In the United States military integrated acquisition lifecycle [1] [2] the Technical section has multiple acquisition "Technical Reviews".[3] Technical reviews and audits assist the acquisition and the number and types are tailored to the acquisition.[4] Overall guidance flows from the Defense Acquisition Guidebook chapter 4,[5] with local details further defined by the review organizations.[6] [7] [8] [9] Typical topics examined include adequacy of program/contract metrics, proper staffing, risks, budget, and schedule.
In NASA's engineering design life cycle, design reviews are held for technical and programmatic accountability and to authorize the release of funding to a project.[10] A design review provides an in-depth assessment by an independent team of discipline experts and managers that the design (or concept) is realistic and attainable from a programmatic and technical sense.
Design review is also required of medical device developers as part of a system of design controls described in the US Food and Drug Administration's governing regulations in 21CFR820. In 21CFR820.3(h), design review is described as "documented, comprehensive, systematic examination of the design to evaluate the adequacy of the design requirements, to evaluate the capability of the design to meet these requirements, and to identify problems". The FDA also specifies that a design review should include an independent reviewer.
The list of reviews done by an effort and the content, nature, process, and objectives any review uses vary enormously by the organization involved and the particular situation of the effort. For example, even within the U.S. Department of Defense, System Requirements Review cases include, for example, (1) a 5-day perusal of each individual requirement, or (2) a 2-day discussion of development plan documents allowed only after the system requirements have been approved and the development documents reviewed with formal action items required, or (3) a half-day powerpoint with content determined by the Project Manager with attendance limited to high-level (non-technical) stakeholders with no output other than the PM being able to claim "SRR done".
Some of the reviews that may be done on an effort include:
The MCR affirms the mission need and examines the proposed mission's objectives and the concept for meeting those objectives.
The SRR examines the functional requirements and performance requirements defined for the system and the preliminary program or project plan and ensures that the requirements and the selected concept will satisfy the mission.
The MDR examines the proposed requirements, the mission architecture, and the flow down to all functional elements of the mission to ensure that the overall concept is complete, feasible, and consistent with available resources.
The SDR examines the proposed system architecture and design and the flow down to all functional elements of the system.
The PDR demonstrates that the preliminary design meets all system requirements with acceptable risk and within the cost and schedule constraints and establishes the basis for proceeding with detailed design. It will show that the correct design options have been selected, interfaces have been identified, and verification methods have been described.[11] [12]
The following are typical objectives of a PDR:
The CDR demonstrates that the maturity of the design is appropriate to support proceeding with full-scale fabrication, assembly, integration, and test. CDR determines that the technical effort is on track to complete the flight and ground system development and mission operations, meeting mission performance requirements within the identified cost and schedule constraints.[13]
The following are typical objectives of a CDR:
A PRR is held for Flight System and Ground Support projects developing or acquiring multiple or similar systems greater than three or as determined by the project. The PRR determines the readiness of the system developers to efficiently produce the required number of systems. It ensures that the production plans; fabrication, assembly, and integration enabling products; and personnel are in place and ready to begin production.
A TRR ensures that the test article (hardware/software), test facility, support personnel, and test procedures are ready for testing and data acquisition, reduction, and control. This is not a prerequisite for Key Decision Point entry.
The SAR verifies the completeness of the specific end products in relation to their expected maturity level and assesses compliance to stakeholder expectations. The SAR examines the system, its end products and documentation, and test data and analyses that support verification. It also ensures that the system has sufficient technical maturity to authorize its shipment to the designated operational facility or launch site.
The ORR examines the actual system characteristics and the procedures used in the system or end product's operation and ensures that all system and support (flight and ground) hardware, software, personnel, procedures, and user documentation accurately reflect the deployed state of the system.
The following are typical objectives of an ORR:
The FRR examines tests, demonstrations, analyses, and audits that determine the system's readiness for a safe and successful flight or launch and for subsequent flight operations. It also ensures that all flight and ground hardware, software, personnel, and procedures are operationally ready.
The following are typical objectives of a FRR: