The purpose of this document is to define and set company policy for the process of implementing the peer reviews within Advanced Data Visualizations Incorporated (ADV Inc.). The goal of this process is to design a straight forward, low-cost, evaluating methodology that constantly ensures the integrity of a product. The peer review process is solely designed to detect and catch potential defects before they get integrated into a project. No company personnel shall be judged, reprimanded or disciplined solely based on the outcome of any peer review. Peer reviews shall be performed throughout key stages in our company’s development lifecycle; in particular, when a deliverable is completed, see section 2.4 for more details. Furthermore, by fully utilizing the peer review process our company will see the following benefits:
• Produces reliable and error-free products
• Ensures that creators follow all developing guidelines and standards
• Increases customer satisfaction
• Meets main vendor requirements
• Predicates software that is easily maintainable and readable
• CMM Compliance
Policy Guidelines (2)
Main Purpose (2.1)
The sole function of the peer review process is to systematically reduce the occurrence of software defects early in the product lifecycle and especially, before any users interact with it. Moreover, by performing this process authors and developers inevitably develop a better understanding of the products, algorithm, or system that they review, and ideally develop better products in the future. During the evaluation the entire focus is exclusively on analyzing the product and not critiquing or giving constructive feedback to the producer.
Reviewer & Reviewee Policy (2.2)
It is company policy for all creators and developers to request a peer review upon completion of any tasks or deliverables. The producer is responsible for informing the peer review team of any desired behavior; for example, what modifications were made, what maintenance features have been added, and all desired required behavior that the product is supposed to exhibit. This is not designed to be a comprehensive list, see the peer review process document on creators and developers responsibilities. Moreover, the peer reviewer and producer are both responsible for completing the digital checklist, discussed in section 2.3.
After the initial peer review process is concluded the developer is then responsible for fixing any issues discovered during this evaluation process. Upon completing all necessary fixes, noted in the checklist, the developer again must re-request a peer review. Finally, when all issues have been resolved and the final peer review is approved the creator must notify his or her project lead. See additional sub-section 2.2.1 for additional policies regarding reviewer and reviewee.
Crucial policy requirements (2.2.1)
• Here at ADV Inc. the peer review is solely intended to be an evaluation of a product by, no more than, two trained reviewers. All reviewers must complete the peer review training course, discussed further in Ability 2.
• During this assessment the creator or developer of the product is present and participates directly in the evaluation.
• It is company policy that managers are prohibited from participating in peer review assessments, unless managers are the creator of the product being evaluated. Additionally, when a manager is the creator or developer of the product under evaluation, the senior reviewer may never be a direct subordinate of the manager.
Peer Review Deliverable (2.3)
The peer review team is obligated to utilize our company’s digital General Guidelines Peer Review Checklist. All issues discovered during the evaluation process must be logged in by both the reviewer and creator of the product. It is company policy that all participants in the evaluation process submit a digital peer review checklist, no matter the outcome. The checklists can be found at:
Products That Get Reviewed (2.4)
Here are the following types of items that must undergo peer review:
· All Deliverable Projects
· Specification (formal and informal)
· All Design Documentation
· All Implementation
o Mandatory Biweekly Code Reviews
· Test documentation
· Technical Reports
· All Analysis
· Integration of Resources
· Progress Reports
· Cost Estimates
Furthermore, Quality Assurance, Senior Management, or Senior Developers may enforce peer review on other artifacts at any given time. However, no individuals may waive any set peer review process without first: 1) Filing a peer review appeal waiver, 2) Participate in a formal meeting with a QA member, and 3) Receive signed confirmation document. Only upon receiving this signed document may the peer review process be waived. The policy, process document, and appeal documentation can be found at:
Currently, research and prototype software projects are not required to undergo peer reviews. Nevertheless, ADV Inc. strongly encourages that all research projects and prototype software undergo the peer review procedure, discussed in section 2.2. Ultimately, the final decision is left up to the Project Manager or Senior Developer on that project.
Policy Concerns (3)
For any questions, comments, or concerns regarding the peer review products or peer review policies that may not be addressed here, please contact the QA office.