Setting up a peer review process in EA 12

[Richard Burke]

Hello,
We are relative newcomers to EA (converts from Rhapsody) and are using sysML with EA 12 and a cloud server.

It appears that EA has several features to allow peer review but I can't find any documentation that provides a big picture.

I would be grateful if anybody could describe how they have set the system up for peer review. The sorts of things we want to do are as follows:

• A developer finishes a body of work (probably across several packages) and sets up a review indicating the items he wants reviewed.
• Members of the team review the relevant parts of the model and comment.
• The developer addresses the comments either by updating the model or responding to the comment.
• The developer indicates that he has addressed all open issues in the review.
• A "chief reviewer" checks that all issues have been addressed and closes the review.

I am aware that features such as Team Reviewer, Specification Manager and Model Mail are available but I am struggling to understand how you would combine them in a review process.

Any advice would be gratefully received!

Thanks,
Richard

[qwerty]

I once tried to include the EA peer review tools in our process. I failed since I had enough work to convince everyone to use the tool in its basic aspects at all (which worked after some time). People were stuck very much in email communication so I added a bit support for that. I guess with a bit more people pulling the string in the same direction the integrated review could work quite nice.

q.

[SomersetGraham]

Hi
I work in a small team (4 developers) and we use EA as a review tool all be it in a fairly informal way.

We have created a number of forms as Linked Document templates which we use in the Team Review window

The author of the review material then creates a category in team review window and adds one of our specialised forms for each team member.

The team members then review the material (one of our forms allows the author to specify the items to be reviewed) and make comments on their form.

The author can then view these and make amendments as necessary.
Once complete the nominated review moderator can sign of the review when happy that all comments have been addressed.

This works well in our situation but may not suit all.

HTH

[Richard Burke]

Hi
I work in a small team (4 developers) and we use EA as a review tool all be it in a fairly informal way.

We have created a number of forms as Linked Document templates which we use in the Team Review window

The author of the review material then creates a category in team review window and adds one of our specialised forms for each team member.

The team members then review the material (one of our forms allows the author to specify the items to be reviewed) and make comments on their form.

The author can then view these and make amendments as necessary.
Once complete the nominated review moderator can sign of the review when happy that all comments have been addressed.

This works well in our situation but may not suit all.

HTH

Thanks for the responses Graham and qwerty. Graham, you say that you create a form with the items to review. I saw with team review that you can Share Resource / Package from current model. I guess you still need to say what to review within the package though, so maybe a form is the way to go. It does seem like a big overhead to create a form for each reviewer though.

I also wondered if we could use the Project / Discussions feature. The problem is tying a discussion to a review. Also there is no way to set the status of a discussion.

However you can set the Review Status for a Topic. I guess this is how the review moderator closes the review in your case.

Finally, the other thought I had was that we could create an extension to do team reviews - that's probably a longer term project though!

Any further comments or suggestions gratefully received.

P.S. If anybody from Sparx is reading this, I think that how to set up a review process would be a useful subject for a whitepaper.