Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Session 10 - Reviews

    Uploaded by

    Arnessya Mega Alviolita
    The document summarizes methodologies for reviewing documents in software quality management. It describes three major review methodologies: formal design reviews, inspections, and walkthroughs. Formal design reviews involve a review leader and team reviewing documents for errors and approval to proceed to the next phase. Inspections and walkthroughs are peer review methods that differ in formality and objectives, with inspections emphasizing corrective actions. The document outlines the preparation, participants, process, documentation, and activities involved in each methodology.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Session 10 - Reviews

    Uploaded by

    Arnessya Mega Alviolita
    40 views36 pages
    The document summarizes methodologies for reviewing documents in software quality management. It describes three major review methodologies: formal design reviews, inspections, and walkthroughs. Formal design reviews involve a review leader and team reviewing documents for errors and approval to proceed to the next phase. Inspections and walkthroughs are peer review methods that differ in formality and objectives, with inspections emphasizing corrective actions. The document outlines the preparation, participants, process, documentation, and activities involved in each methodology.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes methodologies for reviewing documents in software quality management. It describes three major review methodologies: formal design reviews, inspections, and walkthroughs. Formal design reviews involve a review leader and team reviewing documents for errors and approval to proceed to the next phase. Inspections and walkthroughs are peer review methods that differ in formality and objectives, with inspections emphasizing corrective actions. The document outlines the preparation, participants, process, documentation, and activities involved in each methodology.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    40 views36 pages

    Session 10 - Reviews

    Uploaded by

    Arnessya Mega Alviolita
    The document summarizes methodologies for reviewing documents in software quality management. It describes three major review methodologies: formal design reviews, inspections, and walkthroughs. Formal design reviews involve a review leader and team reviewing documents for errors and approval to proceed to the next phase. Inspections and walkthroughs are peer review methods that differ in formality and objectives, with inspections emphasizing corrective actions. The document outlines the preparation, participants, process, documentation, and activities involved in each methodology.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 36

    Reviews

    Course Name Lecturer Literature : IT Quality Management : Hanim Maria Astuti ([email protected]) : Daniel Galin, Software Quality Assurance: From Theory to Implementation. 2004.

    Learning Objective
    Students are able to: Explain the direct and indirect objective of review methodologies Explain the contribution of external experts to the performance of review tasks Compare the three major review methodologies

    Definition
    According to IEEE, a review process is: A process or meeting to present a work product or set of products to project personnel, managers, users, customers, or other interested parties for comment or approval.

    Methodologies for Reviewing Documents


    Reviews acquire special importance in the SQA process.
    Why?

    They provide early direction and prevent the passing of design and analysis errors down-stream, to stages where error detection and correction are much complicated and costly.

    Methodologies for reviewing documents


    The methodologies for reviewing :
    Formal design review Peer reviews ( inspections and walkthroughs ) Expert opinions

    Standards for SW reviews are the subject of IEEE std 1028 ( IEEE, 1997 ).

    Reviews Objectives (Direct Objectives)


    To detect analysis & design errors as well as subjects where corrections, changes and completions are required with respect to the original specifications and approved changes. To identify new risks likely to affect completion of the project. To locate deviations from templates and style procedures and conventions. Correction of these deviations is expected to contribute to improved communication & coordination resulting from greater uniformity of methods & documentation style. To approve the analysis or design product. Approval allows the team to continue to the next development phase.

    Reviews Objectives (Indirect Objectives)


    To provide an informal meeting place for exchange of professional knowledge about development methods, tools, and techniques. To record analysis and design errors that will serve as a basis for future corrective actions. The corrective actions are expected to improve development methods by increasing effective and quality, among other product features.

    Formal Design Reviews

    Formal Design Reviews ( DRs )


    Formal design review, also called Design reviews ( DRs ) Formal technical reviews ( FTR ) Without this approval, the development team cannot continue to the next phase of SW development project. Formal design review can be conducted at any development milestone requiring completion of an analysis or design document, whether that document is a requirement specification or an installation plan.

    A List of Common Formal Design Reviews :


    DPR - development plan review SRSR- Software requirement specification review PDR Preliminary design review DDR Detail design review DBDR Data base design review TPR Test plan review STPR Software test procedure review VDR Version description review OMR operator manual review SMR Support manual review TRR Test readiness review PRR Product release review IPR Installation Plan review
    10

    The Formal Design Review will focus on :


    The participants The prior preparations The DR session The recommended post-DR activities

    11

    The participants in a DR
    All DRs are conducted by A review leader A review team

    12

    The Review Leader


    Characteristics Knowledge & experience in development of projects of the type reviewed. Seniority at a level similar to if not higher than that of the project leader A good relationship with the project leader and his team A position external to the project team. Small developing departments and software houses typically have difficulties finding an appropriate candidate to lead the review team. One possible solution to this is the appointment of an external consultant.

    The Review Team


    It is desirable for non-project staff to make up the majority of the review team. The size of the review team from 3 to 5 to be an efficient team

    14

    Preparation for a DR
    A DR session are to be completed by all three main participants in the review :
    A review leader, a team Development team.

    Each one is required to focus on distinct aspects of the process. Review leader preparations (main tasks) :
    To appoint the team members To schedule the review sessions To distribute the design document among team members (hard copy, electronic copy, etc)
    15

    Preparation for a DR
    Review team preparations (main tasks) : Review the design document and list their comments prior to the review session team members may use a review checklists. Development team preparations (main tasks) Prepare a short presentation of the design document The presentation should focus on the main professional issues awaiting approval rather than wasting time on description of the project in general.

    16

    The DR session
    The agenda is the issue (a typical DR session agenda): 1. A short presentation of the design document 2. Comments made by members of the review team. 3. Verification and validation in which each of the comments is discussed to determine the required actions (corrections, changes and addition) that the project team has to perform. 4. Decisions about the design product (document), which determines the projects progress. These decisions consist of three forms.

    17

    Decisions forms
    Full approval: enables immediate continuation to the next phase. It may be accompanied by demands for some minor corrections to be performed by project team. Partial approval: approval of immediate continuation to the next phase for some parts of the project, with major action items demanded for the remainder of the project. Denial of approval: demands to repeat of the DR

    18

    Post-review Activities
    One of the review leader responsibilities is to issue a DR report immediately after the review session. The development team should perform the corrections earlier and minimize the attendant delays to the project schedule. The report major sections contain :
    A summary of the review discussion The decision of the continuation of the project A full list of the required actions (corrections, changes, additions) and the anticipated completion dates. The name(s) of the review team member(s) assigned to follow up performance of corrections.

    19

    The Follow-up Process


    The review leader himself is required to determine whether each action item has been satisfactory accomplished as a condition for allowing the project to continue to the next phase. Follow-up should be documented to enable clarification.

    20

    Pressman (2000, chapter 8 )


    Pressmans 13 golden guidelines for a successful design review:

    See page 157

    21

    Peer-Reviews

    Peer Reviews Two review methods (Inspection and Walkthrough)


    The major difference between formal design reviews and peer review methods is rooted in participants, degree of authority and objectives In peer reviews, as expected, the project leaders equals, members of his department and other units. The peer review main objectives lies in detecting errors & deviations from standards. The appearance of the CASE tools reduce the value of manual reviews such as inspection and walkthrough. Researches find out that peer reviews are highly efficient as well as effective method.

    23

    Inspection & Walkthrough


    What differentiates a walkthrough from an inspection is the level of formality, inspection is the more formal of two. Inspection emphasizes the objective of corrective actions. Walkthroughs findings are limited to comments on the document reviewed.

    24

    Inspection & Walkthrough


    Inspection is usually based on a comprehensive infrastructure, including :
    Development of inspection checklists developed for each type of design document as well as coding language and tool, which are periodically updated. Development of typical defect type frequency tables, based past findings, to direct inspectors to potential defect concentration areas. Periodic analysis of the effectiveness of past inspections to improve the inspection methodology Introduction of scheduled inspections into the project activity plan and allocation of the required resources, including resources for correction of detected defects.

    25

    Participants of peer reviews


    The optimal team: three to five participants. A major factor contributing to the success of a peer review is the groups blend (which differs between inspections and walkthroughs). Participants: A review leader The author Specialized professional

    26

    Participants
    The specialized professional: For inspections:
    A designer A coder or implementer A tester

    For walkthrough:
    A standards enforcer A maintenance expert A user representative.

    Participants

    Process

    Inspection

    Walkthrough

    Preparations for a peer review session


    Leader preparation Teams preparation

    30

    Session Documentation
    Inspection session findings report Prepared by the scribe Inspection session summary report Prepared by the leader See appendix 8b , 8c

    31

    Post-Peer Review Activities


    Post-inspection activities are conducted to attest to : The prompt, effective correction and reworking of all errors by the designer/author and his team, as performed by the inspection leader in the course of the assigned follow-up activities. Transmission of the inspection reports to the internal Corrective Action Board ( CAB ) for analysis. See Fig 8.2 ( comparison of the peer review methods ( Page 166 )

    32

    The efficiency of peer reviews


    Some of the more common metrics applied to estimate the efficiency of peer reviews:
    peer review detection efficiency( average hrs worked per defect detected) Peer review defect detection density ( average number of defects detected per page of the design document ) Internal peer review effectiveness ( % of defects detected by peer reviews as % of total defects detected by the developer).

    33

    Expert Opinions

    Expert opinions, prepared by outside experts, support quality evaluation by introducing additional capabilities to the internal review staff. Outside experts transmit their expertise by either: Preparing an experts judgment about a document or a code section. Participating as a member of an internal design review, inspection or walkthrough team.

    An outside experts judgment is most beneficial in the following situations: Insufficient in-house professional capabilities in a specialized area. Temporary lack of in-house professionals for review team participation due to intense workload pressures during periods when waiting will cause substantial delays in the project completion schedule. Indecisiveness caused by major disagreements among the organizations senior professionals. In small organizations, where the number of suitable candidates for a review team is insufficient.

    You might also like