ch-8 Part 2

Reviews
Chapter # 8
Part 2
8.3 Peer reviews
• The major difference between formal design reviews and peer review
methods is rooted in their participants and authority.
• Participants in peer reviews are, as expected, the project leader’s
equals, members of his or her department and other units.
• Main objectives lie in detecting errors and deviations from standards.
• Two peer review methods are inspections and walkthroughs.
Continue…
• Inspection emphasizes the objective of corrective action.
• Whereas a walkthrough’s findings are limited to comments on the
document reviewed, an inspection’s findings are also incorporated into
efforts to improve development methods per se.
• Inspections, as opposed to walkthroughs, are therefore considered to
contribute more significantly to the general level of SQA.
Peer Review methods will thus focus on:
• Participants of peer reviews

• Requisite preparations for peer reviews
• The peer review session
• Post-peer review activities
• Peer review efficiency
• Peer review coverage
8.3.1 Participants of peer reviews
The optimal peer review team is composed of three to five participants.
All the participants should be peers of the software system designer-
author. A recommended peer review team includes:
• A review leader
• The author
• Specialized professionals
Continue….
The review leader
The role of review leader (“moderator” in inspections, “coordinator’ in
walkthroughs) differs only slightly by peer review type.
The author
The author is, invariably a participant in each type of peer review.
Specialized professionals
The specialized professionals participating in the two peer review
methods differ by review.
Specialized professionals
For inspections, the recommended professionals are:

A designer
The systems analyst responsible for analysis and design of the software system
reviewed.
A coder or implementer
A professional who is thoroughly acquainted with coding tasks, preferably the
leader of the designated coding team.
A tester
An experienced professional, preferably the leader of the assigned testing team, who
focuses on identification of design errors usually detected during the testing phase.
Continue…
For walkthroughs, the recommended professionals are:
A standards enforcer
This team member, who specializes in development standards and procedures,
is assigned the task of locating deviations from those standards and procedures.
A maintenance expert
who is called upon to focus on maintainability, flexibility and testability issues.
A user representative
Participation of an internal (when the customer is a unit in the same firm) or an
external user’s representative in the walkthrough team contributes to the
review’s validity.
Team assignments
Conducting a review session requires, naturally, assignment of specific
tasks to the team members. Two of these members are the presenter of the
document and the scribe.
The presenter
During inspection sessions, the presenter of the document is chosen by
the moderator; usually, the presenter is not the document’s author.
The scribe
The team leader will often – but not always – serve as the scribe for the
session, and record the noted defects that are to be corrected by the
development team.
8.3.2 Preparations for a peer review session
The review leader and the team members are to attentively complete their
preparation.
Peer review leader’s preparations for the review session
The main tasks of the review leader in the preparation stage are:
• To determine, together with the author, which sections of the design
document are to be reviewed.
• To select the team members
• To schedule the peer review sessions. It is advisable to limit a review
session to two hours; therefore, several review sessions should be
scheduled (up to two sessions a day) when the review task is sizable.
Continue….
Peer review team’s preparations for the review session
• Inspection team members are expected to read the document sections
to be reviewed and list their comments before the inspection session
begins. An important tool supporting the inspector’s review is a
checklist.
• Prior to the walkthrough session, team members briefly read the
material in order to obtain a general overview of the sections to be
reviewed, the project and its environment.
8.3.3 The peer review session
Session documentation
The documentation produced at the end of an inspection session is much
more comprehensive than that of a walkthrough session.
Two documents are to be produced following an inspection session and
subsequently distributed among the session participants:
• Inspection session findings report
• Inspection session summary report
Continue….
Inspection session findings report: This report, produced by the
scribe, should be completed and distributed immediately after the
session’s closing.
Inspection session summary report: This report is to be compiled by
the inspection leader shortly after the session or series of sessions
dealing with the same document.
8.3.4 Post-peer review activities
A fundamental element differentiating between the two peer review
methods discussed here is the issue of post-peer review.
Post-inspection activities are conducted to attest to:

• The prompt, effective correction and reworking of all errors.
• Transmission of the inspection reports to the internal Corrective
Action Board (CAB) for analysis.

ch-8 Part 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ch-8 Part 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reviews

• Participants of peer reviews

For inspections, the recommended professionals are:

Post-inspection activities are conducted to attest to:

You might also like