Analyze results of all verification activities.


Actual results should be compared to established verification criteria to determine acceptability.

The results of the analysis are recorded as evidence that verification was conducted.

For each work product, all available verification results are incrementally analyzed to ensure that requirements have been met. Since a peer review is one of several verification methods, peer review data should be included in this analysis activity to ensure that verification results are analyzed sufficiently.

Analysis reports or “as-run” method documentation can also indicate that bad verification results are due to method problems, criteria problems, or a verification environment problem.

Example Work Products

  1. Analysis report (e.g., statistics on performance, causal analysis of nonconformances, comparison of the behavior between the real product and models, trends)
  2. Trouble reports
  3. Change requests for verification methods, criteria, and the environment


1. Compare actual results to expected results.

2. Based on the established verification criteria, identify products that do not meet their requirements or identify problems with methods, procedures, criteria, and the verification environment.

3. Analyze defect data.

4. Record all results of the analysis in a report.

5. Use verification results to compare actual measurements and performance to technical performance parameters.

6. Provide information on how defects can be resolved (including verification methods, criteria, and verification environment) and initiate corrective action.

Refer to the Project Monitoring and Control (PMC) (CMMI-DEV) process area for more information about taking corrective action.