10.37.1 Purpose
Reviews are used to evaluate the content of a work product.
10.37.2 Description
Different types of reviews are conducted for business analysis work products. Each is tailored to the needs of the organization and business analyst, and uses these dimensions:
- Objectives: defining the purpose of the review.
- Techniques: identifying either a formal or informal way to perform the review.
- Participants: identifying who should take part in the review activity.
Each review is focused on a work product, not the skills or actions of the participants. The work product may be a package of several deliverables, a single deliverable, a portion of a deliverable, or work in process. For a completed work product, the objective of the review is usually to remove defects or inform the reviewers about the content. For work in process, the review may be conducted to resolve an issue or question.
Each review includes the business analyst as a participant. Reviewers may be peers, especially for work in process, or stakeholders, who validate that the work product is complete and correct. The review steps depend on the technique used.
Reviews can include:
- an overview of the work product and review objectives,
- checklists and reference materials that can be used by reviewers,
- reviewing the work product and documenting the findings, and
- verifying any rework.
Using feedback from reviewers, the business analyst updates the work product.
10.37.3 Elements
.1 Objectives
Objectives are clearly communicated to all participants prior to the review.
Objectives may include one or more goals, for example:
- to remove defects,
- to ensure conformance to specifications or standards,
- to ensure the work product is complete and correct,
- to establish consensus on an approach or solution,
- to answer a question, resolve an issue, or explore alternatives,
- to educate reviewers about the work product, and
- to measure work product quality.
.2 Techniques
Reviews can be formal or informal. The techniques used during a review are selected to support the objectives of the review.
The following techniques are commonly used by business analysts when conducting reviews:
- Inspection: a formal technique that includes an overview of the work product, individual review, logging the defects, team consolidation of defects, and follow-up to ensure changes were made. The focus is to remove defects and create a high quality work product. While usually performed by peers, it can also be used for stakeholder reviews.
- Formal Walkthrough (also known as Team Review): a formal technique that uses the individual review and team consolidation activities often seen in inspection. Walkthroughs are used for peer reviews and for stakeholder reviews.
- Single Issue Review (also known as Technical Review): a formal technique focused on either one issue or a standard in which reviewers perform a careful examination of the work product prior to a joint review session held to resolve the matter in focus.
- Informal Walkthrough: an informal technique in which the business analyst runs through the work product in its draft state and solicits feedback. Reviewers may do minimal preparation before the joint review session.
- Desk Check: an informal technique in which a reviewer who has not been involved in the creation of the work product provides verbal or written feedback.
- Pass Around: an informal technique in which multiple reviewers provide verbal or written feedback. The work product may be reviewed in a common copy of the work product or passed from one person to the next.
- Ad hoc: an informal technique in which the business analyst seeks informal review or assistance from a peer.
.3 Participants
Participant roles involved in any particular review depend on the objectives of the review, the selected technique, and any organizational standards that may be in place.
In some situations, a supervisor or manager may be one of the reviewers because of their expertise. In these situations, the moderator is careful to avoid adversely affecting the level of candor of other participants or inappropriately affecting decisions of the team.
| Role | Description | Responsibility | Applicable Techniques |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Author of the work product. | Answers questions about the work product and listens to suggestions and comments.
Incorporates changes into the work product after the review. |
All |
| Reviewer | A peer or stakeholder. | Examines the work product according to the review objectives. For defect detection reviews, the reviewer examines the work product prior to a review session and keeps track of both defects found and suggestions for improvement. | All |
| Facilitator | A neutral facilitator (should not be the author in order to avoid compromising the review). | Facilitates the review session, keeps participants focused on the objectives of the review and ensures that each relevant section of the work product is covered. Validates that reviewers have examined the work product before the session begins and ensures that all reviewers participate in the review session. |
|
| Scribe | A neutral participant with strong communication skills. |
Documents all defects, suggestions, comments, issues, concerns, and outstanding questions that are raised during a review session. Familiarity with the subject matter enables the scribe to capture items clearly |
|
Table 10.37.1: Review Roles
10.37.4 Usage Considerations
.1 Strengths
- Can help identify defects early in the work product life cycle, eliminating the need for expensive removal of defects discovered later in the life cycle.
- All parties involved in a review become engaged with the final outcome; they have a vested interest in a quality result.
- Desk checks and pass around reviews can be performed by a reviewer at a convenient time, rather than interrupting work in progress to attend a meeting.
.2 Limitations
- Rigorous team reviews take time and effort. Thus, only the most critical work products might be reviewed using inspection or formal walkthrough techniques.
- Informal reviews by one or two reviewers are practical in terms of the effort required, but they provide less assurance of removing all significant defects than using a larger team and more formal process.
- For desk checks and pass around reviews it may be difficult for the author to validate that an independent review was done by each participant.
- If review comments are shared and discussed via e-mail there may be many messages to process, which makes it difficult for the author to resolve disagreements or differences in suggested changes.
