DESIGN REVIEWS

This page discusses the requirement for design reviews.

During the design of a system the design responsible project leader(s) will have frequent discussions with the varied specialist staff on the extent to which the proposed design is likely to meet the requirement.
These reviews can be determined as:

• In-process reviews (usually peer group and performed locally) example procedures are provided in review procedures. for example procedure.
• Internal reviews (end-of-a-life-cycle-phase; to ensure next phase of development has the necessary input documents, information, etc.). See review procedures. for example procedure.
• Formal design reviews (acquirer attended and usually milestones (payment) of a program). These and the peer group review reports shall be documented as design records (quality evaluation records). See Formal design reviews.

Only the aspect of the formal "Design Review" is discussed here.
The formal design review allows for the design to be presented to, and assessed (evaluated) by the customer (acquirer) in the presence of various specialists and senior management. The following considers briefly the objectives of the formal design review when they should be held and who should attend them.
The titles and description of the specific design review follows:

• System Requirements Review
• System/subsystem Design Review
• Software Requirements Review (CSCIS only)
• Preliminary Design Review (HWCIs and CSCIs)
• Detailed Design Review (HWCIs and CSCIs)
• Test Readiness Review (CSCIs only)
• Formal Qualification Review
• Production Readiness Review

NOTE: Other ad-hoc reviews can be held; however, their objective, agenda, must be defined and authorized by project management or acquirer prior to performance.

Overview

Design reviews can be defined as 'a formally documented and systematic critical study of a design or its products at specified points in a system design, or development'; and is distinguished from a progress meeting which discusses status, time-scales, and cost.
Objectives of the design review are to ensure:

• All reasonable design paths have been followed;
• All contributory factors have been considered;
• The design meets the requirements;
• The design can be manufactured, inspected, tested, installed, operated and maintained in a way which is satisfactory to the acquirer, taking into account time and cost constraints;
• There is adequate supporting documentation to detail the design and how it is to be used and maintained.

Design reviews are a crucial communication link between staff engaged in the various activities to ensure that the requirements are being met before a successful system can be delivered to the customer. The design review meeting will make a number of recommendations and a number of new points will be recorded; the designer is required to take note of this advice but retains the authority and responsibility for making the final decisions; it will not however alter the principle that the designer (design authority) is responsible for the design.

However, there is a further principle that 'the customer is always right'. If, having heard all the arguments, the customer insists on certain features in the design despite opposition from the design team, then this view must prevail. In these circumstances, there would be a detailed attributed record of all views expressed and a careful consideration of the contractual implications, including the effect on the system specification and the time and cost of meeting it.
Such conflicts should be rare; the usual spirit must be co-operative effort to achieve the best results possible by a review of the design and not criticism of the designer.

Procedures

• Formal design reviews add to the cost of a project and take time. The costs should be outweighed by the benefits, but must be kept to a minimum. Ideally, all problems should have been foreseen and a solution proposed by the design team prior to the formal review meeting;
• In preparing for the meeting the design teams will present the design and any proposals or views on the subjects covered. The chairperson (moderator) shall seek to achieve a consensus. It will be expected that the participants will brief themselves thoroughly and probe for weak spots in the design, but at the same time to maintain self-discipline and objectivity;
• The review report of the design review shall contain a record of all the proposals;

CONCLUSION

Formal Design Review aims to satisfy senior management and the customer (acquirer) that the design will satisfy all aspects of the requirement. It is a critical cooperative examination, first of the design concept, later of its detail and finally of its suitability for production (manufacture) and use.
The conclusions of the formal design reviews are recorded as advice to the design responsible person or group who will retain final responsibility for the design and authority over it.
A possible source of risk is the possible actions arising from design reviews; actions accepted from the acquirer can create havoc with existing planned activities and cause real scheduling problems. It is important that the chairman or moderator is experienced enough and understands the implications of accepting review actions and/or failing to identify major deficiencies.

Back to Home page MANAGING STANDARDS Home page

Please send any beneficial comments or identification of errors using the following form to: kenr@wysywig.airtime.co.uk