
|
General notes
The following description is based on the comprehensive SEM
Guidelines "Reviews" for planning,
executing and documenting reviews, which is published by
PSE QM. The reviews are supported by separate review
forms for comment technique and session technique (Word for Windows
files). What is a review?
This is the most common definition:
A review is a systematic, critical and documented check
of development results at the end of defined work stages.
It has the goal of finding errors.
What is a document review?
In this case the reviewed development result is a
document such as:
- Tender
- Specifications of Definition and Design phases
- Project plan
- QA plan
- And other development results which must be
reviewed or are recommended to be reviewed.
What does end of a defined work stage mean?
A review is only expedient if the document is
actually ready, i.e. has the degree of maturity needed
for checking. This is generally the case if a work stage
has been concluded (e.g. Producing the QA
plan) and the author himself
considers the document ready and correct, i.e. cannot
identify any remaining errors. The next defined stages
can then be: Review of the QA plan, Revision
of the QA plan and Release of
the QA plan.
Discussing half-finished documents and
development meetings cannot be considered reviews!
How do I conduct the check?
It is advisable to adopt a systematic approach, i.e. to
choose a tried-and-proven review method. Popular and
proven review methods are (including a combination of
these)
- comment technique and
- session technique.
What form does a comment technique review
take?
The documents are first distributed to the reviewers:
- Document (preferably with line numbers on the
paper)
- Reference documents (what is it being reviewed
against?)
- Project standards and specifications (if
available)
- Record templates
- Other useful documents
The reviewers work through the document on their own
and pass their findings to the sender (generally the
author, initiator, facilitator, inviter, etc.). The
latter evaluates (possibly in consultation with others)
the comments and the author incorporates the changes (if
the necessary corrections are very extensive, it is
advisable to conduct a follow-up review on a smaller
scale).
What form does a session technique review
take?
The documents are first distributed to the reviewers. At
a fixed time for the session, the document is worked
through jointly using the records of the review
participants. The facilitator / keeper of the minutes
then draws up the minutes for the session and evaluates
the errors. The author now knows the extent of the
improvements which are necessary.
A highly formalized form of the session technique is
the intensive inspection based on M. Fagan
(this is far more effective and efficient than the
traditional session technique but requires a relatively
long period of time). The number of participants is
restricted to 3 - 6 who are assigned precisely defined
roles. These are usually:
- Author
- Reader
- Tester
- Facilitator
In addition, up to 3 further inspectors can be
employed who perform specific roles such as interface
tester, user, standards tester, etc. and who check the
document from the perspective of their roles. Such a
session should not exceed 2 hours. This inevitably
restricts the extent of the documents that can be worked
through during a session and may require the document to
be checked in several sessions.
Which method should I choose for my document
review?
For particularly "tricky" documents or parts of
documents, the intensive inspection is highly
recommendable. The following decision table should be
used for other documents:
For
comment technique:
- Many participants are possible
- No dates for a meeting need be agreed
- No "location" problems
- No time taken up in meetings
- No time taken up in traveling
|
Against
comment technique:
- No dialog
- No synergies through meetings
- Low error identification rate
|
For
session technique:
- High error identification rate
- Misunderstandings can be resolved quickly
(documents)
|
Against
session technique:
- Sessions should not be too large
- The "location" problem arises
(D, USA, A, etc.)
- Dates need to be agreed
- Negative psychological components can
arise (pressure from superiors,
antipathy, etc.)
|
For
intensive inspection:
- Role perspective promotes error finding
- Thorough check of the document against
specifications
- Effort per error identified is the same
as for a session review, but more errors
are found
|
Against
intensive inspection:
- Low review speed
- Training available?
|
Why documented check?
Irrespective of the method selected, each review must be
documented by a review report:
- To ensure that the author has an error report for
eliminating errors which has been accepted by
everyone involved.
- To ensure that all participants and persons
informed have a document setting out experiences
which can then be used for planning and executing
further reviews.
- To ensure that errors and the causes of errors
can be analyzed.
- In order to be able to present a development
result which constitutes a record of quality to
ISO 9001 in order to be able to substantiate a
check if required.
A review report should consist of the cover sheet
complete with error statistics, error list and, if
appropriate, an analysis report.
Who does the document review affect?
- The author: I want to
know that my result has been approved by other
participants and that as few errors as possible
will be passed on to the next development phase.
- The team: We want to
ensure that we can build on something secure in
the next phase, we have also a basis for further
work in the form of a result which has been
accepted by the customer, we know the entire
subsystem as a result of the reviews and can work
more successfully in future, we have learned to
discuss things with each other on a professional
level.
- The client: The
document has been checked and accepted by me. I
know what the situation is. I know what I will
have to pay for.
- The contractor: I have
had the document examined by experts. I expect no
more pitfalls.
What needs to be done if too little time is
available for reviews?
Set priorities: Where is it particularly important to
invest time and money in document reviews?
- In early documents (the
effort for eliminating errors is still relatively
low)
- If the consequences of errors are
serious (e.g. security-related
software, client's image, key document)
- If there is a high probability of
error (e.g. authors new to this
field (subject area and tools), communication
problems (location and language), complex subject
"that has always been the source of many
errors", etc.).
You should consider, however: It
takes an average of one hour to identify an error
(calculated on the basis of 1100 reviews in the PSE); an
hour that you can invest in reviews will save you approx.
5 hours up to the point of acceptance.
Where can I expect the most errors?
Experience shows that errors in the development documents
are concentrated on a few areas:
- Forgetting individual cases in a CASE-statement
(20%)
- Ignoring extreme conditions (17%)
- Misunderstanding earlier documents (12%)
- Wrong queries (12%)
In addition to the actual review, it is also
advisable to analyze the review
Following a review, a brief analysis of the review should
be conducted in order to draw conclusions about one's own
behavior and the actual errors (you can find further
information about this on the review form). In terms of
the review process, this means:
- Were all aspects of the planning correct
(participants, deadline, material, etc.)?
- How did the review itself proceed (concentration,
error finding, rooms, etc.)?
- How was the error evaluation arrived at
(consensus, laid down by the manager, etc.)
- It is also worthwhile noting down positive
aspects in the analysis report!
With regard to the development process,
you should ask the following questions:
- What errors keep on recurring?
- Why?
- What could be done to counteract these (measures
and persons responsible)?
If the sources of error are eradicated, there should
be nothing to stop the development process from being
improved.
|