Review Process Manual

Review Process Manual

(QMS-ISPL-M-REV)

Version No

V20

Prepared by

Date

30-01-2015

Name

Suman

Signature

Date

30-01-2015

Copy No

Approved by

Issued to

Name

Thomas Glass

Signature

Date

30-01-2015

Document Amendment Record

A- A- Added, M- Modified, D- Deleted

Sl.No	Date	Version No	Page No	Change Mode(A/M/D)	Brief description of change
1	15-07-2002	V01	N/A	A	Initial Release
2	28-10-2002	V02	N/A	A	Included Section 3 - Records
3	12-06-2003	V03	N/A	M	Included in section -2 , “Code review for prototype coding is mandatory”
4	06-06-2012	V03	N/A	D	The Company address information is removed from the Footer
5	30-01-2015	V20	N/A	N/A	Reviewed and base lined

Table of Contents

2 Review process details

2.1 Entry criteria, Input, Activity, Output, Exit criteria

2.2 References

3 Records

1 Process overview

1.1 Purpose

To uncover errors in the item under review and to verify that

Ø it meets its requirements.

Ø it has been represented according to predefined standards and in a uniform manner.

1.2 Scope

All software work products.

1.3 Responsibility

All review initiators and leaders.

2 Review process details

Each review is conducted as a meeting. It is properly planned, controlled and attended.

Regardless of the review format that is chosen, every review meeting will abide by the following activities:

Ø Between three and five people will be involved in the review.

Ø Advance preparation will occur but will require not more than 2 hours of work for each person.

Ø The duration of the review meeting will be less than 2 hours.

The focus of the review will be on a work product – a component of the software (e.g., a portion of a requirements specification, a detailed module design, a source code listing for a module.) By narrowing the focus, the review has a higher likelihood of uncovering errors. Code review for prototype coding is mandatory. The individual who is responsible for developing the work product informs the appropriate authority (review initiator) that the work product is complete and that a review is required. The review coordinator identifies and contacts a review leader who evaluates the work product for readiness, generates copies of the work product materials and distributes them to identified reviewers for advance preparation. Each reviewer is expected to spend between 1 and 2 hours reviewing the work product, making notes and otherwise becoming familiar with the work. Concurrently the review leader also reviews the work product and establishes an agenda for the review meeting, which is typically scheduled for the next day.

The review meeting is attended by the review leader, all reviewers and the individual who is responsible for developing the work product. One of the reviewers takes on the role of recorder, i.e. the individual who records (in writing) all important issues raised during the review. The review begins with a discussion of the agenda and a brief introduction by the individual responsible for developing the work product, who then proceeds to “walk through” the work product, explaining the material, while the reviewers raise issues based on their advance preparation. When valid problems or errors are discovered, or any issues raised, the recorder notes each. Appropriate checklists are used by the reviewers. These are summarized at the end of the review meeting and a review issues list is produced as part of the minutes of the meeting or review record separately for software items. The review answers three questions:

Ø What was reviewed? (Mention the name of the item review along with its number).

Ø Who reviewed it?

Ø What were the findings and conclusions?

The comments list is used to record the comments and description of the problems identified.

The review issues list to record the follow-up actions as a checklist that guides the individual who is responsible for developing the work product to make the suitable corrections to the identified problems.

At the end of the review, all attendees will decide whether to:

Ø Accept the work product without further modifications.

Ø Reject the work product due to severe errors (once corrected, another review must be performed).

Ø Accept the work product provisionally (minor errors have been encountered and must be corrected, but no additional review is required).

Ø Resolve the issues urgently, that need immediate attention.

Ø Come up with individual suggestions/doubts/notes/opinions based on the minutes of the current meeting in the next meeting.

2.1 Entry criteria, Input, Activity, Output, Exit criteria

Sl.

Entry Criteria

Input

Activity

Output

Exit Criteria

The individual who is responsible for developing the work product informs the appropriate authority (review initiator) that the work product is complete and that a review is required for that component.

Copies of the work product materials.

Review process is conducted as a meeting. Between 2 to 3 people are involved.

The focus of the review will be on work product (combination of components). A reviewer is identified as a recorder. He will record the minutes of the meeting.

At the end of the review, all attendees will decide whether to accept the work product (combination of components) without further modifications/ reject the work product due to severe errors/ accept the work product provisionally.

Review report record.

Minutes of meeting.

Completion of the review meeting.

2.2 References

Review Record (QMS-ISPL-R-REV).

SRS-Checklist (QMS-ISPL-C-SRS).

STP Checklist (QMS-ISPL-C-STP).

DFIN Checklist (QMS-ISPL-C-DDD(OSU)).

Minutes of Meeting (QMS-ISPL-F-MOM).

3 Records

Sl. No	Required Record	Custodian	Retention Period	Record ID
1.	Review record	Project Manager/Coordinator/Head of the Department	Till the end of the project/Contract or 1 Year whichever is applicable	QMS-ISPL-R-REV