Formal Review & Informal Review
Formal review is characterized by documented procedures and requirements. e.g. inspection.
A typical formal review process consists of six main steps:
1. Planning
Review Process begins with "Request for review" by author to the moderator (inspection leader). Project planning needs to allow time for review and rework activities. For formal reviews like inspection, the moderator always Performs an entry check and defines at this stage formal exit criteria.
Minimum entry criteria:
a. A short check of a product sample by the moderator (or expert) does not reveal a large number of major defects. For example, after 30 minutes of checking, no more than 3 major defects are found on a single page or fewer than 10 major defects in total in a set of 5 pages.
b. The document to be reviewed is available with line numbers.
c. The document has been cleaned up by running any automated checks that apply.
d. References needed for the inspection are stable and available.
After document passes entry check, moderator and author decides which part of document to review. [For a review the maximum size is usually between 10 to 20 pages]. Only one or two Pages may be looked at in depth in order to find most serious defects.
After document size has been set, the moderator determines, in the cooperation with author, the composition of the review team.[4 to 6 participants including author and moderator] The moderator arranges the roles to the reviewers.
The following focuses can be identified:
> focus on higher-level documents, e.g. does the design comply to the requirements;
> focus on standards, e.g. internal consistency, clarity, naming conventions, templates;
> focus on related documents at the same level, e.g. interfaces between soft ware functions;
> focus on usage, e.g. for testability or maintainability.
2. Kick-off
Kick-off is an Optional step.
Goal is to get everybody on the same wavelength regarding the document under review and to commit to the time that will be spent on checking.
3. Preparation
Participants work individually on the document using related documents, procedures, rules, checklists provided. They identify defects,questions comments according to their understanding of the document and role.
All issues are recorded in the login form. A critical success factor for a thorough preparation is the number of pages checked per hour. This is called Checking rate( Number of pages checked per hour.)
4. Review Meeting
Review meeting has following elements:
Logging phase where issues/defects identified are logged.
Discussion phase
If an issue needs a discussion the item is locked and then handled in the discussion phase.
Decision phase
At the end of the meeting, a decision on the document under review has to be made by the participants, sometimes based on formal exit criteria. The most important exit criterion is the average number of critical and/or major defects found per page (e.g. no more than three critical/major defects per page). If the number of defects found per page exceeds a certain level, the document must be reviewed again, after it has been reworked. If the document complies with the exit criteria, the document will be checked during follow-up by the moderator or one or more participants. Subsequently, the document can leave the review process.
5. Rework
Changes that are made to the documents should be easy to identify during follow up.
6. Follow-up
The moderator is responsible for ensuring that satisfactorily actions have been taken on all i.e. [logged defect, process improvements, suggestions and change requests.]
Informal Review
A review not based on a formal (documented) procedure.
[Foundations of Software Testing: ISTQB Certification
By Dorothy Graham, Erik Van Veenendaal, Isabel Evans, Rex Black]
Also See:
Technical Review
Importance of Review
Pair Programming Review
Types of Review Process Structures
Difference between Formal & Informal Reviews
Deciding Whether to do Formal or Informal Reviews
Software Design Reviews
Walkthrough and Inspection
Peer Review
Software Management Reviews
Test Case review
Code Review