PROC01 Deliverables and milestones review

From EGIWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
EGI-Engage project: Main page WP1(NA1) WP3(JRA1) WP5(SA1) PMB Deliverables and Milestones Quality Plan Risk Plan Data Plan
Roles and
responsibilities
WP2(NA2) WP4(JRA2) WP6(SA2) AMB Software and services Metrics Project Office Procedures




Title Deliverables and milestones review
Link https://wiki.egi.eu/wiki/PROC01_Deliverables_and_milestones_review
Owner
Quality Manager
Status Approved
Approval date 1.06.2016
Related document
https://documents.egi.eu/document/2785


Overview

The formal outputs from the project (milestones and deliverables) pass through a formal review process. The review process provides staged deadlines during the process to ensure the output is available to the EC at the end of the project month (PM) that the material is due.


The review process for a milestone and a deliverable is identical except for:

  • Milestones are expected to have
    • two reviews produced by reviewers;
    • reviewers: 1 external, 1 Activity Managers Board member
    • are not delivered to the EC
  • Deliverables are expected to have
    • three reviews produced by reviewers;
    • reviewers: 1 external, 1 Project Management Board member or reviewer appointed by a PMB member, 1 Activity Managers Board member.

Where possible, the reviewers are selected from relevant EGI’s functional areas (i.e. Operations, User Community, Technology and Policy) that are not directly involved in the production of the output.

Definitions

Please refer to the EGI Glossary for the definitions of the terms used in this procedure.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", “MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

Entities involved in the procedure

Roles in the review process are identified below:

  • Reviewer: Responsible for providing a review of the document on the EGI review form so that responses from the document authors to the reviewer can be tracked. A change tracked version of the document can be provided with corrections for spelling, formatting and other minor issues. The reviewer is generally from the activity and organisation that is not responsible for producing the document.
  • Moderator: Responsible for bringing to AMB discussion conflicting reviews which elements of a review must be implemented by the author. The decision to follow or reject a reviewer’s comment must be tracked in the review document. The moderator is Quality Manager.
  • Editor: The person from the activity and the partner who is responsible for the document and for collecting input from relevant project tasks. They may rely on others within the activity to provide and/or collect the information needed. The editor cannot be a moderator or reviewer.
  • Quality Manager (QM): Provides administrative support for the process. Acts as Moderator.
  • Work Package leader (WP leader): Responsible for overseeing the production of the document. The Work Package leader will work with the Editor to ensure that the work is done in a timely manner, and report to the AMB on its progress.
  • AMB Chair: the Technical Director. An individual could hold one or more of these roles if they are not in conflict with each other.

Requirements

Depending of the type of milestone and deliverable, different inputs to the process are expected and required as detailed in the following list.

  • R: Document, report
    • Input: full report
  • DEM: Demonstrators, pilots, prototypes, plan design
    • Input: Delivery of the product, short 1-4 page report
  • DEC: Website, press & media actions, events
    • Input: Delivery of the product, short 1-4 page report
      • Events: in addition feedback on satisfaction is provided
  • OTHER: software, technical diagram etc.
    • Non-user facing software
      • Input: delivery, UMD software provisioning process , short 1-4 report based on the staged rollout process outcome
    • User facing software
      • Input: delivery, feedback on satisfaction is provided, short 1-4 page report
    • Other
      • Input: short 1-4 page report

Steps

Time before submission
Role Action
Deliverable/milestone production phase
>2 months

QM

•    Create Document DB entry. 

•    Remind WP leader responsible for the document about upcoming deliverable

2 months
WP leader

Assign 

•    Editor

•    Reviewers

7 weeks
WP leader Ensure the editor has provided an annotated table of contents that is available online (doc DB) and circulated to the AMB
5 weeks
WP leader The draft is stable and undergoes review within the activity
4 weeks
WP leader

In inform QM that document is ready for external review.

For software deliverables provides needed information for testing. 

External review and testing phase
Immediately
QM

•    notifies reviewer(s), AMB and PMB that the document is available for external review 

•    confirm expected review completion date with reviewers and explain what is expected

•    for software deliverables and milestones

     o    a review form must be provided  

     o    technical testing needs to be performed

Immediately QM

If software/service deliverable/milestone

Immediately
Reviewers

Provide review for the deliverable/milestone.

For software/service:

•    perform testing

•    provide improvements’ suggestions for the service/software

Immediately
QM Collect reviews and place them in Document DB entry Inform Editor and WP leader about received reviews
Immediately
Editor

Apply changes.

Involve QM in case of conflicting reviews. 

Notify the WP leader and QM an updated document is available.

Immediately
QM

•    Get reviewers and NA2 approval for final version of the document 

•    Check if software deliverables are delivered according to https://wiki.egi.eu/wiki/EGI-Engage:Software_and_services

Immediately
QM

The external review is complete. 

Notify the AMB and PMB that the document has completed external review.

AMB, PMB review phase
2 weeks

AMB and PMB review
Review the document and provide comments.
Quality phase
1 week QM/AMB Chair A clean PDF version of the document is generated by the QM and placed in the document repository with updated meta-data
Deadline AMB Chair Document is delivered to the EC

Revision History

Version Authors Date Comments

M.Krakowian
12.08
Added step for NA2 to check exploitation plan for Software/service