Reading between the lines

We come across this phrase almost every now and then in our daily lives, but what does it really mean?

Very simply put, "reading between the lines" means to read the text in question very carefully; to read everything and try to find glitches or catches within it that are not very obvious.

We fortunately advocate this practice very strongly in our industry and we call the activity - Review. We do all kinds of review for almost all of our deliverables, may it be a design document, code or test cases. We do it or preach that it should be done so that we actually read between the lines to ensure that nothing unwanted is passed on with the work product that we are delivering.

Review is a combination of two words – 'Re' which roughly means again, and 'View' that means 'to see'. So in essence, to review is to see again. And the primary most common reason to see anything again is to make sure that nothing went un-noticed.

Now that the fundamentals are clear, let's look at the various types of reviews that can be conducted.

Self/Peer Review
This is one of the most basic forms of review. It is generally informal and is done where the criticality of the product in question is not very high.
In this type of review, either the author of the work product or a colleague reviews the work product.

Advantages: Since this review is informal, the overheads are vastly reduced. This means that it can be conducted very easily without any prior preparation, can be done very quickly and hence yielding in faster results. Not too many resources, human or otherwise, are required to perform this type of review.

Disadvantages: However, the absence of formal procedures also tends to give rise to absence of discipline. At most times, reviewers are either not experienced in the science of review or are tight pressed for time. At other times, individual preferences or motives influence the fairness of the results. In either case, the resulting review may at times not be adequate and efficient and thus unreliable.

Walkthroughs
As the word suggests, in this type of review, the reviewers actually walk through the entire product in question including all the possible paths. This is most effective in scenarios where the quality of the product is very critical.
Walkthroughs are conducted collaboratively by a reviewer or a team of reviewers and the author of the product. They step through each line understanding its need and impact on the overall product. This is very similar to what the coders do while debugging their code.

Advantages: Since every line is looked into for justifying its need and evaluating its impact, it can be well assured that oversight is kept to the minimum and quality at maximum. It also eliminates postulation since the outcome can be seen at the very moment. Author buy-in in this type of review is also relatively higher.

Disadvantages: If timelines are tight, then this type of review may not be the right approach as the effort expended in this activity is high.

Formal Review
This is the most formal of all reviews and effectively with high overheads. But it can be assured that the effectiveness of this review will be high. This type of review is preferred where the product is of utmost importance and a glitch of the minutest proportion can prove to be expensive.
Roles like Reader, Facilitator, Recorder/Scribe and Reviewers form a part of this activity. While the first three roles can be played by the same person, a reviewer’s role is always independent of other roles.
All the reviewers are given ample time to review the product independently. All of them log their findings separately. Before the formal review takes place the facilitator collates these findings. During the review meeting, the reader reads one finding at a time, the reviewers discuss upon the validity and severity of the finding while the scribe records the items discussed and their outcomes.
At the end of the review meeting, final defect log is prepared and presented to the author for corrections.

Advantages: Since ample time is provided to the reviewers, rush-jobs are eliminated. Many minds work better than one and hence the likelihood of oversights is minimum. Wrong diagnosis is avoided since all the findings are questioned for validity. Author buy-in is higher.

Disadvantages: High overheads. Many resources pool in their individual efforts for review and then for formalizing the findings, this leads to higher cost of the activity.

What mode of review to follow is a call that a team lead or a project manager should take. If time is short and criticality low, then one can do a peer review. If timelines are not too short, but criticality is high, then a walkthrough would be a good idea. If there are no time constraints and the criticality is high, then the best approach would be to have a formal review conducted.

Whatever the mode, the intention is the same. Keep those defects at bay.