Shane Murphy: A Cambridge Feedback Request Should Say What Can Change

Asking for feedback sounds open and collaborative, but it can conceal a difficult question: which part of the work is actually available for reconsideration? A reviewer may spend an hour suggesting a different format when only the wording can still change. The person requesting feedback may then appear dismissive despite having invited the review. I think the invitation should make the boundaries visible from the beginning.

I am Shane Murphy, also known as Shane Ian Murphy, formerly of Cambridge and formerly of Limitless Mobile, where I was co-founder and Chief Business Development Officer. This UK business commentary uses a hypothetical Cambridge information leaflet. It does not describe a real customer assignment or claim that a particular review method guarantees a better result.

Imagine a team preparing a leaflet about a shared workshop's introductory session. The date and room have been agreed, but the explanation of what participants will do is still being developed. The team sends the draft to a colleague with a short message: thoughts welcome. That message leaves the colleague to decide what kind of work they have been asked to perform.

I would replace it with a brief account of the draft's stage and the question the team needs answered. For example, the reviewer could be asked whether a newcomer can understand what the introductory session involves and whether preparation is required. The date and room could be identified as confirmed arrangements, while any factual error should still be flagged. This narrows the task without asking the reviewer to ignore a meaningful problem.

The invitation should also describe the intended reader. A leaflet for people who have never entered the workshop needs a different level of explanation from a reminder sent to regular participants. Reviewers cannot assess whether a term is clear without knowing whose knowledge they should assume. A sentence about the audience gives their comments a useful reference point.

I would explain which elements remain flexible. Can the team change the order, add a sentence, remove a section or replace the whole format? Different kinds of feedback become useful at different stages. A review near printing may focus on unresolved clarity and factual accuracy, while an early draft may benefit from questions about its entire approach.

The boundary should not become a way to avoid inconvenient feedback. If the reviewer identifies a contradiction that affects a supposedly settled part of the leaflet, the team still needs to consider it. The invitation can distinguish the requested focus from a rule that forbids other observations. A useful boundary guides effort; it does not make the work immune to challenge.

Comments are easier to act on when they connect an observation to its effect. “This section is unclear” identifies a concern but leaves the writer to locate it. A comment explaining that the reader cannot tell whether materials are supplied gives the team a specific question to answer. I would encourage reviewers to describe what they understood before proposing replacement wording.

That approach also helps separate a reader's difficulty from a personal preference. A reviewer may prefer a different opening sentence without being confused by the existing one. Both comments can be worth hearing, but they should not be treated as equivalent evidence. The team needs to know whether a proposed change addresses misunderstanding, accuracy, emphasis or taste.

The request should give a realistic response date and explain what will happen afterwards. If several people are reviewing the same draft, somebody needs to bring their observations together. Reviewers should not be asked to resolve conflicting suggestions informally without knowing who owns the final decision. A clear process can keep the discussion focused on the leaflet's purpose.

After making revisions, I would return a short note describing the main changes and any significant question still open. The team does not need to accept every suggestion, but acknowledging how the review was used makes the exchange more understandable. It also helps a reviewer improve the usefulness of future comments.

For our hypothetical Cambridge leaflet, a good review is one that helps the team understand the newcomer’s experience of reading it. The invitation should make that aim visible. Feedback becomes easier to give and easier to use when people know the audience, the stage of the work and the decisions still available.

Author background: https://shanemurphy.co.uk/career

This author-origin business commentary was prepared with AI assistance.