Roles and Resposibilities for a Formal Review

The participants in any type of formal review should have adequate knowledge of the review process. The best, and most efficient, review situation occurs when the participants gain some kind of advantage for their own work during reviewing. 

In the case of an inspection or technical review, participants should have been properly trained as both types of review have proven to be far less success-ful without trained participants. This indeed is perceived as being a critical success factor.

The best formal reviews come from well-organized teams, guided by trained moderators (or review leaders). Within a review team, four types of participants can be distinguished: 

• moderator
• author
• scribe
• reviewer
• the management (in addition to the main four roles)

The moderator

• The moderator (or review leader) leads the review process. 
• He or she determines, in co-operation with the author, the type of review, approach and the composition of the review team. 
• The moderator performs the entry check and the follow-up on the rework, in order to control the quality of the input and output of the review process. 
• The moderator also schedules the meeting, disseminates documents before the meeting, coaches other team members, paces the meeting, leads possible discussions and stores the data that is collected.

The author

• As the writer of the document under review, the author's basic goal should be to learn as much as possible with regard to improving the quality of the document, but also to improve his or her ability to write future documents. 
• The author's task is to illuminate unclear areas and to understand the defects found.

The scribe

• During the logging meeting, the scribe (or recorder) has to record each defect mentioned and any suggestions for process improvement. In practice it is often the author who plays this role, ensuring that the log is readable and understand-able. 
• If authors record their own defects, or at least make their own notes in their own words, it helps them to understand the log better during rework. 
• However, having someone other than the author take the role of the scribe (e.g. the moderator) can have significant advantages, since the author is freed up to think about the document rather than being tied down with lots of writing.

The reviewers

• The task of the reviewers (also called checkers or inspectors) is to check any material for defects, mostly prior to the meeting. 
• The level of thoroughness required depends on the type of review. The level of domain knowledge or tech-nical expertise needed by the reviewers also depends on the type of review. 
• Reviewers should be chosen to represent different perspectives and roles in the review process. 
• In addition to the document under review, the material reviewers receive includes source documents, standards, checklists, etc. 
• In general, the fewer source and reference documents provided, the more domain expertise regarding the content of the document under review is needed.

The manager

• The manager is involved in the reviews as he or she decides on the execution of reviews, allocates time in project schedules and determines whether review process objectives have been met. 
• The manager will also take care of any review training requested by the participants.
•  Of course a manager can also be involved in the review itself depending on his or her background, playing the role of a reviewer if this would be helpful.