Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
I see peer reviews done on both the products of the project (e.g. training materials, customer-consumable deliverables) as well as the by-products of the project (e.g. requirements documentation, code).
If it is done after the initial creation of the information, it's a QC activity. If it's done while the creation is happening, it is better as there's less rework involved - any type of non-solo work (e.g. pairs programming) would be an example of this.
We do have formal peer reviews and audits on the project deliverables. These are periodic - primarily before the delivery of a milestone. Almost exclusively during execution. Mostly it is done internally by members of the larger team (who do not have a stake in the project being reviewed).
It is periodic since the project has multiple points-of-no-return (to execute the project successfully without piling on additional effort) and is an important method to manage quality.
Is there any review of the project management?
For the very biggest projects & programs (those over $10MM), the EPMO would also play a similar role where a seasoned BA, QA lead, or PM would review the appropriate key artifacts from the project as part of a gating process.
In my project we do peer reviews in the beginning of a project, and this will help the project team focus on the right tasks. The reviewer will be someone stakeholders respects, so they can influence the senior team to make changes if they are necessary.
We use peer review as an activity inside our defined quality process. We do that after each governance phase.
Make sense, could there be more then one
Interesting, are they repeated to validate the change did take place on key project.
The peer review team is chosen by stakeholders, internal or external?
Frequency seem very good. What is cover on those review?
Please login or join to reply