Review is an effective technique to identify defects in work products like code, requirements documents, and design documents. It is a collaborative process involving roles like a moderator, recorder, and reviewers. The review process consists of planning the review, preparing by having reviewers examine the work product, holding a review meeting to discuss defects, and ensuring defects are addressed through rework and follow up. Data from the review like defects and time spent is captured to measure the review's effectiveness.

1. Review in SPM
Shanmugapriya.P,AP/KEC

2. Review:
• Review is a very effective technique to remove defects from all work
products including code.
• Cost-effective.
• Utility of Review:
• To identify any deviation from standards, including issues that affect
maintenance software.
• To improve the work product such as using algorithms that are more
time or space efficient.
• Review meeting provides learning opportunities
• Good understanding of the work product.

3. Candidate work products for review
• Requirement specification documents.
• User interface specification and design documents.
• Architectural, high-level and detailed design documents.
• Test plan and designed test cases.
• Project mgmt plan and configuration mgmt plan.

4. Review Roles
• Roles are moderator, recorder and reviewers.
• Moderator-plays key role
• Responsibilities of moderator-scheduling, convening meetings, distributing
review materials, leading , moderating review sessions, ensuring that the
defects are tracked to closure.
• Role of recorder- record the defects found, time, and effort data.
• Reviewers- review the work product and give suggestions to the author
about existing defects and point put ways to improve work product.

5. Review Process
• Four Important activities:
• Planning
• Review Preparation
• Review Meeting
• Rework and Follow-up

6. • Planning:
• Project mngr-nominates a moderator once product is ready for submission.
• Moderator-familiar to product
• Project mngr-nominates other members of the review team after conclusion
with moderator.
• Less than 3 members-effectiveness reduced
• Selected from the following types of project team members
• Author of preceding work product based on which work product under review
was developed.
• Member who would use the product under review
• Peers of author.
• Authors of products that would inreface with the product under review

7. • Preparation:
• To initiate the review process moderator convenes a brief preparation
meeting.
• Copies of product are distributed to review tms
• Author presents the overview of product.
• Moderator-highlights the objectives of the review.
• Reviewers individually carry out review and record their observations in
separate documents called review logs.

8. • Review Meeting:
• Reviewer’s give their comments based on the logs they have prepared
beforehand.
• Author respond to the comments.
• Moderator ensures that the discussions remain focused and productive.
Rework:
• Author –addresses all issues raised by the reviewers by carrying out the
necessary modifications to work product.
• Rejoinder-records the exact ways in which the comments have been
discussed.
• In final brief meeting, the review team members check whether all the
issues scribed in review log have been resolved.
• At the end of this meeting, final summary report of the review is prepared.

9. • Data Collection:
• data representing the results of the meetings is properly recorded, it can get
lost.
• In addition to all the issues, data about the time spent by the reviewers in the
review activity must also be captured.
• Different types of reports
• Review preparation log-each reviewers prepares a review preparation log.
• Data about he/she observes, their locations, their criticality and the total time
spent in doing review of the work product.
• Review log-Only those defects that are agreed by the author are logged.
• Review summary report- summarizes the review data and presents an overall
picture of the review.
• Contains information regarding the total defects and the amount of time spent
on each of the review process activities.