Written Audit or Live Walkthrough: Choosing How to Review Your Gallery
Two ways to examine a control room: a written audit built from observation and logs, or a live walkthrough with the crew. Helen Marchetti compares them and says which she recommends.
6 minutes to read
Two ways to look at a gallery
When a studio manager asks us to review how the gallery works, there are really two shapes the work can take. The first is a written audit: we sit in the control room across a few real productions, follow how the vision mixer, graphics operator and director hand work to each other, and then produce a report that can be read, annotated and filed. The second is a live walkthrough, where we stand with the crew during a rehearsal, ask questions as things happen and give verbal findings at the end of the session.
Both are honest ways of working, and both start from the same place: watching the room do its normal job. The difference lies in what you are left holding afterwards, and in how much of the finding depends on someone remembering what was said. I have run both for years, and I want to set out the trade-offs plainly so you can pick the one that fits the problem you actually have.
What the written audit gives you
A written audit is slow by design. We observe more than one production, because a single show can flatter or punish a room by accident. We note how cues are called, where the vision mixer waits for graphics, how often a source has to be re-selected, and which monitors the team glance at and which they ignore. The report then sets these observations against what the room is configured to do.
The value is in the record. A written review can be passed to a technical director who was not present, compared with a second review a year later, and used to justify a purchase or a change of routine to people who control the budget. It also forces precision: every finding has to be stated in a way that survives being read cold, without the tone of voice that softens a remark in conversation.
- Findings sit in one document that outlasts the visit
- Several productions are observed, not one
- Suitable when others must approve changes
What the live walkthrough gives you
The walkthrough is quicker and more direct. We join a rehearsal or a quiet production day, and the crew can show us the awkward moments as they happen: the macro that sometimes fires the wrong clip, the intercom channel nobody trusts, the lower-third that arrives late. Because people are in the room, a question can be answered in seconds and a small fix can sometimes be tried on the spot.
Its weakness is memory. Spoken findings fade, and the people who heard them may summarise them differently a week later. A walkthrough also tends to favour the problems the crew already know about, since those are the ones they point to. Quiet faults, such as a habit that costs two seconds on every transition, are easier to miss when everyone is busy making the show happen.
Where each option fits
A walkthrough suits a small team with one clear irritation, a new operator joining a settled crew, or a room that has just changed a piece of equipment and wants a quick sense check. It costs less time away from production and gets people talking, which is often half of what a troubled gallery needs.
A written audit suits a room with several overlapping complaints, a studio preparing a refit, or a manager who has to persuade colleagues that something should change. It also suits shared galleries where different crews use the same desk on different days, because the report becomes the common reference. Where a studio is unsure which it needs, the usual signal is who has to be convinced: if it is only the crew, talk; if it is someone outside the room, write it down.
- Choose a walkthrough for one known irritation
- Choose a written audit for refits and shared rooms
- Consider who must be persuaded before deciding
What we recommend
My recommendation is the written audit for most studios, with a short conversation built into it. Writing the findings down is what makes them useful in three months, when the details of a busy week have blurred and a new team member asks why a routine exists. A walkthrough alone tends to produce a good afternoon and a vague memory.
That said, the audit should never be done at a distance from the crew. We speak to the vision mixer, the graphics operator and the director during the observation, so the report reflects how people actually describe their work. Our Control Room Workflow Audit is built that way: observed over real productions, discussed with the team, then delivered in writing. If your problem is small and specific, say so when you get in touch, and we will tell you honestly whether a shorter visit would do.
Preparing for either option
Whichever you choose, a little preparation improves the result. Gather the running orders from a few recent shows, a list of the equipment in the gallery and who operates each part, and any notes the crew have kept about repeated faults. If there is a complaint that keeps returning, write it down in the crew's own words rather than in technical shorthand.
It also helps to tell the team beforehand what the visit is for. A review that arrives without explanation can feel like an inspection, and people then perform rather than work. We would rather see the room on an ordinary day, mistakes included, because that is the room the audit has to describe and, where possible, improve.
- Recent running orders from several shows
- A list of gallery equipment and its operators
- The crew's own notes on repeated faults
Both approaches have a place, and neither is a lesser version of the other. A walkthrough is a good way to hear a crew and settle a narrow question. A written audit is the better tool when changes need agreement, when the problems overlap, or when you want something to measure against next year. For most galleries I would choose the audit, with real conversation inside it, and keep the walkthrough for smaller matters.
Ask for a quote
- Phone
- 01223 480162
- Write to us
- [email protected]