Technical Reviews
Small team representing stakeholders, dependant projects, support groups and project
team members without the producer present at the review. These reviews are the most
rigorous, because they require the product to 'stand on its own', and because the
defensive and personal attack behaviour which may be displayed in a walkthrough is
avoided.
Types of software technical reviews
The types of technical review processes used on a project depend on the development
model followed (Development lifecycle models include the waterfall model, Rapid
prototyping, Iterative enhancement, maintenance activity modelling), the type of
product being produced and the standards that must be adhered to.
Technical reviews are recommended for:
• Documentation
• Requirements specifications
• Analysis
• Design specifications
Recommendations:
No more than seven attendees, (if more are necessary for an adequate review of
the product, then the product should be split into sub-sections for separate reviews)
No more than two hours (most productive - one hour)
At least 1-2 hours preparation is required by each review participator
Producer determines when the product is ready for review
Management:
• Arrange review facilities
• Show an interest in the outcome (meaningful)
• Supply necessary staff support
Technical Review Process
Must have a review leader and review recorder who; may or may not be responsible
for the technical content of the review, and are familiar with the technical material
and the technology.
The leader may not be visible to a casual observer.
Roles
Review Leader
The review leader is responsible for the quality of the review process.
• Before a review:
Selects and notifies review participants
Reproduces and distributes review material
Arrangement of review location/ time, etc.
Pre-review verification (attendance, etc)
547405721.doc
• During a review:
Pace
Participation
Clarity
Content
Emotional level
Relevance
• After a review:
Produce and distribute reports
Follow up on minor issues
Representation of review committee in administrative matters
Review Recorder
The review recorder is responsible for the accurate recording of reviews.
• Before a review:
Preparation of the review report forms
Security of the recording equipment
• During a review:
Publicly recording technical issues, related issues and comments (eg. On butcher
paper or whiteboard)
Verifying accuracy of transcription
Assisting review leader
• After a review
Final preparation of review reports
Maintenance of the system history
Information processing as required
Review Participator
The review participator(s) is (are) responsible for the technical evaluation of the
product as correct and complete.
• Before a review:
Preparation - review material and make notes of issues
Arrive punctually at review
Contacts group leader regarding difficulties as soon as possible
• During a review
Stick to technical issues (supported by fact)
Watch their language (refer to the product not the producer)
Present an equal number of positive and negative comments
Be willing to associate
Raise issues, but do not resolve them
Avoid discussions of style
Remember the educational function of a review
Do not evaluate the producer(s)
Ask questions
547405721.doc
Review others as they would have their own work reviewed
Technical Review Summary Report
• Contains all of the relevant information as to the outcome and status of the review
and the material covered.
• Distributed to: producers, reviewers, management, and system history.
Technical Issues List
• Enumerates the reason for the conclusions of the Technical Review Summary
Report. Contains relevant technical information produced by the review committee.
• Distributed to: producers, reviewers, and system history.
Related Issues List
• Contains technical information noted in review, but not directly related to the
product under review, ie, standards, prior products, training, management issues,
operations.
• Distributed to: producers, reviewers, appropriate people, and system history.
Behavioural Factors
A review process is a human activity, and as such considerable attention must be
spent on human interactions.
Motivating Reviewers
Ultimately requires the organisation to evolve a culture in which review processes are
natural. Included in this culture is recognition for good reviews, and incentives for
performing this task well. Techniques for recognising good reviewers, peer evaluation
and possible incentives such as cash awards or merit increases. Reviews to be
conducted in a consistent manner where every one has their work reviewed. If any
personnel are immune to the review process for any reason, serious attitude problems
and conflicts emerge.
547405721.doc
