Dismiss
InnovationQ will be updated on Sunday, Oct. 22, from 10am ET - noon. You may experience brief service interruptions during that time.
Browse Prior Art Database

A System and Method of Choosing Reviewers in an Engineering Project

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000246416D
Publication Date: 2016-Jun-06
Document File: 4 page(s) / 31K

Publishing Venue

The IP.com Prior Art Database

Abstract

Disclosed is a system and method for providing recommendation for choosing one or more reviewers for an engineering change. The system and method attempts to balance many factors, including the project's phase, engineer scheduling, engineer experience and knowledge sharing.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 28% of the total text.

Page 01 of 4

A System and Method of Choosing Reviewers in an Engineering Project

Performing engineering reviews is an important part of the engineering process. In addition to uncovering potential issues, it allows a team to assess an amount of risk in a change and also to transfer knowledge and experience between engineers.

For example, in the software development process code-reviews serve several important purposes. Code-reviews are important but they consume resources. A reviewer has to drop what they're doing, however important it is, and look at changes the reviewer might not have been involved with or with code that the reviewer is not experienced with. Developers may gravitate toward certain well-experienced developers knowing that they would learn from the code-review. In that case the experienced developers might get overwhelmed by requests for code-reviews.

On the other end of the spectrum, developers may send their requests to developers they know will give them an 'easy-pass', someone who will not do a thorough check and not require them to make any changes to their code even though changes are warranted. This is bad because the code is not being carefully checked for problems.

Both situations are detrimental for a development team because they prevent experienced developers from completing their own work and the team from sharing knowledge about the source code, since only a few developers end up doing the reviews. It is important to balance the need for effective and thorough code-reviews against developer resources and knowledge sharing.

Disclosed is a system and method for providing recommendation for choosing one or more reviewers for an engineering change. The method and system attempts to balance many factors, including the project's phase, engineer scheduling, engineer experience and knowledge sharing.

The system disclosed herein attempts to balance a risk of using inexperienced developers with the desire to ensure knowledge and experience is shared. The system allows the desired balance to shift toward less risk, less knowledge sharing and less experience sharing as the project nears maturity and requires more tightly controlled risk. This happens automatically in the system as it gradually shifts the balance based on factors that the system can measure such as the state of the project and the workload of developers.

The system can adapt to status of the project. For example, the system can be configured to monitor a defect-tracking database to determine how many new defects are being submitted due to the deliveries made. If the defect submission is accelerating, then the system automatically adjusts the balance toward a less-risky posture, recommending more experienced developers for the review. The system does this by increasing the weighting of the module that ranks developers based on their experience, with more skilled developers at the top of the ranking. Similarly, if the defect submission rate de-accelerates then...