CPE 308 

PAIR TEAM REVIEW PROCESS

2 March, 2009

Turner

Pairs: Crosshair Solutions and Marker Software

Blugoo and C4 Solutions

Main Task: Perform analysis reviews on each other's documents (SRS and other artifacts) for quality and sufficiency.

Basic Process Requirements: 

3 members on the reviewing team including one code-monkey.

3 members on the presenting team, an MC, your QA lead and a Scribe.

Meet for one hour review of a substantial portion of your SRS including the associated analysis artifacts (use-cases, functional requirements, dataflow diagrams, state diagrams, E-R diagrams, class diagrams, storyboards).

Main focus - the presenting team must show the reviewing team an overview of their SRS and then cover, by walkthrough, some substantial functionality from use-case and functional requirements to the analysis diagrams that are associated with them.  The reviewing team is to utilize quality attribute checklists and their own understanding of the project to look for problems (not to suggest solutions necessarily, but to point out any problems they see in the documents.  The presenting team is not there to justify, but to explain and to record any problems found for further QA action by their team at a later time.  Maximize the useful feedback during the review.

Particular problems may be located through use of checklists already covered in class, in the textbooks, or developed by the team.  Some overall qualities to check for include:

Completeness

Correctness

Consistency

Readability

Understandability

Flow

As mentioned, many problems can be found in assumptions (incorrect or missing), in pre and post conditions to a function or feature, in consideration of exceptional behavior (what should NOT happen?)  Do not overlook the general usefulness of the documentation, the developer should be able to read and use this document to write Code that satisfies the customer's needs.  Keep that central.

You may take liberties in structuring this review.  It may be more formal if you'd like to exchange documents in advance for written comments and then have a meeting to discuss the problems found.  It may be a presentation based on your documents to the reviewing team without a previous document review.  Do come up with a process for a one hour meeting with a formal agenda designed to implement your review in about an hour (or, if you so choose, multiple meetings, but I'd consider a good, solid one hour of meeting time to be a minimum, even if it is in pieces.)

I expect a copy of the defect reports and detailed minutes of the meeting.  It will be part of your grade evaluation.