assess the conformity of a product against the quality criteria documented in the product description
involve key interested parties in checking the product’s quality and in promoting wider acceptance of the product
provide confirmation that the product is complete and ready for approval
baseline the product for future change control.

Benefits

The PRINCE2 quality review technique (and other quality inspection techniques) can yield substantial side- benefits, particularly in terms of:

Stakeholder engagement Quality inspections are opportunities for effective cross-functional communication. Many important stakeholders may only have direct contact with the project through these reviews, so they provide a ‘window’ into the project. This is particularly true for users. Structured quality inspections are among the most effective ways of encouraging buy-in to the project. Generally, the more systematic and effective the reviews, the better the impression for the stakeholders.
Leadership In many circumstances a focus on quality (as in ‘fitness for purpose’) elicits a better response from review team members (and users) than simply focusing on budgets and schedules. Quality inspection techniques often provide excellent tips and ‘soft guidance’ on effective behaviour and decision-making in meetings.
Team building Formal and informal quality inspections are opportunities to focus on building an effective project team, where members understand each other’s contributions, needs and priorities.
Developing individuals New starters learn from more experienced personnel and spot omissions that others take for granted. Experienced personnel learn from the fresh perspectives brought by newcomers.
Quality documentation Consistent and familiar quality records lead to improvements in communication and in the analysis of quality metrics.
Quality culture The PRINCE2 quality review technique is generic. It can be employed on programmes, projects and services throughout an organization, resulting in a positive and familiar ‘quality culture’. For example, the principles also apply to agile delivery approaches with varying degrees of frequency and formality.

Review team roles

The PRINCE2 quality review technique (and other quality inspection techniques) can yield substantial side- benefits, particularly in terms of:

Stakeholder engagement Quality inspections are opportunities for effective cross-functional communication. Many important stakeholders may only have direct contact with the project through these reviews, so they provide a ‘window’ into the project. This is particularly true for users. Structured quality inspections are among the most effective ways of encouraging buy-in to the project. Generally, the more systematic and effective the reviews, the better the impression for the stakeholders.
Leadership In many circumstances a focus on quality (as in ‘fitness for purpose’) elicits a better response from review team members (and users) than simply focusing on budgets and schedules. Quality inspection techniques often provide excellent tips and ‘soft guidance’ on effective behaviour and decision-making in meetings.
Team building Formal and informal quality inspections are opportunities to focus on building an effective project team, where members understand each other’s contributions, needs and priorities.
Developing individuals New starters learn from more experienced personnel and spot omissions that others take for granted. Experienced personnel learn from the fresh perspectives brought by newcomers.
Quality documentation Consistent and familiar quality records lead to improvements in communication and in the analysis of quality metrics.
Quality culture The PRINCE2 quality review technique is generic. It can be employed on programmes, projects and services throughout an organization, resulting in a positive and familiar ‘quality culture’. For example, the principles also apply to agile delivery approaches with varying degrees of frequency and formality.

Preparing for a review
Consider the following tasks when preparing for the review:

Make the administrative arrangements for the review (chair/administrator).
Check the product is ready for review and confirm the availability of the reviewers (chair).
Distribute copies of the product and the relevant product description to the review team, allowing sufficient time for reviewers to prepare (presenter).
Review the product in line with the quality criteria in the associated product description (reviewers).
Submit a question list to the chair and presenter ahead of the review (reviewers).
Annotate the product copy, if in the form of a document, for spelling/grammar mistakes and return it to the presenter (reviewers).
Produce a consolidated question list and send it to the presenter in advance of the meeting (chair).

Suggested meeting agenda

The agenda could include the following items:

Personal introductions If necessary (chair)
Product introduction A very brief summary, covering the product’s purpose: who needs it, why they need it and what it will do (presenter)
Major/global questions Invite each reviewer to contribute any major or global questions about the product (chair). Global questions relate to issues that appear repeatedly throughout the product. The review team agrees any action on each question as it is raised. The administrator records the actions and responsibilities
Product ‘talk-through’ Lead the review team through the product (by section or page, as appropriate) by reviewing the consolidated question list and inviting clarification where required (presenter). The review team agrees actions on each question as it is raised. The administrator records the actions and responsibilities
Read back actions Confirm the actions and responsibilities (administrator)
Determine the review result Lead the review team to a collective decision (chair). The options are:
- complete (the product is fit for purpose, as is)
- conditionally complete (the product is fit for purpose, subject to the agreed actions)
- incomplete (the product requires another quality review cycle)
- Close the review (chair)

Inform interested parties of the result (chair).

Review follow up

Follow up the review meeting wth these action points:

Coordinate the actions (presenter).
Sign off individual actions (reviewers, as agreed at the meeting).
When all actions are complete, sign off that the product is now complete (chair).
Communicate the quality review outcome to appropriate managers/support personnel (administrator).
Store the quality records (administrator).
Request approval for the product (presenter).

Tips

Reviewers

Review the product not the person. This means avoid personalizing issues (‘You …’).
Operate as a team but defer to specialist areas of expertise. Some reviewers may be selected to address specific aspects of the product and their comments may carry more weight in those areas.
Do not introduce trivia at reviews (spelling, punctuation, etc.) unless it is a major/global issue (e.g. if the document will be communicated to an important audience, such as the public).

Chair

Encourage the reviewers to come well prepared to the review meeting.
Encourage the presenter to maintain a steady pace during the product talk-through. The reviewers must have the opportunity to introduce their issues but allowing too much time invites comments that would not otherwise be made. The presenter should not be opening discussions unnecessarily.
Resolve each point as it is raised by getting a decision from the review team. Does the product have to be changed or not? Do not allow discussions to drift. Remember, the purpose of the review is to identify defects, not to design solutions to them. Avoid the temptation to formulate and agree solutions. These should be done post-review.
Focus on this product. Do not allow discussion to drift onto other related products. If it appears that there may be a problem associated with a related product, handle it outside the meeting as an issue.
Make sure the reviewers contribute effectively. It is your responsibility to approve the product so you must ensure that the reviewers have checked that the product is fit for purpose.
If a reviewer cannot attend the review, accept their question list and either raise the questions on their behalf or accept a substitute to do so, or replace the reviewer.

Presenter

It may be that a follow-up action is not feasible to implement or cannot be done within agreed tolerances, in which case an issue should be raised to the project manager.

Approver

If the person (or group) who will approve the product participates in the quality review, it may be possible to approve the product as part of the review.

Purpose Composition Derivation Format & Presentation Quality Criteria copyright statements

On this page