What Is A Technical Review?

California Division | Federal Highway Administration

OBJECTIVE: Technical reviews provide a structured and organized approach to reviewing project products to determine if they are fit for their intended use. This chapter also describes a process to plan and conduct a meeting that can be used for the different types of technical reviews. Technical reviews are used to identify defects, suggest alternative approaches, communicate status, monitor risk, and coordinate activities within multi-disciplinary teams.

DESCRIPTION: Technical reviews are critical to the success of Intelligent Transportation System projects. Technical reviews provide status and feedback on the products under review and the on on-going activities of a project. A technical review is the primary method for communicating progress, coordinating tasks, monitoring risk, and transferring products and knowledge between the team members of a project. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 1028-1998 identifies the following five types of reviews: management reviews technical reviews inspections walk-through audits The process for conducting review meetings should be established in the Project Plan/SEMP and carried out the same way for each review. The differences in reviews would be in the content and level of formality. This formality would be tailored for the type of review and its purpose. This chapter describes a basic meeting procedure including pre-meeting activities, conduct, and post meeting activities.

CONTEXT OF PROCESS: TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCESS

Inputs: Purpose for the meeting must be clearly established with expected outcomes. Required Review Inputs should be provided. These are products for the phase under technical review. Unresolved action items from the previous reviews are carried over for continuing discussion and/or decisions.

Control: Project Plan/SEMP contains the process used to perform technical reviews.

Enablers: Stakeholder involvement is needed to participate and to fill the various roles for the technical reviews.

Outputs: Project Review Plan will identify how technical reviews will be carried out for the project. This will be part of the Project Plan/SEMP. Review of decisions includes the documented acceptance; re-work with comments, and deviations and waivers to the phase products by the participants of the technical review. Action items are assigned with completion dates. Critical items are tracked between meetings if necessary. Assignments are documented and sent out as part of the feedback to the participants. This feedback should have a definition of the action item and a planned date for completion. Feedback to participants the results of the meeting and provide a record of the meeting for their review and comments. This ensures that decisions, actions, and assignments were accurately documented.

Process Activities: Plan reviews A plan is developed for the technical reviews of a project. This plan includes the schedule for reviews, who will be in attendance, the level of formality for each review, the entry criteria, the process for the review, and the exit criteria, Perform pre-meeting activities Define the purpose, objectives, and the intended outcomes of the meeting. Prepare an agenda, identifying participants and their roles and distributing the agenda and background material. Reserve and inspect the meeting facilities and location to see if all needed equipment is in working order and that the facility meets the needs for the meeting. Example items to look for are space, break rooms, rest rooms, lunch facilities, break-out rooms, climate control, lighting, noise levels, appropriate furniture and configuration, equipment, and electrical. Make arrangements, if necessary, for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and/or break refreshments. Perform meeting/review Technical meetings should start and end on time. The purpose of the meeting should be clearly stated, an updated agenda provided to the attendees, and a roster that documents the attendees present with up to date contact information, Their role in the meeting should be placed with the meeting minutes. The ground rules for the meeting should be reviewed prior to discussion, starting with unresolved action items from the previous review. Conclude one agenda item at a time. Manage discussions so that there is focus on the topic. Follow the pre-arranged ground rules. Keep track of the time. Document all decisions, actions, and assignments. At the close of the meeting, summarize all decisions, actions, and assignments, review agenda items, and assignments for the next meeting. Confirm date, time and place of the next meeting. Finally, end on time. Perform post meeting/review activities The meeting should be followed up with a complete set of minutes that include all decisions, actions, and assignments. The minute taker, if needed, should follow up with the attendees to make sure the minutes are as complete as possible. These minutes and any supporting material should distributed back to the attendees promptly for review and comment. Assignments should be completed, and periodic progress checks on critical action items from the meeting. Honor commitments for the next meeting. Carry over unresolved actions with status and recommended resolutions.

Where do Technical Reviews take place in the project timeline?

Is there a policy or standard that talks about Technical Reviews? FHWA Final Rule does not specifically mention general reviews and meeting practices. IEEE 1028-1988 Standards for Reviews and Audits provides information useful to decision gates. Which activities are critical for the system’s owner to do?

• Lead the definition and documentation of the process in conducting a technical review.
• Gain stakeholder support in the participation of technical reviews
• Lead the participation of technical reviews
• Review decisions, actions, and assignments from the technical review
• Follow-up on critical assignments

How do I fit these activities to my project? In this activity, the number of reviews and level of formality is tailored to the size and type of the project. For example, on a small traffic signal control that is a COTS product, the number of reviews can be minimal,

The meetings may be informal with the project manager and/or traffic engineer in a review of progress. The feedback may be just a summary of the meeting minutes. What should I track in this process step to reduce project risks and get what is expected? Technical and project management: Technical reviews are used to identify design defects, suggest alternative approaches, communicate status, monitor risk, and coordinate activities within multi-disciplinary teams.

This would be the time and place to monitor, review, and take action on both technical and project management metrics that were set up for the phase currently in progress. Checklist: Are all the bases covered?

• Was a review plan developed for the project?
  • Did the plan contain:
  • – The number or frequency of the reviews?
  • – The process for carrying out each review?
  • – Roles identified for each review?
  • – Level of formality identified for each review?

• Was a technical review agenda developed and distributed well ahead of the scheduled meeting date?
• Was all the supporting and background material generated and distributed to the attendees well ahead of the scheduled meeting date ?
• Were the attendees and their roles identified or defined ?
• Were the time and location identified?
• Were the purpose and outcomes identified?
• Were all unresolved assignments, identified in the previous meeting, brought forward to the upcoming meeting?
• Has the location of the technical review been checked out for size, climate, configuration, equipment, furniture, noise, and lighting?
• Are all the presenters well prepared for the meeting?
• Were the ground rules for the meeting discussed before the start of discussion?
• Did the meeting start on time?
• Were introductions made by all attendees?
• Was an attendance roster created for the meeting with up to date contact information for each attendee?
• Was the purpose of the meeting clearly stated and what are the expected outcomes?
• Was an updated agenda provided for each attendee with the priorities assigned for each agenda item?
• Was each agenda item concluded before discussing the next or other items?
• Were all decisions, assignments, and actions documented as part of the minutes and summarized at the end of the meeting?
• Did the meeting end on time?
• Were the minutes distributed to the attendees?
• Were all critical assignments followed up between meetings?

Are there any other recommendations that can help? Have ground rules for technical reviews. The following is a recommended set of ground rules that participants observe during the meeting:

• We tell it like it is, but respect, honor, and trust one another
• We work toward consensus, recognizing that disagreements in the meeting are okay. Once we agree, we all support the decision
• We have one conversation at a time; and our silence is consent
• We focus on issues, not on personalities; and we actively listen and question to understand
• We do not attack the messenger
• We start on time, observe time limits, and structure the agenda to end on time

A closer look at the types of technical reviews used throughout the project timeline Planning review verifies that plans appropriate for the project are identified, Tailoring for each plan is reviewed and updated as needed. review ensures that the operation of the system being defined is appropriate, and addresses the needs of the stakeholders,

This is a critical review, as the concept of operations will identify the operational needs, needed agreements, candidate external interfaces, and maintenance responsibilities. Requirements review is used to ensure the system and sub-system and verification plans are appropriate for the system being defined.

This review verifies that the requirements are complete and that each meets all the criteria for a good requirement and traces to user needs. High level Design review ensures that the project level is well formed, balanced, and appropriate for the problem space, and that the functionality and of the defined system meet the intended need,

This review verifies that the project architecture is consistent with the regional architecture. If necessary, document the differences. This is a major technical review and is sometimes called a PDR, Component level detailed design review is used to ensure that the detailed design is ready for implementation.

This is a major review since when completed, the detailed design is ready for implementation. This is sometimes called the CDR, Test Readiness review is used to see if the components, sub-systems, and system are ready for verification. For each level of verification, there should be a review prior to the formal verification of the product.

: California Division | Federal Highway Administration

What should be included in a technical review?

The user and technical reviewer should make sure they agree on the scope of the review and include a description of the scope in the plan. The technical reviewer should consider the risks and magnitude of potential errors, omissions and misrepresentations in the assessment report in preparing the plan.

What is the role of a technical reviewer?

Role: Technical Reviewer Relationships Main Description

Roles organize the responsibility for performing tasks and developing work products into logical groups. Each role can be assigned to one or more people, and each person can fill one or more roles. When staffing the role, you need to consider both the skills required for the role and the different approaches you can take to assigning staff to the role.

Staffing

Skills

A person playing the role needs to have the appropriate skills and knowledge including: Domain knowledge or subject matter expertise appropriate to the work product being reviewed Either: the skills required to produce the work product being reviewed the responsibility for other work products, the content of which this work product is a transformation of or otherwise reflects in some manner. the responsibility for subsequent tasks in which this work product will be consumed

Assignment Approaches

The role is assigned to one or more individuals on a case-by-case basis, according to the work product(s) being reviewed, the teams involved and the availability of staff members to take part in the review.

Role: Technical Reviewer

What are the 3 main parts of a technical report?

What is a Technical Report? (Definition) – A technical report is described as a written scientific document that conveys information about technical research in an objective and fact-based manner. This technical report consists of the three key features of a research i.e process, progress, and results associated with it. A technical report is considered as a product that comes with your research, like a guide for it. You study the target audience of a product before creating it, right? Similarly, before writing a technical report, you must keep in mind who your reader is going to be.

Whether it is professors, industry professionals, or even customers looking to buy your project – studying the target audience enables you to start structuring your report. It gives you an idea of the existing knowledge level of the reader and how much information you need to put in the report. Many people tend to put in fewer efforts in the report than what they did in the actual research.which is only fair.

We mean, you’ve already worked so much, why should you go through the entire process again to create a report? Well then, let’s move to the second section where we talk about why it is absolutely essential to write a technical report accompanying your project.

What are the 5 C’s of technical report writing?

All this can be avoided by following the 5 Cs of report writing. For reports to help your team in any situation, they have to be clear, concise, complete, consistent, and courteous.

Is technical review formal or informal?

The main review types that come under the static testing are mentioned below: 1. Walkthrough :

It is not a formal process It is led by the authors Author guide the participants through the document according to his or her thought process to achieve a common understanding and to gather feedback. Useful for the people if they are not from the software discipline, who are not used to or cannot easily understand software development process. Is especially useful for higher level documents like requirement specification, etc.

The goals of a walkthrough:

To present the documents both within and outside the software discipline in order to gather the information regarding the topic under documentation. To explain or do the knowledge transfer and evaluate the contents of the document To achieve a common understanding and to gather feedback. To examine and discuss the validity of the proposed solutions

2. Technical review :

It is less formal review It is led by the trained moderator but can also be led by a technical expert It is often performed as a peer review without management participation Defects are found by the experts (such as architects, designers, key users) who focus on the content of the document. In practice, technical reviews vary from quite informal to very formal

The goals of the technical review are:

To ensure that an early stage the technical concepts are used correctly To access the value of technical concepts and alternatives in the product To have consistency in the use and representation of technical concepts To inform participants about the technical content of the document

3. Inspection :

It is the most formal review type It is led by the trained moderators During inspection the documents are prepared and checked thoroughly by the reviewers before the meeting It involves peers to examine the product A separate preparation is carried out during which the product is examined and the defects are found The defects found are documented in a logging list or issue log A formal follow-up is carried out by the moderator applying exit criteria

The goals of inspection are:

It helps the author to improve the quality of the document under inspection It removes defects efficiently and as early as possible It improve product quality It create common understanding by exchanging information It learn from defects found and prevent the occurrence of similar defects

Who leads the technical review?

What is Technical review in software testing? Technical review :

• It is less formal review
• It is led by the trained moderator but can also be led by a technical expert
• It is often performed as a peer review without management participation
• are found by the experts (such as architects, designers, key users) who focus on the content of the document.
• In practice, technical reviews vary from quite informal to very formal

The goals of the technical review are:

1. To ensure that an early stage the technical concepts are used correctly
2. To access the value of technical concepts and alternatives in the product
3. To have consistency in the use and representation of technical concepts
4. To inform participants about the technical content of the document

What is formal technical review?

Explain Formal Technical Review. –

A formal technical review (FTR) is a software quality control activity performed by software engineers (and others) The objectives of an FTR are: To uncover errors in function, logic, or implementation; for any representation of the software To verify that the software under review meets its requirements To ensure that the software has been represented according to predefined standards To achieve software that is developed in a uniform manner To make projects more manageable During the FTR, a reviewer (the recorder) actively records all issues that have been raised These are summarized at the end of the review meeting, and a reviewed issues list is produced In addition, a formal technical review summary report is completed

Is technical review same as peer review?

DIFFERENCES – Authority : Peer review is directed by the peer review board of the ICAI, whereas technical review is under the aegis of the Financial Reports Review Board (FRRB) of the ICAI. Thus, though both are carried out by the ICAI, they are carried out by two different arms.

1. Subject of review : Peer review is carried out on the practice unit, which is essentially a firm of Chartered Accountants whereas technical review is carried out on the financial statements and reporting.
2. Appointment : The practice unit chooses from among three names suggested to it by the peer review board.

The technical reviewer is appointed by the FRRB. Periodicity of review : Peer review is an ongoing process, done once in a three-year time period while there is no such time measure for technical review. Technical review is carried out on a financial statement and reporting as on a particular date.

Objective of review : Peer review is carried out with the aim of improving the overall performance of the practice unit. Technical review is to examine the financial statements and reports of the statutory auditor. During peer review, the reviewer examines the functioning of the firm, audit plans and programmes, bases of accepting or rejecting an audit evidence, adherence to standards of auditing, training of the audit staff, maintenance of records by the practice unit, etc.

Technical reviewer works on a different set of information, such as the format of the financial statements, notes to accounts, compliance with the broad framework of accounting, audit report, content of report, assurances obtained by the auditor for comments and statements in the report, etc.

Period under review : The peer reviewer delves into the records of the practice unit over a period of three years whereas the technical review is confined to just one financial statement. Size of the study : The Peer reviewer selects certain samples from the clients, papers, documents of the practice unit.

The technical review is confined to one financial statement reporting, which is a single document. Modalities of working : The peer reviewer goes into the working of the firm. Thus it is more into substantive procedures. Technical review is more into the format, disclosure and compliance procedures.

Peer reviewer covers all types of the work performed by the practice unit which includes tax audits, internal audits also. Technical review confines itself only to the financial reporting. ICAI view : The ICAI considers peer review as a hand-holding exercise where one member of the ICAI helps another in improving the standards of auditing.

In the case of a technical review, the implications are not the same. These differences are exhaustive but not all-inclusive. (The author is a Hyderabad-based chartered accountant.)

What makes a good reviewer?

What does a good peer review look like? – 1. Start with a (very) brief summary of the paper. This is a useful exercise for both reviewers and authors. If you struggle to summarise what the paper is about, that suggests the authors need to improve the clarity of their writing.

It also lets the authors know what a reader took from their paper – which may not be what they intended! 2. Next, give the Editor an overview of what you thought of the paper. You will typically have to provide a recommendation (e.g. accept, revise or reject), but in the review itself you should give a summary of your reasons for this recommendation.

Some examples:

‘the data appear appropriate for testing the authors’ hypothesis but I have some concerns about the methods. If these can be fixed, then this should become a useful contribution to the literature’. ‘the authors’ have a clear research question and use appropriate methods, but their data are not suitable to provide an answer to their research question. Without additional data collection, this paper is not appropriate for publication’.

3. The rest of your review should provide detailed comments about the manuscript. It is most helpful to Editors and authors if this section is structured in some way. Many reviewers start with the major problems first, then list more minor comments afterwards.

1. Major comments would be those which need to be addressed before the paper is publishable and/or which will take substantial work to resolve – such as concerns with the methodology or the authors’ interpretation of results.
2. Minor comments could be recommendations for revisions that are not necessarily essential to make the paper publishable – for example, suggestions for additional literature to include, or cosmetic changes.4.

Remember that you have two audiences: the Editor and the authors. Authors need to know what was good about the paper and where improvements could be made. The Editor needs to know if you think the manuscript is a publishable piece of work. Bear in mind that different journals have different criteria for what makes a paper publishable – this information should be accessible on the journal webpage, or you might have been sent guidance to help with this when you accepted the invitation to review.5.

Clarity is important because authors will not be able to respond to your concerns if they don’t fully understand what they are. Reviews are most helpful if they don’t just criticise, but also make constructive suggestions for how concerns may be resolved. Your overall recommendation should be consistent with your comments. There is likely to be an opportunity to provide confidential comments to the Editor to provide further context or justification for your recommendation, but don’t include comments here that are completely different from the main messages of your review. The Editor needs to be able to justify their final decision to the authors using the reviewer comments as part of their evidence.

6. Don’t be afraid to highlight good things about the paper – a good review does not just criticise but also highlights what the authors have done well.7. Your review should always be polite; it is unprofessional to use derogatory language or take a harsh or sarcastic tone (and remember that even if reviewer names are blinded to authors, the Editor knows who you are).

What does a reviewer look for?

Reviewers look for accuracy, timeliness, and appropriateness of the manuscript that can greatly affect the chances of publishing your research. Apart from these, reviewers check for the scientific merits of the manuscript, its methods, and research misconduct (if any).

What are the three types of reviews?

The Three Types of IRB Review IRB must review all projects that meet the definition of research and that involve human subjects prior to any data collection to determine the appropriate level of review, and, as appropriate, approve them. There are three major types of review: Exempt, Expedited, and Full.

Research, conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings that specifically involves normal educational practices that are not likely to adversely impact students’ opportunity to learn required educational content or the assessment of educators who provide instruction. This includes most research on regular and special education instructional strategies, and research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods. Research that only includes interactions involving educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior (including visual or auditory recording) if at least one of the following criteria is met:

The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; Any disclosure of the human subjects’ responses outside the research would not reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing, employability, educational advancement, or reputation; or The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects can readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, and an IRB conducts a limited IRB review to make the determination that there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.

Research involving benign behavioral interventions in conjunction with the collection of information from an adult subject through verbal or written responses (including data entry) or audiovisual recording if the subject prospectively agrees to the intervention and information collection and at least one of the following criteria is met:

The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; Any disclosure of the human subjects’ responses outside the research would not reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing, employability, educational advancement, or reputation; or The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects can readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, and an IRB conducts a limited IRB review to make the determination that there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.

Secondary research uses of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, if at least one of the following criteria is met:

The identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens are publicly available; Information, which may include information about biospecimens, is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, the investigator does not contact the subjects, and the investigator will not re-identify subjects; The research involves only information collection and analysis involving the investigator’s use of identifiable health information when that use is regulated under HIPAA as “health care operations,” “research” or “public health”; or The research is conducted by, or on behalf of, a Federal department or agency using government-generated or government-collected information obtained for nonresearch activities and the information is subject to federal privacy standards and other requirements specified in the exemption

Research and demonstration projects that are conducted or supported by a Federal department or agency, or otherwise subject to the approval of department or agency heads (or the approval of the heads of bureaus or other subordinate agencies that have been delegated authority to conduct the research and demonstration projects), and that are designed to study, evaluate, improve, or otherwise examine public benefit or service programs, including procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs, possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures, or possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs.

• Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies.
• Storage or maintenance of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens for potential secondary research use.
• The exemption can only be used when there is broad consent from the subjects for the storage, maintenance, and secondary research use of their identifiable materials.

Research involving the use of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens for secondary research use, if the following criteria are met:

Broad consent is obtained from the subjects for the secondary research use of their identifiable materials, Documentation or waiver of documentation of informed consent is obtained, An IRB conducts a limited review to make certain determinations relating to privacy and confidentiality protections and broad consent, and The investigator does not include returning individual research results to subjects as part of the study plan.

What are the 8 sections of a technical report?

The discourse structure of written technical reports consists of the following sections: (a) identification, (b) abstract, (c) table of contents (contents page), (d) introduction, (e) body of the paper, (f) conclusion, (g) recommendations, (h) acknowledgements, and (i) references.

What is a technical report example?

A technical report example is a written document made by a researcher which contains the details about a project’s results. After creating the technical report, the researcher submits it to the project’s sponsor.

What are six 6 main parts in a technical specification document?

Contents of a technical spec – There are a wide range of problems being solved by a vast number of companies today. Each organization is distinct and creates its own unique engineering culture. As a result, technical specs may not be standard even within companies, divisions, teams, and even among engineers on the same team.