Skip to content Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Breadcrumb Trail

Institutional links

Chief Information Officer Branch

IT Project Review and Oversight

Enhanced Management Framework

Versions

ARCHIVED - Peer Review Process

Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

2. Overview

2.1 What to Review

Projects identify the work products to be reviewed. Specific reviews can be mandated in published methodologies or organizational policies.

Reviews should be considered, but not limited, to the following work products:

Software Development Process

requirements
project plans
logical design
physical design
code
test plans
user documentation

Software Process Improvement

policies
processes
procedures
standards
templates
checklists

2.2 Check Procedures

Entry and exit criteria are critical for conducting a review. Prior to beginning a review, senior project personnel must establish entry and exit criteria for each type of work product to be reviewed. Criteria may exist from formal methodologies and other groups within the organization. Generic criteria can be modified for specific products.

Entry Criteria

Entry criteria represents a list of required activities that must be performed and the supporting materials and all documents that must be available prior to the review.

Entry criteria for a policy should include the standard to create a policy, approved references on the subject covered in the policy, and departmental business plans.

Entry criteria for code should include the physical design specification from which the code was generated, a clean compile listing, test environment materials, automated code audit reports, and unit test scripts and cases.

The available entry criteria and Review Package Cover Sheet (see appendixes) is used by the facilitator to determine if the work product is ready for review.

Exit Criteria

Exit criteria is a list of the requirements that must be met to pass the review.

Exit criteria for a policy will include such items as: do the policy meet established standards for creating a policy, does the policy endorse the departmental and branch vision, does the policy endorse the approved departmental frameworks and methodologies, etc. (reference appendixes).

Exit criteria for code will include such items as: does the code meet established quality standards, does the code perform the functions required in the physical design, etc.

2.3 Defect Classification

Classifying defects provides meaningful data for analysing defects found in reviews and the opportunity for identifying and removing the root cause of the defects. This type of process improvement results in overall cost savings and improved product quality.

Defects should be classified by origin, type, class, and severity.

Origin

Where the defect was created. This could be a Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) phase or some other phase of a project.

Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC)

requirements
functional
detailed
code

Other

external documentation
bad fix

Type

Type indicates defect types listed in the exit criteria.

Class

Class indicates whether the defect was missing, wrong, or extra.

missing requirement
wrong requirement not met
extra requirement not requested, but was present in the product
unclear, ambiguous
unknown cannot be categorized

Severity

Severity has 2 levels

major, those that cause incorrect results
minor, all those that are not major

Approved defect classification do not currently exist.

Process Improvement (PI) teams, methodologists, Centres Of Expertise (COE), and project teams can work with the organization's measurement groups to define defect classifications for the organization.

2.4 Roles

Facilitator

Trained to organize, lead, and control the review process and to oversee any necessary follow-up.

(1) Should NOT be a member of the project team.
(2) Organizes the review: in consultation with the author and/or project leader selects the participants, verifies distribution of the review materials, schedules the overview, review, and required follow-up sessions.
(3) Leads the review: ensures all participants are prepared, encourages participation, focuses on finding defects, controls the flow and direction, and maintains objectivity.
(4) Control the review: enforces adherence to the entry and exit criteria, seeks consensus on defects, makes final decision on disagreements, directs the recording and categorizing of defects, summarizes review results and keeps to a time limit of one to two hours per review.
(5) Ensures the author completes the follow-up tasks.

Reader

Responsible to set the pace of the review by paraphrasing or reading the work product being reviewed.

(1) Must not be the facilitator or author.
(2) Thoroughly familiar with the material to be reviewed.
(3) Objectively presents the work product.
(4) Paraphrases or reads the material line by line or paragraph by paragraph, pacing the reading for effective clarity and comprehension.

Recorder

Responsible to record defects and summarize the review results. Must have ample time to note defects since this is the only information the author will have to find and correct defects. Avoid using abbreviations or shorthand that may not be understood by other team members.

(1) Can be the same individual as the facilitator, but cannot be the reader or author.
(2) Records every defect found.
(3) Presents the defect list for consensus by all participants in the review.
(4) Classifies the defects, as directed by the reviewers, by type, class and severity based on predetermined criteria.

Author

Originator of the work product being reviewed.

(1) May act as reviewer during the review meeting.
(2) Determines when the work product is ready for review.
(3) Assist the facilitator in selecting the participants for the review team.
(4) Meets all entry criteria outlined in the appropriate review package cover sheet.
(5) Provides an overview of the material prior to the review for clarification, if requested.
(6) Provides clarification of the review material during the review, if requested.
(7) Corrects the defects and presents the finished rework to the facilitator for sign-off.

Reviewers

Trained individuals who can effectively contribute to the objectives of the review meeting.

(1) Facilitator, reader, and recorder can also be reviewers.
(2) Must be prepared for the review by carefully examining and understanding the material prior to the review.
(3) Maintains objectivity towards the work product.
(4) Reviews the work product.
(5) Records all preparation time.
(6) Presents potential defects and problems encountered before and during the review meeting.

2.5 Review Process

The review process contains 5 steps, each distinctive and essential to the successful outcome of the overall process.

(1) Planning
(2) Overview Meeting (optional)
(3) Preparation
(4) Review Meeting
(5) Rework/Follow-up

Planning

To initiate, organize, and schedule the review, define the participant roles, and define how defects will be classified.

Overview Meeting (Optional)

To acquaint all reviewers with the work product to be reviewed and to minimize individual preparation time. An overview is optional and is performed if the:

work product is lengthy, complex or new,
review process is new,
participants are new to the review process.

Preparation

To provide time for each review participant to acquire a thorough understanding of the product to be reviewed and identify any defects found (per exit criteria).

Review Meeting

To find defects in the work product, but not correct those defects or suggest alternatives for correction.

Rework/Follow-up

To complete rework required, obtain a sign-off or initiate a re-review and capture review results.

2.6 Review Results

The Facilitator, at the end of review meeting, determines the state of the review and what follow-up is required.

The Facilitator selects one of the following states:

No defects found – product has passed the review
Minor work required – minor defects found and a re-review is not required. The author will correct all defects and the facilitator will verify the results.
Major work required – major defects were found and a re-review is required.