Il forum sulla Qualità di QualitiAmo

[QualitiAmo - Stefania]

Su Quality Assurance potete leggere un articolo dal titolo: "Inspection Roles, Participants and Process".

Questa è la versione tradotta in italiano con il traduttore automatico di Google.

Common Review Roles

Author / Producer: individual responsible for the work product, and for correcting any defects.

Moderator / Leader / Facilitator: ensures that the review process is followed, and that the other reviewers perform their responsibilities throughout the review process.

Recorder / Scribe: records and classifies all the defects/ issues at the meeting, and assists the moderator / leader/ facilitator in preparing any reports / minutes.

Reviewer / Inspector: identifies defects/ issues in the work product.

Inspection Participants: The number of participants in an inspection range from a minimum of three to a maximum of six. The minimum number of participants is derived from the required roles to be assigned. Having more than six participants does not increase the number of defects uncovered, but does increase the cost of effectiveness. Plainly stated, having more than six participants increases the cost per defect discovered to unacceptable levels.

The participants in an inspection are all assigned at least one role. The roles in an inspection are:

- The Moderator
- The Recorder
- The Author or Producer
- The Reader
- Inspectors

Out of these roles, moderator, recorder and the author or producer roles are required roles.

Each participant in an inspection is an inspector. Participants can fill multiple roles with two exceptions. The author can be neither the moderator nor the recorder. Likewise the moderator should not serve as recorder. The author must be free to listen to the comments as they are given and provide clarification if required. The recorder is extremely busy documenting the potential problems and recording the other required data.

Moderator: The moderator is responsible for ensuring the item to be inspected has met the entry criteria for inspection readiness. If these criteria are met the moderator plans the inspection. This involves selecting the other participants, arranging for meeting rooms, ensuring the inspection data package is prepared and distributed, and ensuring sufficient time for participant preparation. During the preparation phase, the moderator acts as mentor and coach to the participants ensuring that they are prepared. The moderator facilitates the Inspection Meeting, maintaining the inspection focus. The moderator follows up with the author to ensure all potential problems have been properly handled. When these items have been correctly disposed, the moderator ensures all of the required data has been recorded and signs off that the inspection is complete.

Recorder: The recorder is responsible for logging the potential defects during the Inspection Meeting. This should be done as rapidly as possible, ensuring the essence of each comment is recorded without logging them verbatim. The recorder also writes down the other data collected during the meeting. It is important the other participants remember the recorder is not a secretary, but an active participant. The recorder, along with the other participants, is responsible for eliminating duplicate comments.

Author or Producer: The author or producer submits their portion of a work product for inspection. Additionally, they provide the rest of the reference material that makes up the inspection package distributed to each inspector. The author assists the moderator in planning the inspection and also acts as an inspector during the preparation phase. During the Inspection Meeting the author answers questions about the work product and provides clarification as needed. The author is responsible for determining the validity and disposition of all issues recorded during the meeting. After obtaining the moderator’s concurrence, the author modifies the work product.

Reader: The reader is the participant responsible for leading the inspection team through the work product during the Inspection Meeting. The moderator may be the reader to help control the pace of the meeting. Alternatively, the recorder may be the reader to ensure all comments get logged quickly. The reader does not actually read the work product, but usually uses paraphrasing or some other technique to get through the work product without confusion. The reader is also responsible for determining the most logical way to present the work product during the meeting.

Each participant, (as an inspector) is responsible for objectively examining the work product for potential defects. To aid the inspectors, checklists are provided to focus their efforts. The items on the checklists are derived from data from previous inspections on this type of work product. To increase the inspector’s efficiency, inspectors may be assigned responsibility for certain portions of the work product or assigned an emphasis role. In the former, the inspector is responsible for finding all defects in the portion of the work product assigned. In the latter, the inspector is responsible for finding specific types of problems in the entire work product. In either case, an inspector may record any potential defect discovered even if it is outside their area of responsibility.

All participants should be trained in the inspection process. Additionally, the moderator should receive training in facilitating meetings and leading inspections.

Facilitation skills are critical to the success of peer reviews.

The critical skills for a peer review meetings are building, clarifying, reacting, and process behaviors. A facilitator must learn to help everyone to work together effectively as a team, reach consensus, and “synergize”. A facilitator must learn to manage the different personality types and how to manage dysfunctional behavior right the first time.

The Inspection Process: There are six phases in the inspection process. They are

Inspection Planning
Inspection Overview – optional
Inspection Preparation
Inspection Meeting
Work Product Rework
Inspection Follow-up

A brief description of the activities in each phase is provided below. For the Inspection Planning phase, the moderator, in conjunction with the author, ensures the following activities occur:

- The work product is ready for inspection
- Inspectors are selected
- The inspection is scheduled and planned
- An inspection package is prepared and distributed
- The appropriate project quality assurance person is notified

The inspection package contains the material that the participants need to prepare for the inspection. The inspection package should include:

- Work product to be inspected
- Supporting documentation
- Checklists
- Inspection cover sheet to be completed

During planning, the inspectors’ preparation time is estimated. The recommended maximum inspection meeting time is two hours. An organization will determine their own preparation times based on the data collected during inspection meetings, but for an organization just starting there are guidelines. The time for participant preparation and the meeting time are about the same – for a two-hour meeting the preparation time is two hours per participant. Typical preparation rates for inspections are 4 – 8 pages per hour for documentation and 300 – 600 lines of code per hour. From these rates you can see that you don’t inspect a typical requirement specification in one meeting. The document must be “chunked” into logical pieces that can be completed within the planning guidelines.

The Inspection Overview is an optional phase. The moderator and author should determine the need for an Inspection Overview during the Inspection Planning phase. If the inspection under consideration is a normal review of a work product that is typically produced by the organization and the chosen inspectors are familiar with these types of work products and their background, an Inspection Overview is not required. However, if there are special circumstances or some unique aspect surrounding this inspection, the Inspection Overview is an opportunity for the moderator or author to provide the inspectors the information they need to ensure the success of the inspection. Examples of circumstances where an overview would be appropriate include a critical work product that will affect all downstream work products, unusual work product complexity, work product uses new or infrequently used technology, or the project is sufficiently small that inspectors must be drawn from outside the project. The Inspection Overview, if used, should not exceed the planned duration of the Inspection Meeting.

During the Inspection Preparation phase the inspectors individually get ready for the Inspection Meeting. Using the checklists and other reference material provided in the inspection package, they examine the work product ensuring that the item meets its requirements and adheres to the appropriate standards and conventions.

The checklists are crucial to the efficiency of inspections. The checklists allow the inspectors to look for defects typically found in the organization’s work products. These defects are determined historically from data collected during inspections and testing of similar work products. Checklists can be arranged by emphasis role. Emphasis roles allow the inspectors to focus on a specific aspect of the product under review and help further increase the efficiency of the inspection. Although any inspector can record any defect they find, they are only responsible for their assigned portion of the checklists. For example, errors made in requirement specifications are typically incorrect facts, omissions, inconsistencies, and ambiguities. Appropriate emphasis roles for a requirement document would be:

- Review for incorrect facts and ambiguities
- Review for omissions and inconsistencies (trace established)
- Review for testability

The moderator facilitates the Inspection Meeting. The reader leads the inspection team through the work product using an appropriate technique such as paragraph by paragraph, paraphrasing, or through scenarios. The recorder captures the defects identified during the inspection. The team, by consensus, classifies the captured defects by severity, type and cause. At the conclusion of the Inspection Meeting, the team determines the disposition of the work product by consensus.

It takes great skill on the part of the moderator to keep the meeting on track. It helps if the inspectors adhere to the following guidelines:

- Be prepared
- Review the product and not the author
- Raise issues, don’t resolve them
- Avoid discussions of style
- Avoid discussion about whether an issue raised is a problem

Because of the intensity of the inspection and because the participation of all inspectors is required for complete coverage of the work product, the Inspection Meeting should be canceled and rescheduled for any of the following reasons:

- Key inspector missing Lack of preparation by any inspector (preparation time recorded at start of meeting)Defect with large impact found (enough rework to dramatically change the work product)Ineffective inspection process (defect detection rate much less than expected).

During the Work Product Rework phase, the author resolves all potential defects. Resolution can take one of three forms. One, the defect in the work product is corrected. Two, the correction of the defect is deferred (i.e. a change request was initiated for correction at a later time). Three, a determination is made that the issue is not a defect, and the comment is retired. The effort expended during work product rework must be captured, reflecting time for fixing defects, disposing defects and rewriting material for re-inspection as part of the inspection data recorded on the inspection cover sheet. This data is used to gauge inspection effectiveness (cost per defect removed).

During Inspection Follow-up, the moderator examines the rework and the issue dispositions to ensure that all potential defects are disposed. Any material scheduled for re-inspection is re-inspected. Any remaining information on the inspection cover sheet is completed. The moderator signs and dates the inspection cover sheet to bring inspection to closure.

Review Metrics

• Size of work product
• Number of reviewers
• Total review effort
• Number of defects / issues
• Effort per size
• Effort per defect / issue
• Cost per defect / issue
• Defect / issue density
• Meeting rate
• Preparation rate
_________________
Stefania - Staff di QualitiAmo

ISO 9001:2015 - SI AGGIUNGE ALLA COLLANA DEI LIBRI DI QUALITIAMO IL NUOVO TESTO CHE SVELA I SEGRETI DELLA FUTURA NORMA



IL PRIMO LIBRO NATO SULLE PAGINE DI QUALITIAMO



HAI DATO UN'OCCHIATA AL REGOLAMENTO DEL FORUM PRIMA DI SCRIVERE IL TUO MESSAGGIO?