Project and Workflow Management

Session Snapshot

The lecture was delivered by the session facilitator.
There were multiple participants representing various chapters in the training.
The facilitator shared best practices drawn from other major climate assessments.
Global Goal on Adaptation: apply the learning in future work.

Two-Part Format

The training consisted of two parts, with two practical sessions included.
Part I: Map the workflow and help set up the tools.
Part II: Apply the tools to review comments, consistency, and coordination.
Apply the tools to your own chapter and work through some of the bottlenecks.

Why Project Management Matters

Project management is required for managing the work done by Chapter Lead Authors (CLAs) and Lead Authors (LAs).
Core activities include managing references, compiling sections, tracking comments, and maintaining consistency in the chapter.
The training provides a shared system for making chapter work visible, coordinated, and easier to update.

Milestone Plan

Build deadlines backward from the final delivery date.
Use provisional dates that are clearly marked and designed to be updated as the schedule firms up.
Use the milestone spreadsheet file for the entire AR7 process.

Resource Kit

Review-comment tracker.
Consistency and traceability checklist.
Figure and data log.
Template files for naming and coordination.
These template files are provided for your own chapter use.

Outline of the Presentation

Chapter Scientist role.
AR7 cycle.
Milestone plan.
Core tools and hands-on practice.
Common problems.
Part II and questions.

The Role of the Chapter Scientist

Day-to-day work: Support the author team as a whole and enable the assessment.
Chapter Scientists do not author sections or assess literature independently; they are integral to the process logistics.
What the role covers: Managing the reference set, tracking and logging review comments, preparing figures, tables, and data, checking consistency across sections, coordinating authors and deadlines, and compiling the master document.
Outside the role: Authoring sections of the chapter, assessing the literature independently, making scientific judgments, and deciding how comments are resolved.

Common Challenges

Polls found version control, coordinating, deadlines, review comments, and workload to be the main issues faced by Chapter Scientists.
These concerns were ranked by how often they were experienced.

Coordination Across Teams

Coordinating is difficult because of logistics involving multiple time zones.
Teams have different styles of working and writing.
There are different approaches to deadlines: some people work close to the deadline, while others work well before it.

AR7 Drafting and Review Cycle

The AR7 drafting and review cycle moves through the Zero Order Draft (ZOD), First Order Draft (FOD), Second Order Draft (SOD), and Final Government Distribution (FGD).
The FOD goes to expert review.
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is reviewed line-by-line by governments.
Specific internal review periods and Lead Author Meetings (LAMs) are scheduled by the relevant Working Group TSUs.
Planning should work backward from final deadlines.
The milestone plans are shared in the internal files.

Before Each Draft

Complete and check the reference set.
Freeze figures and data, with the data and code captured.
Prepare executive-summary findings that trace back to the evidence.
Complete an internal chapter-team review.
Deliver compiled sections to the Technical Support Unit (TSU).

Review Comments Are a Team Effort

Thousands of comments may be received externally, and the volume can be difficult for the team to manage.
Each CLA is responsible for a decision on the comments in their area.
The final decision may be to take no action, but not taking action must be justified.
Authors should respond after tracing each comment to the relevant page and line number; the TSU will check the response.
Follow the line number and check consistency whenever comments are recorded or resolved.

Prioritizing Under Time Pressure

Rank tasks by what blocks other tasks.
Prioritize the task most likely to block subsequent work, because later tasks can only proceed once that dependency is cleared.
Block out time for the most demanding task.
Decide what can wait and what can be shared, while keeping the team on the same page.
Make your availability and limits visible, and share information as early as possible.

File and Version Management

Keep the working file on a physical hard drive as well as in the shared workspace.
Use version control and compile section files into a single master document.
Use the standardized IPCC naming conventions provided by your TSU for all files.
Make changes in the correct working file; editing the wrong file can become a nightmare.
Every draft page carries the notice: "Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute".
Include the draft number, maintain an archive folder, and share the latest version in the folder.

Shared Working Practices

Work in the shared document and avoid parallel copies wherever possible.
When parallel copies are unavoidable, name files clearly with the author and date.
CLAs and LAs should work through the official shared platform (e.g., SharePoint).
Create a shared reference library and add references to that library.
Add a header block to the working file.
Use page and line numbers when making comments, and check that line numbering remains consistent.

Core Tools and Hands-on Exercise

Reference manager: Use a shared library (e.g., Zotero).
Document workflow: Use version control and compile section files into one master document.
A hands-on exercise was introduced, and a poll was shared to identify the bottlenecks Chapter Scientists face.
Coordination was identified as the main bottleneck.
Use the tools in the shared workflow so that references, comments, sections, and decisions remain traceable.

Common Problems and Responses

The volume of literature outpaces the reference set: update the shared library and check references early.
File versions multiply and edits land in the writing copy: use the agreed naming convention, archive old versions, and share only the latest version.
Decisions stall for days across time zones: make availability, limits, and needed decisions visible, then send reminders to CLAs and LAs.
The volume of review comments overwhelms the team after a review round: compile and track comments, assign responsibility, and follow each comment to its page and line number.
Check glossary items for consistency as part of the consistency check.

Overview of Part I: The Planning Backbone

Plan backward from the final deadline and maintain a milestone plan with clear deadlines.
Set up the core tools: a shared reference library, file-naming rules, and version-control conventions.
Archive each previous version as read-only, then do all new work in the current version.
Part I establishes the structure needed to run the chapter workflow reliably.

Overview of Part II: Running the Workflow

Part II applies the workflow in practice through review comments, traceability, and coordination.
Run the work in this order: reference management, review-comment handling, traceability checks, figure and data provenance, consistency checks, and coordination.
Working asynchronously and sharing the load keeps progress moving between meetings.

Reference Management with Zotero

Create a chapter account using institutional storage. Set the library and file editing permissions so every member can add references, then invite authors by email.
Take weekly offline backups of the shared library.
Install Zotero and the Zotero Connector. Use the shared SharePoint document for chapter writing.
The Zotero citation workflow is unavailable in Word for the web; open the desktop version of Word to add references.
Save references with Zotero Connector from the article page, or add an item using its DOI, ISBN, or PMID.
For large imports, export RIS or BibTeX and import the file instead of saving references one by one.

Reference Metadata Checklist

Check item type, authors, journal or publisher, publication year, title, DOI, ISBN or PMID, and the source URL.
Capture metadata from the article itself and check grey literature manually.
Use Google Scholar for comparison and to locate articles in institutional repositories, but check and merge duplicate entries, including duplicates created by author searches.
Use the IPCC reference style checklist when an organization is the author. For example, verify whether an entry captured as “IPCC” should instead use “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” as the corporate author.
Use AI to create or refine the metadata checklist, then verify every field against the source and the applicable IPCC guidance.

Handling Review Comments

Comments and responses are published with the report, so maintain a complete log. No comment should be deleted.
The Chapter Scientist's job is to ensure every review comment is tracked and receives a response. The TSU will also help.
Each comment should be assigned to an author and given a disposition: accepted, rejected, taken into account, noted, or editorial.
Review editors check that every comment has received proper consideration. Record the response and the location of any text change.

ID	Draft	Reviewer	Country	Section	Line	Comment	Assigned author	Disposition	Response	Text change (location)	Status
C-001	FOD	S. Dasgupta	Bangladesh	3.2	145	Add recent regional dataset X to the assessment.	A. Lead	Accepted	Dataset X added and assessed in 3.2.	3.2, para 4	Done

Figures, Data, and Provenance

IPCC assesses the literature, and figures are among the most cited outputs, so producing reproducible images is essential.
Record the figure ID, data category, data and code location, metadata, licence, archive link, and DOI.
Check that labels are correct and legible. Archive data and code as the work progresses.
Check calibrated confidence language for consistency across the chapter.

Consistency and Traceability

Check labels, reference periods, glossary terms, citations, and line numbering across sections.
Compile section files into one master document and verify that every paper is cited correctly.
Bring references and figures forward before each deadline, and record decisions once they are made.

Working Asynchronously and Sharing the Load

Most work happens between meetings, so agree clear norms. Set a response window, such as one working day, and write self-contained messages.
In shared documents, use suggesting mode and tag people by name. Resolve only your own comments.
For involved topics, record a short walk-through instead of adding another meeting.
Rotate the meeting slot each quarter and track who took the inconvenient time last.
Make problems visible to Coordinating Lead Authors with options rather than open questions.

Adapting the Tools to Your Chapter

Fit each template to your milestones, sections, authors, and figures.
Bring references and figures forward before each deadline, archive data and code as you go, and accept and record decisions once they are made.

Six-Part Resource Kit

Milestone plan worked backward from the deadline.
Review-comment tracker.
Traceability and reference check.
Figure and data provenance log.
Cross-section consistency checklist.
Time-zone coordination tracker.
File-naming and version convention.

Key IPCC Reference Materials

Principles Governing IPCC Work and Appendix A: Procedures for preparing reports, the review process, and roles.
IPCC fact sheet on the review process: Review stages and how comments are handled.
Guidance note on calibrated language: Confidence and likelihood terms.
FAIR data guidelines and the Data Distribution Centre: Data and figure archiving.
AR7 Working Group pages and chapter outlines: Report structure and schedule.