Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
6.3.2 Managerial Reviews
Managerial reviews are carried out by the person to whom the author of the artifact
reports. In other words, managerial review is carried out by the person approving
the artifact. The objectives of carrying out a managerial review are:
1. The artifact submitted for approval is the right one belonging to the right
project and product
2. The artifact submitted is complete in all respects and that no required infor-
mation is missing
3. All quality control activities are performed; all feedback is implemented and
that the artifact is passed for approval
4. Using the experience and the well-honed hunches, identify all possible problem
areas in the artifact and correct them.
Managerial review is a bird's eye view of the document. It does not go into the
minute detail as the peer review would. The person carrying out managerial review
would glean through the artifact to see if everything is alright. Most often, man-
agerial review would not uncover any defects. But if it discovers any defect, it
would normally be a big issue necessitating a major revision. Manager, because of
their experience gained in handling multiple projects in diverse domains are
excellently positioned to uncover major slips of detail. But the major contribution
of a managerial review is to ensure that all preceding activities including quality
control activities are completed successfully.
Managerial review does not produce a review feedback form. The corrections
are communicated to the author. The author normally subjects the artifact to peer
review once again to ensure that it is reviewed in detail.
The deliverable for a managerial review is the approval of the artifact to the
next stage, if no feedback is necessary.
6.3.3 Best Practices and Pitfalls in Verification
One pitfall is to treat verification as a mere formality to fill a review feedback form
showing no defects for the purpose of quality audits and record keeping. We need
to keep records for facing quality audits successfully but cooking up records is a
bad practice. Verification adds value following the adage that ''two heads are
better than one''. One is always blind to one's own faults/defects. So, a peer review
overcomes that natural weakness of an individual.
The Second most common pitfall is to skip one of the two types of reviews.
Both add values in their unique way. Often, peer review is skipped in preference
for the managerial review. Managerial review in spite of the best intentions of the
manager, would not be able to delve deep enough into the detail a peer review can.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search