Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Technical review differs from software walkthroughs in its specific focus on the technical quality of the product reviewed. It differs from software inspection in its ability to suggest direct alterations to the product reviewed, and its lack of a direct focus on training and process improvement. The term formal technical review is sometimes ...
The most obvious value of software reviews (especially formal reviews) is that they can identify issues earlier and more cheaply than they would be identified by testing or by field use (the "defect detection process") [citation needed]. The cost to find and fix a defect by a well-conducted review may be one or two orders of magnitude less than ...
The purpose of a technical peer review is to remove defects as early as possible in the development process. By removing defects at their origin (e.g., requirements and design documents, test plans and procedures, software code, etc.), technical peer reviews prevent defects from propagating through multiple phases and work products and reduce the overall amount of rework necessary on projects.
Fagan inspection is a formal process that involves a careful and detailed execution with multiple participants and phases. In formal code reviews, software developers attend a series of meetings to examine code line by line, often using printed copies. Research has shown formal inspections to be extremely thorough and highly effective at ...
Unlike other scientific literature, such as scientific journals and the proceedings of some academic conferences, technical reports rarely undergo comprehensive independent peer review before publication. They may be considered as grey literature. Where there is a review process, it is often limited to within the originating organization.
The elements of Peer Reviews include the structured review process, standard of excellence product checklists, defined roles of participants, and the forms and reports. Software inspections are the most rigorous form of Peer Reviews and fully utilize these elements in detecting defects.
Some troops leave the battlefield injured. Others return from war with mental wounds. Yet many of the 2 million Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffer from a condition the Defense Department refuses to acknowledge: Moral injury.
The IEEE defines formal structures, roles, and processes for each of the last three. [3] Management representatives are typically not involved in the conduct of a peer review except when included because of specific technical expertise or when the work product under review is a management-level document.