Start with the project, drawing package, revision, issue date and review objective. Include the location of the clean source and the current working review file. State important exclusions and any deadline or meeting the work supports. These basics prevent the incoming reviewer from working against the wrong issue or applying a different standard halfway through. If the scope changed during the review, record the current agreement and briefly explain the change rather than expecting old email chains to provide the answer.
Show progress in a way that can be checked
List completed sheets or review passes, partially reviewed areas and work not yet started. “Architectural plans checked for grid and core coordination; ceiling coordination incomplete from level 4 onward” is far more useful than “about seventy per cent done.” If the review follows a drawing index, add status beside each relevant sheet. The purpose is not to measure productivity; it is to prevent gaps and duplication. The incoming reviewer should be able to choose the next page with confidence and understand what kind of checking has already occurred.
Bring unresolved decisions to the surface
Summarise comments waiting for specialist input, client direction or coordination with another discipline. Link each one to its drawing location and say who is expected to respond. Distinguish a blocking decision from a question that can remain open while the review continues. Mention any patterns the incoming reviewer should watch for, such as repeated level discrepancies or a detail still under development. This is the context most likely to disappear in a file-only handover, yet it often determines the value of the remaining work.
Walk the route together, then record it
When possible, spend fifteen minutes sharing the screen and moving through the key open items. A short conversation reveals assumptions that a checklist may not capture and lets the new reviewer ask questions while the context is fresh. Afterwards, update the written handover so it remains the reliable record. End with the next concrete action, not simply a description of the past. A strong handover creates continuity: the reviewer changes, but the purpose, evidence and direction of the review remain intact.
A reusable one-page handover template can make this routine rather than exceptional. Keep it beside the review file and update it at natural milestones, not only when someone announces an absence. The small effort also improves everyday project awareness: even if no handover occurs, the team has a concise view of scope, progress and decisions whenever priorities suddenly change.