4.2) Assessing with Review Techniques

Question 1

What is a review technique?

Answer 1

A review technique is a static manual test procedure for analyzing a test object.

Question 2

What steps usually takes place in a review process?

Answer 2

1. Planning
2. Preliminary discussion
3. Preparation by individual reviewers
4. Review session
5. Rework
6. Evaluation (follow-up)

Question 3

Who is usually involved in a review?

Answer 3

• Moderator
• Reviewer
• Author of the artifact being reviewed
• Minute-taker

Question 4

What responsibilities does the roles in a review take on?

These roles are the moderator, reviewer, author and minute-taker!

Answer 4

• The moderator is responsible for planning, preparing, and leading the review session. They select the other people involved in the review, often in collaboration with the author. They are also responsible for monitoring the correction of deficiencies.
• The reviewers are experts who, based on their knowledge and experience, are able to evaluate the functional quality of the test objects and, if necessary, identify deficiencies. Sometimes, several reviewers can be involved depending on the complexity of the test object.
• The author is available to answer questions about the test object and provide clarification in case of ambiguity. They are responsible for eliminating deficiencies in the test object during the course of a rework.
• The minute-taker is responsible for preparing the review minutes during the review session.

Question 5

There are three review techniques used to analyze a test object, please describe them breifly.

Answer 5

1. Individual Informal Review
   The simplest and quickest review technique is an informal review. In this process, the test object is read by a person who is uninvolved in and independent of its creation and evaluated with regard to the relevant review criteria. Deficiencies are identified and briefly justified. For example, the individual informal review can be carried out by a colleague or an external service provider. The process does not follow any particular pattern or specifications.
2. Walkthrough
   In contrast to an individual informal review, a walkthrough involves the document being read by several people, with the identified deficiencies being discussed and evaluated within the group. Like an individual informal review, a walkthrough does not need to meet any formal criteria, but the effort and expense required for organization and coordination is greater due to the participation and discussion of several reviewers.
3. Inspection
   An inspection is a formal review that generally involves several reviewers and is carried out according to a defined procedure and whose execution and results must be documented in detail. The organizational and implementation complexity is greater compared to an individual informal review or walkthrough, since the roles of a moderator and minute-taker are explicitly required in an inspection. An inspection is conducted on important test objects where unidentified deficiencies have a very high potential for damage.

Question 6

When it often becomes difficult to comminucate feedback on work results, what technique is best suited to solve the issue?

Answer 6

The Feedback Burger.

Question 7

What steps are important to follow when preparing to ccommunicate feedback?

Answer 7

• First, read (and/or listen) with as little bias as possible: the goal here is to develop an understanding of what is written/said and to evaluate it.
• Prepare feedback: the content of the review is evaluated with the help of an evaluation scheme, for example, using the test criteria previously defined. All assertions in the feedback should always refer to specific observations/positions within the review. The feedback burger helps prepare the feedback. The objective of a review is not to criticize the author personally, but to contribute to the improvement of the result.
• Giving feedback (in a review session): when giving feedback, ensure that it is clearly shown as a very personal impression (“I” comments) and avoid generalizations such as always, never or everything.