Design Reviews Peer Reviews. Agenda Peer Reviews Participants of Peer Review Preparation for a Peer Review Session The Peer Review Session Post-peer Review.

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


  • Slide 1
  • Design Reviews Peer Reviews
  • Slide 2
  • Agenda Peer Reviews Participants of Peer Review Preparation for a Peer Review Session The Peer Review Session Post-peer Review Activities Efficiency of Peer Review Peer Review Coverage Comparison of Team Review Methods 2
  • Slide 3
  • Peer Review Peer Review method vs. Formal Design Review Authority DR participants hold superior position to project leader; in PR, the participants are equals to the project leader. Degree of Authority DR can decide whether the project moves to the next stage. Not the case in a PR Objective PR objective is to detect errors and deviations Methods of Peer Review Inspection Walkthrough Inspection vs. Walkthrough Inspections are more formal than Walkthroughs Walkthrough findings are just comments whereas the findings in Inspections are used to improve development methods. 3
  • Slide 4
  • Development of inspection checklist for each design document. Development of Defect Type Frequency Table used by inspectors to look for defect concentration areas. Training of professionals in the Inspection process. Periodic analysis of the effectiveness of past inspections. Introduction of scheduled inspection into project activity plan. Inspections 4
  • Slide 5
  • Optimal team is 2-5 participants (1-3 can be added) All participants are peers (equals) of the system designer Review Team includes Review Leader The Author Specialized Professionals Participants of Peer Review 5
  • Slide 6
  • Review Leader Known as moderator in Inspections and coordinator in Walkthroughs Should know about development of projects of the current type and familiar with technology Has good relationship with the Author and the Development Team Not a member of the Project Team Experienced in coordination and leadership Should be a trained moderator moderate meetings Author Participant in each type of the peer review. Participants of Peer Review 6
  • Slide 7
  • Specialized Professionals - Inspection Designer: System analyst responsible for analysis and design of the software Coder/Implementer: Programmer. Help in detecting defects that could lead to coding errors in Implementation phase Tester: Leader of the testing team who focuses on identification of design errors Participants of Peer Review 7
  • Slide 8
  • Specialized Professionals - Walkthrough Standard Enforcer: Specializes in development standards and procedures. Main job is to detect deviations. Maintenance Expert: Focuses on maintainability, flexibility and testability issues. Also reviews the documentation for correctness and completeness. User Representative: Looks at the system from the users point of view. If external user is not available, a member plays the role of a user. Participants of Peer Review 8
  • Slide 9
  • Team Assignments Presenter: In Inspections, it is usually the coder as he understands the systems design logic. In Walkthroughs, it is the author. Scribe: The team leader is often the scribe person who takes notes during the review sessions. Participants of Peer Review 9
  • Slide 10
  • Participants in Peer Review 10 Inspections Walkthroughs Coder (Presenter) Author Designer Tester Moderator (Scribe) Author (Presenter) Maint. Expert User Rep Standards Enforcer Coordinator (Scribe)
  • Slide 11
  • Review Leader Preparations Determine which sections need to be reviewed Most difficult and complex sections Critical sections Sections likely to have defects To select team members Schedule the Peer Review sessions Limit a review session for 2 hours Max. two sessions per day can be held Distribute the document to the team members Preparations for a Peer Review session 11
  • Slide 12
  • Review Team Preparations Inspection Team Members Read the document and list their comments Author can provide an overview session if the material in unclear Walkthrough Team Members Briefly read the documents No need to prepare comments in advance Specialized Review Checklists can be used for common type of development documents Preparations for a Peer Review session 12
  • Slide 13
  • Session Process Presenter reads the document and explains it in his own words Comments made by the review team Scribe notes down all the defects identified Location, description, type and character of defects Estimate the severity of defect Session Documentation Inspection Inspection session findings report List all the defects identified and suggested corrections Inspection session summary report Written by the inspection leader detailing about the session findings and resources used. Walkthroughs Only the walkthrough session finding report is distributed to the development team. The Peer Review Session 13
  • Slide 14
  • Walkthrough No follow-up done post the session Inspections Effective correction of the errors identified. Submission of the inspection report to the Internal Corrective Action Board (CAB) for analysis. Post-Review: The DR Report 14
  • Slide 15
  • Peer review detection efficiency: Average hours worked per defect detected. Peer review defect detection density: Average number of defects detected per page of the design document Internal peer review effectiveness: Percentage of defects detected by peer review as percentage of total defects detected by the developer. Efficiency of Peer Review 15 Important Note: Practice the calculation on pg. 167
  • Slide 16
  • Process of Peer Review 16 Inspections Walkthroughs Inspection session report & summary report Preparation Overview Meeting Detail review of document Inspection session Correction & Re- work Follow-up of Correction Preparation Brief Overview Reading Walkthrough Session Walkthrough session report
  • Slide 17
  • Not everything is reviewed 5-15% of document pages coverage Peer Review Coverage 17
  • Slide 18
  • Comparison of Reviews 18 PropertyFormal DRInspectionWalkthrough Direct Objective Detect errors Identify risks Approve document Detect errors Identify deviations Detect errors Indirect Objective Knowledge exchange Support corrections Knowledge exchange Review Leader Chief S/W Eng.ModeratorCoordinator Participants Top-level staff Cust. Rep. Peers Project Leader Yes Specialized Professionals - Designer Coder Tester Std. Enforcer Maint. Expert User Rep.
  • Slide 19
  • Comparison of Reviews 19 PropertyFormal DRInspectionWalkthrough Overview Meetings NoYes Participant Preparation Yes - thorough Yes - brief Review Session Yes Follow-up Yes No Formal Training NoYesNo Use checklist NoYesNo Error data collection Not requiredRequiredNot required Review Doc Formal DR report Findings report Summary report Findings report


View more >