Quality Management System

Power ODVI and AOCI

Review Rep
Objective It is used to record all the feedbacks of reviewers.

Scope

References
1 Verification Procedure
2 Project Tracker
3 “Definition of Project Types – GTCI Strategy” (“Project Type Definition” link in “Quality” home page)

How to use
1 The Author fills the green cells in the Summary sheet.
The Author creates the FeedbackForm that he sends to the reviewers according to the naming rule :
<ReviewPacketName>_Feedback_xxx.xls
2 Ex : PMPlanMyprojectV1.0_Feedback_xxx.xls

Each reviewer records his feedback in the file renamed and sends it back to the Author :
<ReviewPacketName>_Feedback_<ReviewerName>.xls
Ex : PMPlanMyprojectV1.0_Feedback_BGates.xls
3 In case of more than just one review cycle it's up to the preference of the author / review leader to separ
the collected feedback for each review cycle or to concatenate all feedbacks for all review cycles in just
file. The template provides both opportunities

The Author gather all the feedbacks in the Review Report named :
<DocumentName>_ReviewerReport.xls
Ex : PMPlanMyprojectV1.0_ReviewerReport.xls
4 If the reviewer performed the review and has no remark to add, the following comment should be submit
for tracking purpose:
"Review performed -No feedback."

5 Fields marked by a star ( * ) are MANDATORY fields.

6 Import Comments from MS Word button
You can import comments made in a Word document using the comment feature of Word.
This feature will allow a reviewer to enter his/her comments into the document as they are
reviewing it and then the Author can combine all the comments into the Review Report.
Additional defects found during the meeting may also be entered using the feature
decribed below. Select the "Import Comments from MS Word" button.
If a Word document is already open it will be searched for comments.
Otherwise you will be prompted to open a document which will then be searched.
When creating a comment in a document enter them as follows:

Version No. 1.0 16

 Quality Management System
Power ODVI and AOCI

1) D <your comment> , if the category is Defect

2) S <your comment> , if the category is Suggestion
3) Q <your comment> , if the category is Question
4) <your comment> , if the category is Remark
Note: do not enter the < >'s
In all the cases your Name in MS Word will be entered into the "Who" field and your
comment will be entered into the "Description" field
Note: To setup your initials in Word do the following, In Word select "Tools" then "Options"
then "User Information". Enter the your initials and name.You can import comments

Version No. 1.0 16

 Quality Management System
Power ODVI and AOCI

from multiple reviewers by appending the

comments.

Category Explanation

Disagreement of the reviewer with the proposed solution, wrong statement or non-conformity to standar
Defect

Reviewer proposes addtitional information that may be useful or may be a better solution for the problem
Suggestion

Question Description not clear for the reviewer or there is incomplete information leading to questions.
Remark Additional comments or information that the reviewer wants to pass on.

Importance Explanation

The defect is not acceptable, the document CAN NOT be used as is in the next steps of the project (issu
High
correctness, completeness or consistency)
Medium The defect relates to the understandability or detail level. The document introduces a risk if it is used as
Low the
Thenext steps
defects of thetoproject.
relates the document readibility, form, or to the reviewer preferences.

Status Explanation

The feedback is created and will be analyzed by the author OR the author estimates that he can't decide
Open
alone, the raised issue needs a decision from the stakeholders.
Completed The document have been corrected according to the decision of the Author or stakeholders.
Rejected The author and / or the decision committee decide that no modification will be done in the document. Th
Postponed justification
The feedback of the
can decision is documented
not be addressed in the
currently answer
and will becolumn, especially
re-visited at a laterifdate.
the importance is high.
Duplicate The feedback is a duplicate of another one and can be referenced in the "Answer / Comment" column b
number of the corresponding entry for traceability.
Phase Of Origin Explanation
Specification The feedback is found in the requirements specification phase.
Design The feedback is found in the design specification phase.
Coding The feedback is found in the coding/development phase.

Version No. 1.0 16

 Quality Management System
Power ODVI and AOCI

Defect/ Explanation
Feedback Type
Assignment / This defect type can occur when a value(s) is assigned incorrectly or not assigned at all.( but a fix involv
Initialization multiple assignment corrections may be of type Algorithm)
This defect type can occur due to errors caused by missing or incorrect validation of parameters or data
conditional statements. It might be expected that a consequence of checking for a value would require
Checking additional code such as a do, while, loop or branch. If the missing or incorrect check is the critical error,
checking would still be the type chosen.

This defect type can occur due to efficiency or correctness problems that affect the task and can be fixed
Algorithm / (re)implementing an algorithm or local data structure without the need for requesting a design change. A
Method problem in the procedure, template or overloaded function that describes a service offered by an object.

This defect occurs due to errors that require a formal design change, as it affects significant capability, e
Function / Class / user interfaces, product interfaces, interface with hardware architecture, or global data structure(s). The
Object can occur when implementing the state and capabilities of a real or an abstract entity.

Timing / This defect can occur incase necessary serialization of shared resource was missing, the wrong resourc
Serialization was serialized, or the wrong serialization technique was employed.
Interfaces / O-O Communication problems between: modules, components, device drivers, objects, functions via macros
Messages statements, control blocks, parameter lists
Relationship This defect can occur due to problems related to associations among procedures, data structures and
Design objects. Such
This defect associations
type may be
can occur when conditional.
a design concept does not meet the design need.
Numerical This defect type can occur when an analysis result is not followed the process of verification appropriate
Manufacturability This defect type can occur when a design concept does not meet the manufacturability need.
Definition This defect type can occur when an analysis result does not have a criteria defined appropriately.
Drawing This defect type can occur when a drawing is not met the drawing requirements.
Model This defect type can occur when a model is not met the model requirements.
Format This defect type can occur when a drawing is not met the format requirements.
Textual This defect type can occur when a drawing is not met the textual requirements.
Symbolic This defect type can occur when a drawing is not met the symbolic requirements.

Version No. 1.0 16

 Quality Management System
Power ODVI and AOCI

eview Report

y” home page)

he naming rule :

hor :

view leader to separate

eview cycles in just one

nt should be submitted

eature of Word.

Version No. 1.0 16

 Quality Management System
Power ODVI and AOCI

onformity to standards.

ution for the problem

estions.

s of the project (issue in

a risk if it is used as is in

that he can't decide

holders.
n the document. The
portance is high.
Comment" column by the

Version No. 1.0 16

 Quality Management System
Power ODVI and AOCI

all.( but a fix involving

parameters or data in
alue would require
is the critical error,

ask and can be fixed by

a design change. A
ffered by an object.

nificant capability, end-

ta structure(s). The error
y.

, the wrong resource

unctions via macros, call

ata structures and

ification appropriately.
ity need.
appropriately.

Version No. 1.0 16

 Review Summary

Review Summary SOFTWARE

Project* <Project Name> To be filled by the Author

Work product* <Document Name> To be filled by the Reviewer
<Mention the purpose of
Purpose of Review review>
To be filled by the Decision Committee

References (if any) <Document Number> Calculated fields not to be modified

Review Package Size 0 Fields marked by a star ( * ) are MANDATORY fields.
Review Closure Date*
Will be marked as closed by dd-mmm-yy
reviewer afer verifying comments
closed
Author xxx
Status* Done

Reviewers Feedback Review Effort

Functions / Names * Date h:mm *
<Reviewer Name 1 > xxx dd-mmm-yy 0:00

0:00

Importance of
Measures Category of feedbacks Number
feedbacks
Number Status of feedbacks Number
Defect 0 High 0 Open 1
Suggestion 1 Medium 0 Completed 1
Question 0 Low 0 Rejected 16
Remark 18 0 Postponed 0
19 Duplicate 0
18

Defect/Feedback Type Number Phase of Origin o Number

Assignment / Initialization 0 Specification 0
Checking 0 Design 0
Algorithm / Method 0 Coding 0
Function / Class / Object 0 0
Timing / Serialization 0
Interfaces / O-O Messages 0
Relationship 0
0

Summary
- do not modify contents of this
table

Total Number of comments / defects Total Number of comments /feedback in

Total Number of comments /feedback based on Defect Type
based on Severity each Phase
Time spent to Total number of
Project Name Purpose / objective Test Title Date Status Author Reviewer Size of the reviewed object
review / test h:mm Comments/defects Assignme
nt / Algorithm / Function / Class Timing / Interfaces / O- Relations
High Medium Low Specification Design Coding Checking
Initializati Method / Object Serialization O Messages hip
on
<Mention the purpose of
<Project Name> <Document Name> dd-mmm-yy Done xxx xxx 0 0:00 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ###
review>

Version No. 1.0 8

 Review Report

Reviewer
No. Location Description Who Category Importance Status Phase of Origin

1 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ This sentence seems incomplete. Did you mean – Suraj Nair Remark Open
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 8 Determine the application to be deployed ?
2 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ Can we consider this to be a Quality Attribute ? Did you Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 8 mean – facilities to enable operational maintenance during
deployment here ?

3 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ Is this only about implementation/runtime components that Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 11 make up the actual product, or is it also about tools being
used as part of the architecture/implementation.

Would this phase also not involve choosing the right tools
to move ahead – so that

4 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ We have assumed that PowerCET will be used by Laptop Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 20 users mostly.

Are there considerations where users would like

PowerCET on tablets ? Could there be specific
5 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ Are both these lines not reiterating the same point ? Suraj Nair Remark
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 20
6 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ user at a time. Suraj Nair Suggestion Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 20

7 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ This sentence seems incomplete. Suraj Nair Remark Completed

EN_Suraj.doc: Page 23
8 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ Will this be applicable to PowerCET ? Pure desktop client Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 28 application with local persistence ?
9 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ Is this applicable to our scenario ? Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 28
This is generally used to synchronize data across a client
database and a server database. For example, when a
generally online application goes offline - the data
persisted on the client DB now has to be synch
10 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ Not applicable to PowerCET. Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 29
11 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ You could talk about Automated Static Code Analysis Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 29 (FxCop), Performance Analyzer, Unit testing framework,
Code Coverage etc. as part of development tool support ?

12 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ This may not be a development tool. Also, is this Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 29 applicable in the context of Power CET ?

Version No. 1.0 9

 Review Report

Reviewer
No. Location Description Who Category Importance Status Phase of Origin

13 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ Is this related to maintainability ? Suraj Nair Remark Rejected

EN_Suraj.doc: Page 37
Modular architecture with clear Separation of concerns
(Low Coupling and high Cohesion) – changes in one
should not result in changes in others.
14 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ Is this only about using reuse components ? Should Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 37 PowerCET not strive to generate reuse components to the
extent possible ?
15 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ Will this be a true requirement in PowerCET ? Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 38 Is the PowerCET application going to be used over
extended periods of time (like a Server process for
example). I think this is just used during the configuration
process.
16 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ Exchange of character information should also follow Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 38 universal encoding standards as defined by Unicode –
UTF8
17 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ Extensive logging framework with varied tracing levels – Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 38 Trace, Error, Debug, Critical could be factored in too ?
18 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ Factor in concurrency/parallelism wherever required and Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 38 possible to enhance performance. (However,concurrency
should not become an overhead when used in trivial
operations)
19 PowerCET_Product_Concept_Options_Document_ This is generally a consideration in server based systems Suraj Nair Remark Rejected
EN_Suraj.doc: Page 38 –though they do apply to client based systems too in some
cases.

Version No. 1.0 10

 Review Report

Reviewer
No. Location Description Who Category Importance Status Phase of Origin

Version No. 1.0 11

 Review Report

Reviewer
No. Location Description Who Category Importance Status Phase of Origin

Version No. 1.0 12

 Review Report

Author / Project team

Defect/Feedback Type Who Answer / Comment Decision / Corrective Who
Action

Valid comment. Will be

corrected.
Configuration is supposed Anand
to convey configurability Manikiam
of software

Tools have been Anand

addressed in sections Manikiam
below in the document
Aim of the document is to
address mainly
architectural choice.
There is a separate
process document
addressing tools and
processes.
Pricing inputs need to be
derived and calculated by
Marketting in Offer
Requirements document

Assumption reflected in Anand

the Deployment diagram Manikiam
and also requirements.

Anand
Manikiam
Not really. IT will be as Anand
many users as supported Manikiam
by other deployment
models but only
difference being One
installation supports one
user only.

Anand
Manikiam
Anand
Manikiam
Anand
Manikiam

Anand
Manikiam
Anand
Manikiam

Anand
Manikiam

Version No. 1.0 13

 Review Report

Author / Project team

Defect/Feedback Type Who Answer / Comment Decision / Corrective Who
Action
Anand
Manikiam

Anand
Manikiam

Anand
Manikiam

Anand
Manikiam

Anand
Manikiam
Anand
Manikiam

Anand
Manikiam

Version No. 1.0 14

 Review Report

Author / Project team

Defect/Feedback Type Who Answer / Comment Decision / Corrective Who
Action

Version No. 1.0 15

 Review Report

Author / Project team

Defect/Feedback Type Who Answer / Comment Decision / Corrective Who
Action

Version No. 1.0 16