1. SQA COMPONENTS IN THE PROJECT LIFE CYCLE C HAPTER 8 Dr. Ahmad F. Shubita

2. D EVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE SQA The components applied in this stage belong to one of the following four sub- classes: Formal design reviews Peer reviews Expert opinions Software testing.

3. REVIEWS design documents they provide early detection and prevent the passing of design and analysis errors, As these design documents are products of the project’s initial phases, reviews acquire special importance in the SQA process because they provide early detection and prevent the passing of design and analysis errors, to stages where error detection and correction are much more complicated and costly.

4. R EVIEW OBJECTIVES The direct objectives (for current project) are: To detect analysis and design errors. To identify new risks expected to affect the completion of the project. To identify differences from templates and style measures. To approve the analysis or design product, allowing the team to continue to the next development phase.

5. R EVIEW OBJECTIVES The indirect objectives are: exchange of knowledge To serve as an informal meeting place for the exchange of knowledge about development tools, techniques, experience with new tools, methods and related items. future corrective actions To record analysis and design errors that will serve as a basis for future corrective actions..

6. 1. F ORMAL DESIGN REVIEWS Formal design reviews, called “design reviews”, “DRs” and “formal technical reviews (FTR)”. differ from all other reviews by: are necessary for approval of the design product. Formal design reviews are necessary for approval of the design product. continue to the next phase Without this approval, the development team cannot continue to the next phase of the software development project.

7. T HE PARTICIPANTS IN A DR review leader and a review team All DRs are conducted by a review leader and a review team. The review leader Knowledge and experience in development of projects of the type reviewed. Knowledge and experience in development of projects of the type reviewed. Seniority at a level similar to if not higher than that of the project leader. Seniority at a level similar to if not higher than that of the project leader. A good relationship with the project leader and his team. A good relationship with the project leader and his team. A position external to the project team. A position external to the project team.

8. T HE REVIEW LEADER review team leadership Suitable candidates for review team leadership include: the development department’s manager, the chief software engineer, the leader of another project, the head of the software quality assurance unit  the appointment of an appropriate review leader is a major factor affecting the DR’s success.

9. T HE PARTICIPANTS IN A DR – T HE REVIEW TEAM review team The entire review team should be selected from: The senior members of the project team The senior members of the project team The senior professionals assigned to other projects and departments The senior professionals assigned to other projects and departments software development consultants software development consultants customer–user team customer–user team three to five  A review team of three to five members is expected to be an efficient team,

10. P LANNING FOR A DR the review leader, the review team and the development team. Planning for a DR session are to be completed by all three main participants in the review – the review leader, the review team and the development team. Review leader planning  The main tasks of the review leader in the planning stage are : To appoint the team members To appoint the team members To schedule the review sessions To schedule the review sessions To distribute the design document among the team members (hard copy, electronic file, etc.). To distribute the design document among the team members (hard copy, electronic file, etc.).

11. P LANNING FOR A DR Review team planning Team members are expected to review the design document and list their comments prior to the review session. Team members are expected to review the design document and list their comments prior to the review session. An important tool for ensuring the review’s completeness is the checklist. An important tool for ensuring the review’s completeness is the checklist. General design review checklist, checklists dedicated to the more common analysis and design documents are available and can be constructed when necessary. General design review checklist, checklists dedicated to the more common analysis and design documents are available and can be constructed when necessary. Checklists contribute to the design review’s effectiveness by reminding the reviewer of all the primary and secondary issues requiring attention. Checklists contribute to the design review’s effectiveness by reminding the reviewer of all the primary and secondary issues requiring attention.

12. P LANNING FOR A DR Development team preparations to prepare a short presentation of the design document The team’s main responsibility as the review session approaches is to prepare a short presentation of the design document. This type of presentation do extremely well in the time it consumes. It leaves little time, if any, for discussion.

13. T HE DR SESSION Sticking to the agenda is the key to a successful DR session. A typical DR session agenda includes: (1) A short presentation of the design document. (2) Comments made by members of the review team. (3) Each of the comments is discussed to determine the required actions (corrections, changes and additions) that the project team has to perform.

14. T HE DR SESSION project’s progress (4) Decisions about the design product (document), which determines the project’s progress. These decisions can take three forms: Full approval – enables immediate continuation to the next phase of the project. Partial approval – Approval of immediate continuation to the next phase for some parts of the project, with major action items (corrections, changes and additions) demanded for the remainder of the project. Rejection of approval – demands a repeat of the DR. This decision is applied in cases of multiple major defects, particularly critical defects.

15. P OST - REVIEW ACTIVITIES DR report to follow up Apart from the DR report, the DR team or its representative is required to follow up performance of the corrections and to examine the corrected sections. The DR report to issue the DR report One of the review leader’s responsibilities is to issue the DR report immediately after the review session. minimize the delays to the project schedule. Early distribution of the DR report enables the development team to perform the corrections earlier and minimize the delays to the project schedule.

16. P OST - REVIEW ACTIVITIES - T HE DR REPORT The report’s major sections contain: A summary of the review discussions. The decision about continuance of the project. A full list of the required actions – corrections, changes and additions that the project team has to perform. The name(s) of the review team member(s) assigned to follow up performance of corrections.

18. T HE FOLLOW - UP PROCESS has been satisfactorily accomplished as a condition for allowing the project to continue to the next phase. The person appointed to follow up the corrections is required to determine whether each action item has been satisfactorily accomplished as a condition for allowing the project to continue to the next phase. should be fully documented Follow-up should be fully documented to enable clarification of the corrections in the future, if necessary.

19. Formal design review Process

20. Q UIZ 1 Direct and Indirect Objectives Explain the Direct and Indirect Objectives of the Reviews. typical agenda of the FDR session. Describe briefly the typical agenda of the FDR session.

21. P EER REVIEWS their participants and authority. The major difference between formal design reviews and peer review methods is rooted in their participants and authority. participants in peer reviews are the project leader’s equals, Most participants in DRs hold superior positions to the project leader, participants in peer reviews are the project leader’s equals, members of his or her department and other units. in degree of authority and the objective of each review method The other major difference lies in degree of authority and the objective of each review method..

22. P EER REVIEWS Formal design reviews are authorized to approve the design document so that work on the next stage of the project can begin. main objectives lie in detecting errors and variations from standards. This authority is not granted to the peer reviews, whose main objectives lie in detecting errors and variations from standards. inspections and walkthroughs, are discussed in this section. Two peer review methods, inspections and walkthroughs, are discussed in this section.

23. WALKTHROUGH / INSPECTION Inspectionobjective of corrective actionwalkthrough’s findings are limited to comments Inspection emphasizes the objective of corrective action. Whereas a walkthrough’s findings are limited to comments on the document reviewed. walkthroughs as a type of inspection. Some specialists view walkthroughs as a type of inspection.

24. P EER REVIEW / INSPECTION Inspection is usually based on a comprehensive infrastructure, including: Development of inspection checklists Development of inspection checklists developed for each type of design document as well as coding language and tool, which are updated. Development of typical defect type frequency tables, Development of typical defect type frequency tables, based on past findings, to direct inspectors to potential “defect concentration areas”. Training of competent professionals in inspection process issues Training of competent professionals in inspection process issues, a process that makes it possible for them to serve as inspection leader (moderators) or inspection team members. Analysis of the effectiveness of past inspections Analysis of the effectiveness of past inspections to improve the inspection methodology.

25. PARTICIPANTS OF PEER REVIEWS All the participants should be peers of the software system designer-author. peer review team A recommended peer review team includes: A review leader The Author Specialized professionals. Designer Coder or implementer Tester Walkthroughs For Walkthroughs, the recommended professionals are: The Author (presenter) specializes in development standards and procedures Standards enforcer. ( who specializes in development standards and procedures, is assigned the task of locating deviations from those standards and procedures User representative.

27. P EER R EVIEW S ESSION DOCUMENTATION Two documents are to be produced following an inspection session : (1) Inspection session findings report. to assure full documentation of identified errors for correction and follow up Its main purpose is to assure full documentation of identified errors for correction and follow up. (2) Inspection session summary report. presents basic quality and efficiency metrics. It summarizes the inspection findings and the resources invested in the inspection; it presents basic quality and efficiency metrics.

29. T HE EFFICIENCY OF PEER REVIEWS common metrics applied to estimate the efficiency of peer reviews Some of the more common metrics applied to estimate the efficiency of peer reviews are: Peer review detection efficiency ( average hours worked per defect detected ). Peer review defect detection density ( average number of defects detected per page of the design document ).

30. E XAMPLE A total of 90 925 source code lines were code-inspected, with the following results:

33. P EER REVIEW COVERAGE  With the increased usage of reused software, the number of document pages and code lines demanding inspection is obviously declining

34. COMPARISON REVIEW METHODS A COMPARISON OF THE TEAM REVIEW METHODS

36. E XPERT OPINIONS is the use of expert opinions The last review method we will discuss is the use of expert opinions. Expert opinions, prepared by outside experts, support quality evaluation by introducing additional abilities to the internal review staff. Outside experts transmit their expertise by either: Preparing an expert’s judgment about a document or a code section. Participating as a member of an internal design review, inspection or walkthrough team.

37. Q UIZ 1) Describe the two Peer review detection efficiency metrics. 2) Describe the major differences between FDR, Inspections, and Walkthroughs review methods.

38. The End…