Upload
myra-burns
View
222
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Peer Review Process
Formal and Informal Peer Reviews
2
Objectives
Understand the Peer Review process Subprocess to the Verification and Validation
Process Understand how defect measures are used
for process improvement
3
Peer Review Because...
Deliver quality products Catch defects earlier in the lifecycle Improve skills and knowledge Improve process performance
4
CMMI Basis
Peer reviews are part of Verification “...to ensure that selected work products meet
their specified requirements.” SG 2: “Peer reviews are performed on
selected work products.” The Peer Review Process is an appendix to
the Verification and Validation Process BPS/16-Verification and Validation
5
Peer Review Roles
Employee Responsibilities
Project Manager 1. Identifies and schedules reviews2. Identifies personnel resource needs3. Assigns moderator4. Does not attend the review
Author 1. Creates work product to be reviewed2. Prepares and present overview, as needed3. Completes rework
Moderator 1. Works with producer/developer/author to schedule formal peer review2. Ensures that review discussion focuses on the product and not the
producer/developer/author.3. Briefs inspection team roles4. Distributes inspection materials5. Ensures that the recorder documents all errors and action items
Quality Assurance (QA) 1. Ensures PR process is followed
Reviewer 1. Reviews work products for errors and issues, recording review time spent and findings on an inspection problem report (IPR)
Scribe (recorder) 1. Completes the IPR, recording duration of the PR and all defects and issues identified
6
Terms
Defect—A flaw that causes a work product to fail to perform a required function or behave contrary to documented expectations
Major defect—A defect that if not corrected prevents the product from meeting its requirements. Requires correction before the work product may be promoted to the next phase in the lifecycle.
Minor defect—A defect that if not corrected means the product will not meet specifications, design, or standards completely, but will not prevent the product from otherwise operating or serving its purpose.
A project manager may decide to permit a work product to be promoted to the next phase in the lifecycle without all minor defects being corrected. This decision must be documented on the IPR form.
7
Terms
Other defect—A deviation from standards and specifications; or a trivial issue, such as a format/spelling/grammar errors or other typos that do not affect meaning.
A large number of format/spelling/grammar errors or other typos may constitute one major defect because a document that does not get the spelling/grammar/formatting right may be perceived as unlikely to have the facts right either.
If disregard for coding standards results in code that, while meeting the requirements, will be difficult to maintained or will complicate current or future integration or interfaces, it may constitute a major defect.
Defect type—A classification of a defect indicating what sort of error was committed. The choice of types differs depending on what is being reviewed.
8
Material Reviewed Code Design Document Requirements
Type of Review Formal Informal
Types of Peer Reviews
9
Material Reviewed
This table shows a standard arrangement of work products and types of reviews, but this scheme may be modified and documented in the SDP.
Work Product PR Type Recommended Participants
Major software units Required Formal Experts in the coding language; testers
Major software unit design Required Informal Requirements analysts, developers/coders; testers
Minor software units, updates Recommended Informal Another developer
Requirements Required Formal Requirements specialists, designers, coders, testers
System test description Required Formal Testers, technical writers, QA analysts
User's guide/release notes Recommended Informal Developers; requirements analysts; technical writers
10
Resources (in BPS)
Process /13-Verification and Validation
Peer Review Form
/13-Verification and Validation/Tools Guides and Templates/Peer Review Form.xls
Guidelines /13-Verification and Validation/Tools Guides and Templates/Guidelines for <x> Reviews.doc
Standards /Organizational Process Assets/Standards
11
Formal Peer Reviews
Planning and preparing Conducting the peer review Documenting the findings Follow-up work
12
Formal PR: Plan and Prepare
Project manager selects reviewers Moderator sets time and place
Two days (at least) before the review, sends: Invitation Material to be reviewed IPR form Review guidelines Standard to be used
13
Formal PR: Conduct the Review
Discuss the work product, not the author Come prepared with a list of defects and
questions Set a time limit Do not solve problems during the peer
review, document them Consensus on major/minor/other, category
14
Formal PR: Document Findings
Select Type
Complete information
Size and time are required for measurements
15
Formal PR: Document Findings
Types listed on page 1 and in process
Disposition: Deferred, Closed, No Action
Defect Recording
Follow-Up Work
16
Formal PR: Document Findings
17
Formal PR: Follow-Up
Project manager and author determine what to correct
Finish IPR form and put it in the project’s SDLC Info/Peer Review directory.
QA checks to see whether action items are completed
Billing: Follow-Up Work on IPR form does not include defect
correction, just work to complete the form PR review, meeting, and form work bill to Peer
Reviews Defect correction work bill to Debug
18
Informal PR
Project manager assigns a reviewer Findings can be in IPR, e-mail, annotation, etc.
Findings still go in /Peer Reviews Author updates work products based on the review
results, consulting with the reviewer as needed. As in formal peer review follow-ups, the project
manager resolves disagreements over defects and other issues.
Once all the changes have been agreed to and made, the author forwards the modified work product to the project manager or to the CM group for inclusion in the project baseline.
19
Measurements
Collected in MA spreadsheet
Reviews Page
Dashboard Page
20
Additional Analysis
Def/Rev Hr. vs. Review %
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Review Time %
Def
/Rev
. Hou
r
Code Design Requirements Linear (Code) Linear (Design)
Negative correlation between % of IPR time spent on review and defects per review hour
21
Additional Analysis
Code Reviews: Review Minutes/LOC vs. Def/LOC
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Def./LOC
Revi
ew M
inut
e/LO
C
Correlation between review time per LOC and defects found per LOC
22
Review
VER SP 2.1: Prepare for peer reviews How do we prepare?
Schedule Select work product for review Invitation Guidelines/standards Review material Training
23
Review
VER SP 2.2: Conduct peer reviews Things to remember during a peer review
Review the work, not the author Don’t solve defects, document them Develop consensus on defects, type, category List defects on IPR form Correct defects, update form
24
Review
VER SP 2.3: Analyze peer review data Data collected where? Used for what?
IPR forms MA spreadsheet Additional analysis Used for process improvement, to check process
efficiency, etc.