ISTQB utilizes reviews for communication and decisions between many stakeholders, such as project management, developers, testers, key users, business departments and management. Therefore proper utilization of reviews can enhance any aspect of testing. Reviews are structured as illustrated below:
Test criterias for discussion are defined through:
- Corporate defaults
These are the requirements for the creation of the document. - Guidelines, Directives and Policies
Containing related standards and policies. - Questionnaire
Containing checklists based on corporate standards or personal experience.
Types
Formal Review
Formal Reviews are utilized for mission critical decisions; project internal (e.g. scope changes) and external (go-live decisions, contracts and disburden after delivery). The meeting owner should cancel the meeting, if attendees are not prepared. Meeting minutes are required.
Formal Reviews follow the following workflow:
- Planning
Define efforts and participants for review process. Review criteria must be defined, including input and output criteria for formal reviews (e.g. Inspection) - Kick-Off
Written invitation or pre-discussion, which communicates the defined aim, processes and documentation for the meeting. Documents are shared, which are to be reviewed (specification sheets, standards, etc.). Review certeria and checklists are shared with attendees. - Indicidual Preparation (attendees)
Intense review and preparation of each attendee with the defined review objective. Appraiser document failures, issues, questions and comments. - Review Meeting
Meeting which discusses the prepared review objective in 2 hours maximum. Focus is on the test objective and its documentation, not the author. This meeting must be moderated and the moderator must not be an appraiser. Management should be excluded from the review and involved only, if no other option is possible. If appraiser are not well prepared, the moderator is allowed to cancel othe meeting. The decisive factor is the consensus assessment, which is recorded on an ongoing basis. Prioritization of findings in categories, such as:- critical
- major error
- minor error
- non critical
- The outcome must be an recommendation:
- accept
- accept and change
- not acept
- Rework
Management decides about the recommendation, e.g. if change recommendations are to be realized. Authors correct identifies findings based on recommendations. A second review after correction might be scheduled. - Postprocessing
Moderator and management reviews the meeting output criteria an might plan further reviews. This task might require additional reworks until everyone approves.
Inspection
Inspections are used to discuss certain aspects from multiple points of view. The general process is:
- Define aim of the inspection (Planning Phase)
- Introduction through moderator (not author)
A delegate informs about given content of the review objective (short) - Experts ask questions, certain findings are discussed in detail
Discrepancies and issues are recorded in the protocol and reviewed and signed at the end of the meeting - Evaluation of the outcome for quality assessment as part of the development process
- Sharing of input and output criteria checklists
Technical Review
Technical reviews are used to discuss a single testing objective in details. Therefore technical experts attend the meeting as peers. Test objective are evaluated against specification documentation, suitability and related standards after individual preparation of each participant. Participants need to document their assessment based on defined criterias before the meeting. A moderator places prioritized remarks as part of the meeting. The result – including a decision – will be documented and shared across all participants.
Informal Review
Informal Reviews are utilized for exchange of thoughts and communication. Ideas should be spread and shared between participants to improve a given use-case. Attendees are advised to prepare, even though it is not a must have. Meeting minutes are recommended for tracking progress. This approach is very agile for up to 5 participants.
Walk-Through
Walk-Throughs are utilized for knowledge transfer activities, e.g. to ramp-up teams about new funtionality. The content author can hightly influence the delivered scope and might avoid weak spots during the session (risk). Meeting preparation is hardly possible. Due to the relation to Service Transition activitites, such as Maintenance Turn Over, meeting minutes can be informal; at least the take-over must be documented. Written documentation of the discussed content must be delivered as part of this meeting.