Just wanted to know your clarification on the following
| Process Area: Verification (VER) | Specific Practice: SP2.3 Analyse Peer Review Data | Reviews and Internal Testing (Component, Unit, Assembly, Performance) - The input provided by the Lead Appraiser(LA) was that analysis done in any of the above testing phases by the project can be considered for VER SP2.3 |
| Process Area: Validation (VAL) | Specific Practice: SP2.2 Analyse the results of the validation activities | The following are being used for addressing VAL SP2.2: As per the inputs from the LA, evidence of reviews done by customer for design or any inputs provided for testing. |
Nice chart!
VER SG 2 is specific to PEER REVIEWS, so testing evidence is not typically what we look at. If your LA is saying test results, and review of those results, is valid Direct Evidence for VER SG2 then you are getting incorrect information that may not stand up to scrutiny.
VER SG1 and SG3 can indeed be evidenced IN PART by test results and reviews, but not completely.
Peer reviews are structured reviews, walkthroughs, Fagen Inspections or any other formal review of a specific work product or set of work products. They need to be identified through practices in SG1. They also must be planned for.
VER SP2.2 “Analyze Peer Review Data” includes not only analysis of the results of the peer review, but an analysis of the preparation, participation, and data associated with the conduct of the peer review itself.
Some of VAL can be evidenced by customer review outputs, but SP2.2 is specific to performing analysis, so just meeting minutes or a sign off falls short of the intention of the model’s authors. It includes analyzing results against expected results, categorizing or measuring (i.e.; analyzing) the results, and recording information. Customer inputs for testing does not satisfy this practice. Again, the information you are getting would not stand up to scrutiny.
www.broadswordsolutions.com
1 comment:
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it
Post a Comment