http://blog.bliley.com/5-simple-steps-for-truly-effective-design-reviews
Take notes in real time (digitally)
5. Follow up immediately
Now I know this may come as a surprise to most of us, but the majority of meetings are basically worthless. They could have just as well been an email and saved everyone invited precious time to be doing something more productive. Design reviews are one of those special exceptions that is actually worth pulling a bunch of high paid engineers into a room together.
There's a epic email salutation on this site I found recently that says "Do good, crush evil, but document it." Design reviews are certainly a place to do good. They are a great way to crush evil design defects. So it only stands to reason that we should document it.
https://effectivesoftwaredesign.com/2010/10/24/effective-design-reviews/
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-tips-for-conducting-a-software-design-review
- Your priority should be to understand objections and questions, not necessarily to answer them. People will come up with questions you haven't thought about and "helpful" suggestions that barely make sense. It's OK to note them and look into the issue after the meeting when you'll have time to carefully craft a diplomatic reply.
- You, the designer, should take notes on the feedback and decisions for your design, & circulate your notes promptly after the meeting. Bring a printout of your design spec to write notes on, and don't be afraid to ask the meeting to pause for a minute or two while you catch up on notes. I find that it's best for the project manager to take notes on action items that arise for people other than the designer, such as technical issues that need investigating by developers.
- Keep three running lists: "Questions for management", "Questions for users", and "Parking lot (interesting ideas that we won't pursue at this time)".
Listen graciously and thank everyone for their input. People always want to leave a meeting with the feeling that they were listened to and understood
http://www.processimpact.com/articles/revu_sins.html
http://design.engineering.dal.ca/sites/default/files/studentresources/files/design_reviews.pdf
https://medium.com/git-out-the-vote/strengthening-products-and-teams-with-technical-design-reviews-ae6a1bec5216
Take notes in real time (digitally)
5. Follow up immediately
Now I know this may come as a surprise to most of us, but the majority of meetings are basically worthless. They could have just as well been an email and saved everyone invited precious time to be doing something more productive. Design reviews are one of those special exceptions that is actually worth pulling a bunch of high paid engineers into a room together.
There's a epic email salutation on this site I found recently that says "Do good, crush evil, but document it." Design reviews are certainly a place to do good. They are a great way to crush evil design defects. So it only stands to reason that we should document it.
Therefore, effective design reviews must include the presentation of several alternatives. The discussion should not be if a particular design satisfies or not the requirements. Correctness is the most fundamental attribute of a solution, so the diverse design choices must differ on some other attributes that can be compared. In other words, each option has its advantages and disadvantages, and by choosing one of them we are actually deciding which attributes are the most important ones, but all options must be correct.
In this “multiple-choice” approach, the goal of the design review is to analyze several alternatives and understand their different implications. Then, if there is a solution that is clearly better than all others, according to some criteria, it should be the chosen one. Otherwise, we should try to look for additional options.
But here is the second problem with the previous definition of design review: It says that the “design is tested against its requirements.” In most cases this means only the functional requirements, the specific demands related to the feature being implemented. This definition assures that the design must be correct, but it does not address the question of how the new feature being implemented will affect the existing system architecture. In other words, this definition does not take in consideration the non-functional requirements.
Diverse design alternatives will probably have very different implications for non-functional requirements, and this should be used as the basis for comparison when selecting one of them.
if there are no alternatives, there is no real review being done.
“Then,” said Sloan, “I propose we postpone further discussion until our next meeting, to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”
So let’s hope we will have more disagreement in our next design reviews!
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/20467/Software-Architecture-Review-Guidelines[Good]https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-tips-for-conducting-a-software-design-review
- Your priority should be to understand objections and questions, not necessarily to answer them. People will come up with questions you haven't thought about and "helpful" suggestions that barely make sense. It's OK to note them and look into the issue after the meeting when you'll have time to carefully craft a diplomatic reply.
- You, the designer, should take notes on the feedback and decisions for your design, & circulate your notes promptly after the meeting. Bring a printout of your design spec to write notes on, and don't be afraid to ask the meeting to pause for a minute or two while you catch up on notes. I find that it's best for the project manager to take notes on action items that arise for people other than the designer, such as technical issues that need investigating by developers.
- Keep three running lists: "Questions for management", "Questions for users", and "Parking lot (interesting ideas that we won't pursue at this time)".
Listen graciously and thank everyone for their input. People always want to leave a meeting with the feeling that they were listened to and understood
http://www.processimpact.com/articles/revu_sins.html
Reviewers Critique the Producer, Not the Product
Reviews Are Not Planned
https://medium.com/git-out-the-vote/strengthening-products-and-teams-with-technical-design-reviews-ae6a1bec5216
The document should have sections including:
- Background
- Design goals
- System diagram
- Design summary
- Design details
- Tradeoffs made
