Could you explain the meaning behind VER SG2: Perform Peer Reviews

We're not sure we totally understand the meaning behind VER SG2 - Perform Peer Reviews.  Could you shed some light on it for us?

Sure, let me write something up, send it out, and have everyone review it.  After recieving their feeback I'll update the post and release it for everyone to . . . . hey wait!  I'm giving away the answer!!

Peer reviews are a proven method for identifying defects in all types of work products.  One of the common misperceptions of VER SG2 is that it is only performed as part of a linear "VER" process.  I see it as a "stand-alone" utility process that is used throughout a project to identify and drive out defects long before they become part of our product.

SP2.1 - Prepare for peer reviews involves identifying participants, selecting the appropriate "style" of peer review (Fagen inspection or something lighter perhaps), sending our materials, setting up the room, identifying roles, and so on.

SP2.2 - Conduct peer reviews is kind of obvious - conduct it PER THE PLAN (from SP2.1).  Identify and record issues, assign action items, and so on.

SP2.3 - Analyze Peer Review data involves understanding what was discovered during the peer review, both at a project and organizational level and taking appropriate action.

I would recommend you consider peer reviewing all plans, requirements, designs, code, and test results at a minimum.  The life you save may be your own!

www.broadswordsolutions.com

Is a Peer Review Report with no defects reported valid evidence for a SCAMPI A Apprasal?

Dear Appraiser,

A Peer Review Report that shows no defects reported -is that valid evidence for an instance in a SCAMPI A appraisal?

Hmmmm. If a tree falls in the forest and . . . .

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the CMMI model that requires you to actually have defects found during a peer review . . . let me check on that again . . . right, not required.

While it might be unlikely, there are smart developers out there that either 1) don't demonstrate a defect during a peer review or 2:) are really good at hiding them.

Of course, a blank piece of paper would be insufficient.

VER guides us to 1:) prepare for the peer review; 2:) conduct the peer review; and 3:) Analyze Peer Review Data. Nowhere in the VER PA does it say "create defects where they don't exist."

The required evidence would prove that the peer review was prepared for, conducted, and its resulting data analyzed. That's not the same as saying that your peer review was sufficient, but the SCAMPI method is "evidence based" and if you produce the appropriate evidence, we trust that you had the peer review and you conducted it with integrity.

Prepare for Peer Review includes things such as: inviting stakeholders, defining roles, distributing peer review material, guidelines, agenda, etc.

Conduct Peer Review includes things such as: having an agenda, ensuring the appropriate people are present, walking through the material in a structured way, taking minutes, following the roles and guidelines, etc.

Analyze Peer Review data includes such things as reviewing the defects, estimating the impact, evaluating the effort to correct the defects, etc.

If you're dong these things and you can provide evidence of performance then you're probably performing VER appropriately.

http://www.broadswordsolutions.com/