Conduct reviews in a meeting format, although the participants of the
meetings might prepare some reviews on their own.
Continuously monitor quality during the process activities to prevent
large numbers of defects from remaining hidden until the reviews. In each
activity in the Unified Process for EDUcation (UPEDU), the checkpoints listed below are
referenced to reinforce this; use them for informal review meetings or in
daily work.
Types of Reviews
In a 1990 standard glossary, IEEE defines three kinds of reviews:
Review
A formal meeting at which an artifact, or a set of artifacts are
presented to the user, customer, or other interested parties for comments
and approval.
Inspection
A formal evaluation technique in which artifacts are examined in detail
by a person or group other than the author to detect errors, violations of
development standards, and other problems.
Walkthrough
A review process in which a developer leads one or more members of the
development team through a segment of an artifact that he or she has
written while the other members ask questions and make comments about
technique, style, possible error, violation of development standards, and
other problems.
When implemented across teams, reviews also provide opportunities for people
to discover design and code from other groups, and increase the chances of
detecting common source code, reuse opportunities, and opportunities for
generalization. Reviews also provide a way to coordinate the architectural style
among various groups.
In the UPEDU, reviews play an important though secondary
part in assuring quality. The major contributors to quality in the UPEDU are well described in [ROY98]
in the section on Peer Inspections. However, this book does identify a valuable
additional effect of reviews in professional development: junior staff have the
opportunity to see the work of experts, and have their own work reviewed by
senior mentors.
Planning
We plan reviews to determine the focus and scope of the review, and to make
sure all participants understand their role, and the goals of the review.
Prior to the review, define the scope of the review by determining the
questions that will be asked; define what will be assessed and why? See the
Check-points for the artifacts to be reviewed for the types of questions that
could be asked. The exact questions will depend on the phase in the project:
earlier reviews will be concerned with broader architectural issues, later
reviews will be more specific.
Once the scope of the review has been determined, define the review
participants, the agenda, the information that will be required to perform the
review. In selecting the participants, establish balance between software
architecture expertise and domain expertise. Clearly and unambiguously designate
an assessment leader who will coordinate the review. If necessary, draw upon
other teams or other parts of the organization to supply domain or technical
expertise.
The number of reviewers should be approximately seven or less. If chosen
appropriately, they will be more than capable of identifying problems in the
architecture. More reviewers actually reduce the quality of the review by making
the meetings longer, making participation more difficult, and by injecting side
issues and discussion into the review. Fewer than 4 reviewers increases the risk
of review myopia, as the diversity of concerns is reduced.
Reviewers should be experienced in the area to be reviewed; for use cases,
reviewers should have an understanding of the problem domain; for software
architecture a knowledge of software design techniques is also needed.
Inexperienced reviewers may learn something about the architecture by
participating, but they will contribute little to the review and their presence
may be distracting. Keep the group small; no more than seven people and no fewer
than three. Fewer reviewers jeopardize the quality of the review, and more reviewers
prevent interactive discussion essential to achieving quality results.
Select reviewers appropriate for the material:
those who have the background to understand the material presented
those who have an active stake in the quality of product or artifact being
reviewed
Preparation
Prior to the review, the artifacts to be reviewed and any background material
should be gathered and distributed to the review participants. This must be done
sufficiently in advance of the review meeting for reviewers to review the
material and gather issues. Distributing review materials sufficiently in
advance, and allowing reviewers to have time to prepare for the review
significantly improves the quality of review results. Preparation for reviews
also greatly improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the review.
Reviewers should study the documentation, forming questions and identifying
issues to discuss, prior to the review. Given normal workload
of reviewers, a few working days is usually the minimum time needed to prepare
for the review.
Conducting Reviews
There are several keys to conducting a successful review:
In general, the review process follows a repetitive cycle:
An issue is raised by a reviewer
The issue is discussed, and potentially confirmed
A defect is identified (something is identified as needing to be
addressed)
Continue until no more issues are identified
In order for this to work effectively, everyone must understand that the goal
of a review is to improve the quality of the reviewed artifact. The artifacts
should be reviewed with a critical eye to finding problems. Doing this can be
difficult, so all reviewers must constantly remind themselves to focus on
identifying issues (we are all natural problem solvers, but as reviewers we must
put that aside).
We all have strong ownership of our work; it is often difficult to accept
criticism, even when it is constructive. As a result, we must work even harder
to focus on the goals of the review: to make that work better.
Understand reviewer roles
In order to conduct an effective review, everyone has a role to play. More
specifically, there are certain roles that must be played, and reviewers cannot
switch roles easily. The basic roles in a review are:
the moderator
the recorder
the presenter
reviewers
The moderator makes sure that the review follows its agenda and stays focused
on the topic at hand. The moderator ensures that side-discussions do not derail
the review, and that all reviewers participate equally.
The recorder is an often overlooked, but essential part of the review team.
Keeping track of what was discussed and documenting actions to be taken is a
full-time task. Assigning this task to one of the reviewers essentially keeps
them out of the discussion. Worse yet, failing to document what was decided will
likely lead to the issue coming up again in the future. Make sure to have a
recorder and make sure that this is the only role the person plays.
The presenter is the author of the artifact under review. The presenter
explains the artifact and any background information needed to understand it
(although if the artifact was not self-explanatory, it probably needs some
work). It's important that reviews not become "trials" - the focus
should be on the artifact, not on the presenter. It is the moderator's role to
make sure that participants (including the presenter) keep this in mind. The
presenter is there to kick-off the discussion, to answer questions and to offer
clarification.
Reviewers raise issues. It's important to keep focused on this, and not get
drawn into side discussions of how to address the issue. Focus on results, not
the means.
Have a moderator
As discussed above, the moderator plays a crucial role in keeping the review
from losing focus. It's important that the moderator be focused on keeping the
review on track; the moderator should not have reviewer responsibilities. The
role of the moderator is to elicit discussion, ensure equal participation, and
to defuse contention. This is a full-time task. Failure to moderate effectively
causes reviews to drag on beyond their intended conclusion, and to fail to
achieve their goals.
Keep the review meetings brief
Reviews are most effective when they are brief and focused on well-identified
objectives. Because it is difficult to maintain focus for long periods, and
because reviewers have other work to do as well, limit reviews to no more than
two hours. If a review is expected to go longer, break it into several smaller
and more focused reviews. Results will be better if reviewers can maintain
focus.
The key to doing this is to have a well-identified agenda and clearly
articulated goals. These should be communicated when the review materials are
distributed, and the moderator should reinforce them when the review meeting
begins. The moderator must then consistently (and sometime ruthlessly) reinforce
these goals during the meeting.
Identify issues, don't fix problems
One of the major reasons why review meetings fail to achieve their intended
results is that they have a tendency to degenerate into discussions of how a
problem should be fixed. Fixing problems usually requires investigation and
reflection; the format of the review is not an effective medium for this kind of
discussion. Once the issue is identified, determine if it is a defect that must
be resolved, and then assign it to someone to investigate and resolve. The
review meeting should focus on identification only.
If the issue requires further discussion among a group of people, form a
separate meeting to focus on that topic. Typically this meeting will require
some investigation and preparation, and people with the right skills will need
to be involved. The review should remain focused on identifying other issues.
The moderator will often need to exert considerable will to keep the review
meeting focused on this.
Taking Action on Review Results
The review is of little value if nothing comes of it. At the conclusion of
the review:
Prioritize the list of problems.
Create defects to track the problems and their resolution.
If additional investigation is required, assign a small team to research
the problem (but not to solve it).
For problems that can be resolved in the current iteration, assign a
person or team to fix the problem.
Feed the list of unresolved problems into future iteration planning
efforts.
Overview >
Guidelines >
