This is how our test case development process looks like. A tester writes a test case in a spreadsheet, with each test step and expected result. Then, another tester reviews the test case and approves it if its ok. The test writer then executes the test when needed.
The problem with the above approach is that sometimes, the test reviewers approve tests even when the test steps are missing some crucial information. This omission was discovered only when a third person was asked to execute some tests.
So, I was thinking of changing the process by making the reviewer execute the test. I believe that this might make the reviewer be more thorough because he has to execute the test, i.e. he cannot afford to miss important details. As an aside, the new way might bring out lack of documentation. When, reviewers find that system documentation is needed in order to run a test, then they will ask for it and mention it to our QA manager (during scrum meetings).
Does the new approach make sense ? If not, then are there any other approaches that we could try ?