A software company decides to invest in reviews of various types. The thought process they have is that each artifact needs to be reviewed using only one of the review methods depending on the criticality of the artifact.

A software company decides to invest in reviews of various types. The thought process they have is that each artifact needs to be reviewed using only one of the review methods depending on the criticality of the artifact.
A . The thought process is incorrect. The whole company should adopt same standard for review of all artifacts.
B . The thought process is correct. The whole company should decide or the review method based on their CMM level.
C . The thought process is incorrect. Same artifact can be reviewed using different review methods
D . The thought process is correct. It wastes time to review same artifact using efferent review methods

View Answer

Answer: C

Explanation:

The thought process of the software company is incorrect, because it assumes that each artifact can be reviewed using only one review method, and that the review method depends solely on the criticality of the artifact. This is a simplistic and rigid approach that does not consider the benefits and limitations of different review methods, the context and purpose of the review, and the feedback and improvement opportunities that can be gained from multiple reviews. According to the CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, the selection of review methods should be based on several factors, such as the type and level of detail of the artifact, the availability and competence of the reviewers, the time and budget constraints, the expected defects and risks, and the desired outcomes and quality criteria. Moreover, the same artifact can be reviewed using different review methods at different stages of the development lifecycle, to ensure that the artifact meets the changing requirements, standards, and expectations of the stakeholders. For example, a requirement specification can be reviewed using an informal review method, such as a walkthrough, to get an initial feedback from the users and developers, and then using a formal review method, such as an inspection, to verify the completeness, correctness, and consistency of the specification. Therefore, the software company should adopt a more flexible and context-sensitive approach to selecting and applying review methods for different artifacts, rather than following a fixed and arbitrary rule.

Reference = CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, Section 3.2.1, page 31-32; Section 3.2.2, page 33-34; Section 3.2.3, page 35-36.