Sunteți pe pagina 1din 12

Review Date:

Weights:

Document

LCP

OCD

FED

SSRD

SSAD

Importance

Rationale

At this time, the life cycle plan


does not greatly impact our project
since we know our roles and the
milestones that we need to deliver

Quality Risk

Rationale

Dependencies

There have been issues in the


past with resolving bugs in
the LCP. There is a chance
that similar bug will come up

VL

Without this document, we will


not have derived the operational
capabilities that we want and thus
cannot map our use cases and
requirements to the project

VH

There is a lot of content in the


OCD that needs to be
reviewed. The owner of the
OCD is also the owner of the
prototypes, so he had much
to do and little time to do it

It is important to identify the risks


that are implied in the project.
However, it is important to also
identify the operational
capabilities that may inherently
nullify the risks

The FED had no major


problems in the VCP
evaluation

VL

VH

It is very important to determine


what the system requirements are.
Without this document, the
project would have no structure

There is a chance that there


will be missing capability
requirements which other
documents rely on

It is important to understand what


the architecture of the system will
be. Without architecture, we will
not have a well-defined or elegant
soution to the problem of
architecting

VH

There is concern that the


document will have invalid
references. There is a lot of
content

VH

The SID is important because it


ensures that all of the
documentation is in agreement.

The document depends on


the OCD, SSAD, and SSRD,
thus there is a high potential
that references will be
incorrect

VH

UML

QMP

TPC

TP

IP

SID

PRO

**

**

VH

It is very important that we have


good prototypes to show to the
user so that we can address any
user interface or workflow
ambiguities that may exist

While this is a very important


document, there is less risk
for the Core FC review
because I've seen some of
the prototypes before
reviewing and I know the
prototypes are of decent
quality

Estimated Reviewing Cost

Rationale

Priority
(Multiplicative)

Priority
(Additive)

Actual Reviewing Cost


(Hours)

The LCP
sections that
are due for the
Core FC package
are small in text

4.00

3.00

The OCD
depends on the
WinWin
conditions

VH

There is a lot of
content in the
OCD to review
including text
and diagrams

1.33

1.00

2.5

The FED does


not depend on
any other
document

VL

There is not
much content
to review

6.00

3.00

2.50

3.00

1.5

1.00

0.00

2.417

#VALUE!

#VALUE!

#VALUE!

#VALUE!

#VALUE!

#VALUE!

#VALUE!

#VALUE!

#VALUE!

#VALUE!

0.64

-2.00

Rationale
The LCP does
not depend on
any other
documents at
this time

Depends on
Win conditions

The SSAD is
depending on
win conditions
and the SSRD

Depends on the
OCD, SSAD, and
SSRD, all of
which are long
documents

VH

Each capability
requirement
will have to be
mapped to a
win condition
There is quite a
bit of content
that needs to
be reviewed for
the Core FC
package.

Reviewing this
document
requires looking
at all of the
documents it
references to
make sure that
everything is
complete

2.9

Depends on
win conditions,
OCD, and SSRD

Reviewing this
document
should not take
too long
because I've
seen the
document
already and I
know what
some of the
issues are

1.25

1.00

#VALUE!

#VALUE!

#VALUE!

#VALUE!

2.25

Actual Reviewing Cost


Rating

VH

Ranking

Issue ID in
Bugzilla

From
which
document

#4756

SSRD

Missing capability requirements

2
3
4
5

#4910
#4816
#4820
#4710

SSRD
PRO
PRO
FED

Missing capability requirements


Consolidate track applicants and track positions
Consolidate "Open Positions" and "Apply Online"
No risk regarding security

#4575

SSAD

Missing/incorrect references to the SSRD

#4748

SSAD

Missing/incorrect references to the SSRD

#4708

FED

Low risk for IT/HR roles

#4725

OCD

Confusing contributions in benefits diagram

10

#4825

PRO

Prevent incorrect values

Summary

Rationale
Must ensure that the architecture points to requirements that fulfill the client's needs
Must ensure that the architecture points to requirements that fulfill the client's needs
There should not be two ways to do the same thing in the UI
There should not be two ways to do the same thing in the UI
Security is an important issue to the client and developers have agreed that it is
difficult. Thus there is a higher risk
The requirements for various use cases are provided in the SSRD. Must ensure that
use cases point to the right requirements
The requirements for various use cases are NOT provided in the SSRD. Must ensure
that use cases point to the right requirements. See Issue #2
The corresponding win condition is important to the client and the task is not trivial
Need to have and provide a good understanding of how initiatives contribute to
benefits
Need to show the user that we will prevent invalid values by using the appropriate
HTML form tags

1. Give the reason if you don't use default weight


I used the default weight
2. In your case, do the two Priorities (Multiplicative and Additive) have the same reviewing order? If not, you follow which Pri
Yes, in general they have the same reviewing order. However there are some cases where 2 of the multiplicative scores are th
4. Do you think Priority for IIVV is important? In your previous review, did you really prioritize them or not? If you prioritized
I think that priority is important because as IIV&V, I need to know how I can best manage my time and target the issues that a
5. Based on your experience, what other important factors besides the above four factors Importance, Quality Risk , Rev
The progress of the project is a factor. It is a parameter to "Importance" but it can still be a factor. Sometimes a document ca
6. In this review, you are not allowed to create Exit Criteria, do you think this would influence your reviewing, better or wor
I don't think it would affect my reviewing very much because creating exit criteria was time consuming, and for the most part
7. Compared with generating Evaluation Report for each document in previous review and Top 10 issues list for all docum
Although it takes longer to write the evaluation report, in some ways I like the evaluation report better. It allows you to highl
8. Any further comments about this process?

f not, you follow which Priority? Additive or Multiplicative? Why?


multiplicative scores are the same, but their corresponding additive scores are not. In this case, I just picked the one that I felt was most im
or not? If you prioritized, how did you do this?
and target the issues that are very important rather than spend time on things that are not important. In the previous review, I did not pri
nce, Quality Risk , Review Cost and "Dependencies" will also influence the reviewing priority of documents?
Sometimes a document can be important, but not important at the curent stage of development
ur reviewing, better or worse? Why?
ming, and for the most part, I would have made the same assessments that I would have made using exit criteria
10 issues list for all documents this time, which one do you like better? Why?
tter. It allows you to highlight the good things and it provides reasons regarding why you feel that the "bad" things are indeed bad. Howe

one that I felt was most important to review

evious review, I did not prioritize them since I felt sure that I could review both the LCP and the FED in little time

ngs are indeed bad. However, with respect to time, I like the Top 10 issues for all documents. It just takes less time to complete. Also it all

me to complete. Also it allows you to see where the major issues are across the system