Static techniques

The Power of PowerPoint | thepopp.com 1
Jurusan Sistem Informasi
Fakultas Sains dan Teknologi
Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim
Riau
Chapter 3
Static techniques
Marni : 11453205152

Phases of a formal review
In contrast to informal reviews, formal reviews follow a formal process. A typical formal review process consists
of six main steps:
1. Planning
The review process for a particular
review begins with a 'request for
review' by the author to the moderator
(or inspection leader). A moderator is
often assigned to take care of the
scheduling (dates, time, place and
invitation) of the review. On a project
level, the project planning needs to
allow time for review and rework
activities, thus providing engineers
with time to thoroughly participate in
reviews
Although more and other entry criteria can be applied, the
following can be regarded as the minimum set for performing
the entry check:
• A short check of a product sample by the moderator (or
expert) does not reveal a large number of major defects.
For example, after 30 minutes of checking, no more than 3
major defects are found on a single page or fewer than 10
major defects in total in a set of 5 pages.
• The document to be reviewed is available with line
numbers.
• The document has been cleaned up by running any
automated checks that apply.
• References needed for the inspection are stable and
available.
• The document author is prepared to join the review team
and feels confident with the quality of the document.

Within reviews the following focuses can be
identified:
• focus on higher-level documents, e.g. does the
design comply to the requirements;
• focus on standards, e.g. internal consistency,
clarity, naming conventions, templates;
• focus on related documents at the same level,
e.g. interfaces between soft ware functions;
• focus on usage, e.g. for testability or
maintainability.
In contrast to informal reviews, formal reviews follow a formal process. A typical formal review process consists
of six main steps:

2. Kick-off
• An optional step in a review procedure is a kick-off meeting. The goal of this meeting is to get everybody on the
same wavelength regarding the document under review and to commit to the time that will be spent on checking. Also
the result of the entry check and defined exit criteria are discussed in case of a more formal review.
• In general a kick-off is highly recommended since there is a strong positive effect of a kick-off meeting on the
motivation of reviewers and thus the effectiveness of the review process. At customer sites, we have measured results
up to 70% more major defects found per page as a result of performing a kick-off, [van Veenendaal and van der Zwan,
2000]
• During the kick-off meeting the reviewers receive a short introduction on the objectives of the review and the
documents. The relationships between the document under review and the other documents (sources) are explained,
especially if the number of related documents is high

3. Preparation
• The participants work individually on the document under review using the related documents, procedures, rules and
checklists provided.
• The individual participants identify defects, questions and comments, according to their understanding of the
document and role. All issues are recorded, preferably using a logging form. Spelling mistakes are recorded on the
document under review but not mentioned during the meeting. The annotated document will be given to the author at
the end of the logging meeting.
• Using checklists during this phase can make reviews more effective and efficient, for example a specific checklist
based on perspectives such as user, maintainer, tester or operations, or a checklist for typical coding problems.
• A critical success factor for a thorough preparation is the number of pages checked per hour. This is called the
checking rate. The optimum checking rate is the result of a mix of factors, including the type of document, its
complexity, the number of related documents and the experience of the reviewer.
• Usually the checking rate is in the range of five to ten pages per hour, but may be much less for formal inspection, e.g.
one page per hour. During preparation, participants should not exceed this criterion.

4. Review meeting
The meeting typically consists of the
following elements (partly depending on the
review type): logging phase, discussion
phase and decision phase.
• During the logging phase the issues, e.g.
defects, that have been identified during
the preparation are mentioned page by
page, reviewer by reviewer and are
logged either by the author or by a scribe.
• A separate person to do the logging (a
scribe) is especially useful for formal
review types such as an inspection.
Every defect and its severity should be
logged. The participant who identifies the
defect proposes the severity. Severity
classes could be:
1. Critical: defects will cause
downstream damage; the scope and
impact of the defect is beyond the
document under inspection.
2. Major, defects could cause a
downstream effect (e.g. a fault in a
design can result in an error in the
implementation).
3. Minor, defects are not likely to cause
downstream damage (e.g. non-compli
ance with the standards and
templates). ,

5. Rework
Based on the defects detected, the author will improve the document under review step by step.
Not every defect that is found leads to rework. It is the author's responsibility to judge if a defect has
to be fixed. If nothing is done about an issue for a certain reason, it should be reported to at least
indicate that the author has considered the issue.
Changes that are made to the document should be easy to identify during follow-up. Therefore
the author has to indicate where changes are made (e.g. using 'Track changes' in word-processing
software).

6. Follow-up
• The moderator is responsible for ensuring that satisfactory actions have been taken on all
(logged) defects, process improvement suggestions and change requests.
• . Although the moderator checks to make sure that the author has taken action on all known
defects, it is not necessary for the moderator to check all the corrections in detail. If it is decided
that all participants will check the updated document, the moderator takes care of the distribution
and collects the feedback.
• For more formal review types the moderator checks for compliance to the exit criteria.
• In order to control and optimize the review process, a number of measurements are collected by
the moderator at each step of the process.
• Examples of such measurements include number of defects found, number of defects found per
page, time spent checking per page, total review effort, etc. It is the responsibility of the moderator
to ensure that the information is correct and stored for future analysis.

Roles and responsibilities
The moderator
The moderator (or review leader) leads
the review process. He or she
determines, in co-operation with the
author, the type of review, approach
and the composition of the review
team.
The scribe
During the logging meeting, the scribe
(or recorder) has to record each defect
mentioned and any suggestions for
process improvement.
The manager
The manager is involved in the reviews
as he or she decides on the execution
of reviews, allocates time in project
schedules and determines whether
review process objectives have been
met. The manager will also take care
of any review training requested by the
participants
The author
As the writer of the document under
review, the author's basic goal should
be to learn as much as possible with
regard to improving the quality of the
document, but also to improve his or
her ability to write future documents.
The reviewers
The task of the reviewers (also called
checkers or inspectors) is to check any
material for defects, mostly prior to the
meeting.
Within a review team, four types of participants can be distinguished: moderator, author, scribe and reviewer. In addition management needs to
play a role in the review process.

References
Graham et.al (2006)

Backlink
http://sif.uin-suska.ac.id/
http://fst.uin-suska.ac.id/
http://www.uin-suska.ac.id/

Static techniques

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Static techniques (16)

Recently uploaded (20)

Static techniques