• Many of the software artifacts (products) that we develop in courses are of "developmental quality" or "research quality". But as software engineers we need to be able to effectively produce "production quality" products.
• Software reviews can provide an effective means to find and fix problems, raising the quality of the software products toward production level.
• Our production quality reviews will be software peer reviews.
• These reviews are held evaluate the product against some standard.
• How do you get an appropriate standard?
• Your text may provide quality criteria from which you can create your own list of quality items against which you can evaluate your product.
• You may find quality criteria elsewhere. For example, if the product being reviewed is code, you might consider some of the many coding standards available as candidates for your review standard.
• Thoughtful formality in the review process saves you time and increases the quality of your results by providing focus. An engineering design review, for example, is formal in order to make sure that the important items are covered. Peer reviews are usually not done with an audience, but need to be just as premeditated and focused as an engineering senior design review.
• Software peer reviews produce documented results, including Action Items. An Action Item includes:
• A result to be produced;
• The due date for the result;
• The name of the person responsible for producing the result by the due date.
• We are working to improve product quality, and in the process build and demonstrate our software engineering capabilities.

Accreditation: Mercer University is accredited by SACSCOC.