quality reviews

Quality Reviews.
Quality reviews are planned and documented inspections of a review item. The review item may be a product, a group of related products or part of a product. The
scheduling of quality reviews is likely to represent a significant effort in terms of required resources. The earlier an error is identified the less costly are the implications and the penalty for failing to conduct adequate reviews is illustrated by the graph shown. The early detection of errors also minimizes the degree to which faults in one product can be compounded - either in its later development or in the development of related products.

Key Roles in the Quality Review.
The quality review is a formal procedure for reviewing a product, or group of related products, against an agreed set of quality criteria. The review meeting should be run by a designated chairman and brings together the reviewers and a designated presenter. The chairman should be responsible for organizing the review, including the initial selection of reviewers. They should set the agenda for and ensure the smooth running of the review itself, striving to minimize deviation and protracted discussion of potential solutions. This role is normally undertaken by the lead developer of the product to be reviewed. The presenter should ensure that all reviewers have the information they require, ahead of the review meeting. The Presenter is normally responsible for correcting errors found at the review and therefore should record all the agreed points. The main duty of the reviewers is to check the item under review against the relevant criteria as defined in the product descriptions and other review checklists. During the follow-up phase one or more reviewers should confirm that the corrective work was carried out and that no undesirable side effects occurred.

Phase 1 – Preparation.
Quality reviews should be seen as a three phase process - the first phase being preparation, which precedes the actual review meeting. It is the responsibility of the
chairman and presenter to organize the quality review and notify all those invited. Invitations and copies of the products being reviewed should be issued, allowing sufficient time for each reviewer to compile an error list - which they should bring to the review meeting. In the preparation phase copies of the review item and relevant product descriptions should be distributed to the reviewers, along with their invitations to the review meeting. Compiled independently by each reviewer during the preparation phase, error lists detail any significant defects observed in the review item. Each reviewer should inspect the review item from a particular viewpoint - for example, a user or operator. In this phase they should check the product for defects or omissions, using the product descriptions and review checklists. Where minor errors or typographical inaccuracies are identified the reviewers can note these directly onto their copy of the product - thereby creating an annotated product.

Phase 2 – The Review Meeting.
The central phase of the quality review process is the review meeting itself. During the review meeting the emphasis should be on error detection, in line with the criteria, and only limited discussion of corrective action should occur. It is important that 'personalities' and 'politics' are kept out of the review - in particular it is essential that the review remains focused on the review item and not on the presenter. For reviews that are 'complete' the action list tasks are allocated along with designated reviewers, to verify that the work is done. If the review ends abnormally it should be deemed 'incomplete'. Error lists and copies of annotated products should be brought to the meeting by each reviewer, or sent to the chairman before the meeting if the reviewer is unable to attend. If the review is deemed 'complete', then the chairman should forward the follow-up action list and all copies of the annotated product to the presenter together these represent all of the errors identified. The chairman should also distribute copies of the result notification to the presenter and the reviewers. A project exception report should be raised for any errors detected in non-review items.

Phase 3 - The Follow-Up.
Following the quality review meeting there should be a follow-up period during which the errors identified at the review that were committed to the follow-up action list are rectified and signed off. If there is an urgent need for the product, and the rework cannot be carried out in the allotted time, then a project exception report should be generated, requiring the project manager’s approval. Following the quality review meeting the follow-up action list; as agreed by the reviewers and completed by the chairman should be forwarded along with all copies of the annotated product to the presenter. At the end of the follow-up period, which is typically restricted to one week, the follow-up action list should be signed-off by the chairman. A reviewer may be delegated to sign-off areas of remedial work, usually those that they identified. Once it has been signed-off the re-worked product should be resubmitted to the configuration management system.

Further Actions.
At the end of a review the chairman should designate it as 'complete' or 'incomplete'. The objective of the re-review is to ensure that the review item receives adequate quality review, given that the initial review was designated 'incomplete'. The supporting documentation should be passed, along with the Chairman’s recommendation, to the appropriate project manager who should decide, as soon as possible, on subsequent action.
Re-work, this option is useful where the product was deemed inadequate, or requires a second review to verify that all errors have been satisfactorily resolved.
Reconvene, if key reviewers were unable to attend or the review ran out of time this option enables the later continuation of the meeting. This may delay the project if the reconvening moves the product completion date back. Reorganize, this option is useful in situations where the project manager wishes to change the composition of the review team, perhaps to include people with more specialist skills.
Declare Complete, on reviewing the information the project manager may decide that most, or all, of the errors have in fact been identified and that a further review is not justified. This is effectively bypassing the normal rigors of the quality control system and should only be considered in exceptional circumstances - for example, severe resource shortages, and within the context of a non-critical product.
Abandon, in exceptional circumstances where the product under review is urgently required the decision may be taken to abandon further review, using the product 'as is'. Errors identified in the initial review will not be corrected but noted on a project exception report recommending that a document update request is used to highlight these deviations in the delivered product.

TOP <PREVIOUS NEXT>