Reviews - MetaLab
Reviews - MetaLab Reviews - MetaLab
Peer Review CoverageSections recommended for inclusionComplicated logicCritical sectionsSections dealing with newenvironmentSections designed by new orinexperienced new membersSections recommended for omissionStraightforward sectionsSections that already reviewed severaltimes by similar past projectsSections that will not affectfunctionalityReused or repeated design and code
Efficiency of peer reviews• Peer review detection efficiency• Average hours worked/defect detected• Peer review defect detection density• Average number of defects detected/page of the design document• Internal peer review effectiveness• Percentage of defects detected by peer review as a percentage of total defectsdetected by the developer.
- Page 1 and 2: ReviewsPresented by:Lynn Tan Shun C
- Page 3 and 4: Participants of Peer Reviews• 3 -
- Page 5 and 6: Peer Review Session• Walkthroughs
- Page 7: Post-peer Review Activities• Prom
- Page 11 and 12: Efficiency of peer reviewsType ofdo
- Page 13 and 14: Efficiency of peer reviewsTotal def
- Page 15 and 16: Efficiency of peer reviewsYear Defe
- Page 17 and 18: Process of inspection1) Organizatio
- Page 19 and 20: Comparison of the teamreview method
- Page 21 and 22: Process of reviewFormal designrevie
- Page 23 and 24: Expert opinions
- Page 25 and 26: Duties of Expert Opinion• Prepari
- Page 27 and 28: Activity Time
- Page 29 and 30: Any Question??
- Page 31 and 32: 1. Name the 4 direct objectives of
- Page 33: Thank you andGood Luck
Efficiency of peer reviews• Peer review detection efficiency• Average hours worked/defect detected• Peer review defect detection density• Average number of defects detected/page of the design document• Internal peer review effectiveness• Percentage of defects detected by peer review as a percentage of total defectsdetected by the developer.
Change language