Understanding how the Big6 evaluation stage measures product quality and process efficiency in information problem solving

Outline skeleton

• Opening: why the Big6 model matters for media work and for readers who want solid information literacy.

• The heart of the matter: the evaluation phase asks us to judge both the final product and the path that got us there.

• Deep dive into product evaluation: accuracy, relevance, completeness, usability, credibility.

• Deep dive into process evaluation: efficiency, strategy choices, time management, adjustments along the way.

• Why this pair matters in real media work: trust, accountability, and the rhythm of good storytelling.

• A friendly analogy: how editors, researchers, and teachers use evaluation in everyday tasks.

• Practical, bite-sized takeaways: quick prompts, simple checklists, easy journaling ideas.

• Closing thought: evaluation as a habit that makes better information and better work.

Big6, big payoff: evaluating both product and process

Let me explain it like this: when you’re wrestling with a story, a report, or a research brief, you’re not just after a finished artifact. You’re chasing clarity, credibility, and usefulness. The Big6 model helps you treat information problems like a craft rather than a sprint. And the evaluation phase—the part that sometimes gets skipped in the hurry—asks a simple, powerful question: has the product you produced actually solved the need you started with, and did you navigate the journey in a way that you’d be proud to repeat?

In the Big6, evaluation is about two intertwined judgments. First, you assess the product—the final deliverable. Does it meet the objective? Is it accurate, complete, timely, and usable for the intended audience? Second, you assess the process—the method you used to get there. Were your steps efficient? Did your strategy fit the problem, and could you reflect on what worked and what didn’t? Answering both questions gives you a fuller picture of learning and capability, not just a single score on a page.

Product evaluation: does the result hit the mark?

When we talk about the product, we’re asking readers to hold it up to a standard. Here are some practical lenses:

• Accuracy. Is the information correct? Are facts verifiable? Do you have citations or sources you can trust, and are they current?

• Relevance. Does the product answer the original question or meet the stated need? Is the scope right—neither too broad nor too narrow?

• Completeness. Have you covered the essential angles? Have you filled gaps that a careful reader might expect you to address?

• Usability. Is the product easy to read, navigate, and apply? For a media project, this could mean clear visuals, accessible language, and a logical flow.

• Credibility and ethics. Are sources diverse and trustworthy? Are there biases acknowledged, and is the information presented with integrity?

• Presentation quality. Is the work organized, well cited, and polished enough for its audience? Does it look professional without losing its voice?

Think of product evaluation like a newsroom editor asking: “Is this the story we’re telling, and is it telling the truth in a way that our audience can trust?” It’s less about “nice-to-haves” and more about “these essentials are in place, and they hold up under scrutiny.”

Process evaluation: how efficiently did you get there?

Now turn the lens to the journey. The process matters just as much as the product because it shapes how you think, what you learn, and how you handle future projects. Here’s what to consider:

• Strategy choices. What plan did you start with, and did it fit the problem? Were the steps reasonable given the time and resources?

• Time management. Did you allocate time well? Were there bottlenecks, and how did you adapt?

• Information-seeking behavior. Did you choose sources and methods that were appropriate? Were you flexible enough to pivot when something didn’t work?

• Reflection and iteration. At milestones, did you pause to ask: “What’s working? What’s not?” Did you adjust your approach accordingly?

• Collaboration and roles. If you worked with others, did roles, feedback loops, and communication help or hinder progress?

• Efficiency vs effectiveness. It’s not just about doing things fast; it’s about doing the right things well. If you spent time on a detour, did you realize it and redirect?

This portion of evaluation is where you get to be honest about craft. It’s where you learn to repeat what works and drop what doesn’t. And yes, you’ll discover tensions—sometimes the fastest route isn’t the most thorough, and the most thorough route can be exhausting. The key is to name those tensions and decide how to balance them in the future.

Why the dual focus matters in media work

Media projects rarely rest on a single ingredient. They’re built on a blend of facts, context, audience needs, and ethical considerations. Evaluating both the product and the process mirrors how real professionals operate:

• Accountability. Audiences deserve accuracy and transparency. If your process shows you validated sources, checked biases, and used credible methods, readers trust the final piece more.

• Efficiency with integrity. In fast-paced media environments, time matters. Evaluating process helps you be efficient without sacrificing quality.

• Continuous improvement. The reflective loop—what worked, what didn’t, why—feeds growth. It’s how a media person moves from good to better, project after project.

• Audience connection. A strong product connected to clear process signals care and competence. That combination resonates with readers, listeners, and viewers.

A practical analogy: editing a story map

Picture a writer building a story map for a feature. The product is the finished piece—the narrative arc, the quotes, the visuals. The process is the map of steps: topic framing, source vetting, interview notes, draft revisions, fact-checking, layout decisions. If the final piece is a knockout but the process was chaotic, the team might miss deadlines or repeat mistakes. If the process was smooth but the product is weak—no clear answer, flawed data—the effort isn’t justified either. The strongest work comes from aligning the map with the finish line and then reviewing both with a critical eye.

Rules of thumb you can actually use

• Start with a simple check: If a reader asked, “Does this answer my initial question?” would they be satisfied? If not, you’ve got work on the product side.

• Use a lightweight process audit. After you finish a major step, jot down one thing that went well and one thing you’d change next time. You don’t need a formal report; a quick note helps.

• Build a credibility checklist. Do your sources have credibility markers? Are quotes accurate? Is the timeline clear? Is there any reported bias, and is it disclosed?

• Create a tiny usability test. Ask a colleague or a friend to skim the piece and tell you what’s confusing. If they’re lost, the product needs refinement.

• Schedule a short reflection window. A 10- to 15-minute pause after you complete a project can yield surprisingly clear insights about both the product and the process.

Tiny, practical prompts for daily work

• Product prompts:

• Is the core question clearly answered?

• Are claims supported by sources that a reader can verify?

• Is the tone appropriate for the intended audience?

• Are visuals and sections helping comprehension rather than distracting?

• Process prompts:

• Which step saved time or reduced errors? Why did it work?

• Which step caused friction? What would a better approach look like next time?

• Are there repeated adjustments that hint at a missing upfront assumption?

Incorporating evaluation into your workflow

Let evaluation become a habit rather than a one-off mood-check. You can weave it into your routine with a simple cadence:

• After you define the problem and gather information, note your chosen plan and expected milestones.

• Upon delivering the draft, run through a quick product check: accuracy, relevance, completeness, usability.

• After a final polish, perform a process reflection: what worked, what didn’t, what you’d change next time.

• Archive these reflections alongside the work, so you can reuse lessons in future projects.

Common misconceptions—and why they mislead

• “Evaluation is only about the final product.” Not true. The path you took to get there shapes quality just as much as the ending does.

• “If the data is strong, the process isn’t important.” On the contrary, a strong process makes strong data more likely and repeatable.

• “This is a one-person job.” Evaluation benefits from fresh eyes—buyers, editors, peers—who can spot biases or blind spots you might miss.

Bringing it back to everyday media work

Whether you’re assembling a background brief for a story, curating a set of sources for a feature, or planning a multimedia package, the evaluation frame helps you stay rooted in purpose. It nudges you to ask: what do readers actually need? How can I show them I’ve treated their questions with care? How can I improve next time, without reinventing the wheel every month?

To wrap it up, the Big6 evaluation phase is a compact, powerful toolbox. It teaches you to judge both the product and the path with equal seriousness. It reminds you that good information work isn’t a sprint to a polished artifact; it’s a disciplined practice of making smart choices, reflecting honestly, and building on what you’ve learned. And when you do that, your work becomes not just accurate and clear, but alive—capable of guiding audiences through complex ideas with clarity and integrity.

If you’re exploring media topics through the lens of the Big6, keep this dual focus in mind. The product proves you’ve met the need; the process proves you can meet it again. That combination—well-executed product plus thoughtful process—has the sticky power readers notice and remember. And that’s exactly what thoughtful media work is all about.