1. Peer Review Overview Meeting [Date] [Product name]

2. Agenda Purpose Peer Review Process Introductions Ground Rules Peer Review Report (from Toolkit) Severity Definitions Checklist Product Background/Overview Review Schedule 2

3. Purpose To identify and remove issues and concerns in work products as early as possible in the development process –Improve quality of work products –reduce costs –improve team efficiency and knowledge Product being peer reviewed: –[Product name] 3

4. 4 Peer Review Process

5. Introductions Author – [name] Reviewers: –[name, area of expertise] Moderator – [name] 5

6. Ground Rules Use the provided toolkit to document your potential issues or concerns –Allows for consolidation, disposition, and tracking to closure Administrative items such as typographical errors, punctuation, or improvements in verbiage can be marked directly on the document in red and provided to the author Do not evaluate the authors (both the product author and issues author(s), keep focus on the product material) Avoid judgmental and subjective language Be as specific as possible in describing the issue or concern We do not need to solve the issue or concern, but may be asked for suggestions Stick to the technical issues, avoid discussions about style Be prepared -- Do not come to the Peer Review Meeting without properly preparing and submitting your issues and concerns using the provided toolkit 6

7. 7 Peer Review Report Use your initials to establish a unique number Identify potential issue or concern Select the type of issue or concern Select the issue or concern’s severity (major, minor) Definitions of Severity and Types Keep track of time expended

8. Severity Definitions 8 Major An error or concern which would cause a malfunction or prevents attainment of an expected or specified result. Any error or concern which would in the future result in an approved change request or failure report All Major Issues & Concerns must be addressed/fixed by the author. Minor A violation of standards, guidelines, or rules, which would not result in a deviation from requirements if not corrected, but could result in difficulties in terms of operations, maintenance, or future development. Minor issues (which would not result in faulty execution) are resolved at the discretion of the Author as time and cost permit. Open Issue An issue or concern that either does not have concurrence of the inspectors or requires additional research. Administrative Editorial errors such as spelling, punctuation, and grammar which do not cause errors or change requests are not required to be corrected by the Author. Can be recorded only as red-lines and provided directly to author. Removed A potential issue or concern that was identified during the individual examination, but later not accepted by the team or no fix was required.

9. 9 Checklists Questions to consider about the product’s quality while performing the technical review are located in the gray TABs. The appropriate checklist for this peer review was included in the Peer Review Toolkit emailed to the reviewers.

10. Product Background/Overview Sample Bullets – Modify accordingly Why is the Product Important –[get information from the product’s author] Background/History of the Product –[get information from the product’s author] Product Overview (e.g., content, structural overview) –[get information from the product’s author] Any Key Items/Terms of Interest –[get information from the product’s author] 10

11. Review Schedule [date] – Release email announcement [date, time] – Overview meeting [date, time] – Submit potential issues & concerns –Remember to record the amount of time spent reviewing the product in the TAB: Issues & Concerns [date, time, location] – Peer Review meeting –Discuss issues & concerns –Ensure everyone understands the issues & concerns –Discuss author’s initial disposition (accept, reject, etc.) –Not defending your identified issue or concern Be prepared -- Do not come to the Peer Review Meeting without properly preparing and submitting your issues and concerns using the provided toolkit Do not evaluate the author, avoid judgmental language, and keep focus on the product material (‘we’, not ‘you’) 11