Search Results

Search found 6196 results on 248 pages for 'minimum requirements'.

Page 1/248 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Which stages of the requirements analysis process in mobile requirements engineering are the most challenging ones?

    - by user363295
    I'm doing a research on formulating a requirements analysis model as a stage of requirements engineering for mobile-application development by considering the limitations and the needs of it ( agility and etc.. .), what I'm trying to figure out is that which parts of this process (requirements analysis for mobile development) are the most challenging ones ( so i can focus more on) , and if there is any stage that u think I need to include or exclude (exp. some may think a quality plan may or may not be necessary and etc.) to make it more clear below is the list of few of the areas in which I can focus on ( by the way your suggestions can be anything out of the below list.) -Requirements specification -Prototyping -Requirements Prioritization -Focusing on quality functions

    Read the article

  • How to manage and estimate unstructured requirements received from customers

    - by user20358
    A lot of the times I receive a software system's requirements from our customers in a very unstructured format. It is usually a bunch of "product development" guys from the customer's who come up with these "proposed solutions" to the business problems they have. While they are the experts at the business domain, a lot of the times they don't have the solutions right. This results in multiple versions of the same requirement mixing up of two requirements into one a few versions of the requirement later down the line, the requirements which were combined together get separated out again, each taking with it some of the new additions How do you work with such requirements coming in and sort them out into proper use cases and before development begins? What tools can we use to track a particular requirement's history, from the first time it was conceived till the time it gets crystallized into a proper use case? Estimating work against requirements received in such a fashion is a nightmare which ends up in making mistakes in understanding the requirement correctly and estimating the effort against it correctly. Any tips, tools, tricks to make this activity more manageable? I'm just trying to get some insights from someone more experienced than I am in requirements management and effort estimation.

    Read the article

  • Who should have full visibility of all (non-data) requirements information?

    - by ebyrob
    I work at a smallish mid-size company where requirements are sometimes nothing more than an email or brief meeting with a subject matter manager requiring some new feature. Should a programmer working on a feature reasonably expect to have access to such "request emails" and other requirements information? Is it more appropriate for a "program manager" (PGM) to rewrite all requirements before sharing with programmers? The company is not technology-centric and has between 50 and 250 employees. (fewer than 10 programmers in sum) Our project management "software" consists of a "TODO.txt" checked into source control in "/doc/". Note: This is nothing to do with "sensitive data access". Unless a particular subject matter manager's style of email correspondence is top secret. Given the suggested duplicate, perhaps this could be a turf war, as the PGM would like to specify HOW. Whereas WHY is absent and WHAT is muddled by the time it gets through to the programmer(s)... Basically. Should specification be transparent to programmers? Perhaps a history of requirements might exist. Shouldn't a programmer be able to see that history of reqs if/when they can tell something is hinky in the spec? This isn't a question about organizing requirements. It is a question about WHO should have full VISIBILITY of requirements. I'd propose it should be ALL STAKEHOLDERS. Please point out where I'm wrong here.

    Read the article

  • How do I convince my team that a requirements specification is unnecessary if we adopt user-stories?

    - by Nupul
    We are planning to adopt user-stories to capture stakeholder 'intent' in a lightweight fashion rather than a heavy SRS (software requirements specifications). However, it seems that though they understand the value of stories, there is still a desire to 'convert' the stories into an SRS-like language with all the attributes, priorities, input, outputs, source, destination etc. User-stories 'eliminate' the need for a formal SRS like artifact to begin with so what's the point in having an SRS? How should I convince my team (who are all very qualified CS folks by the way - both by education and practice) that the SRS would be 'eliminated' if we adopted user-stories for capturing the functional requirements of the system? (NFRs etc can be captured too, but that's not the intent of the question). So here's my 'work-flow' argument: Capture initial requirements as user-stories and later elaborate them to use-cases (which are required to be documented at a low level i.e. describing interactions with the UI prototypes/mockups and are a deliverable post deployment). Thus going from user-stories to use-cases rather than user-stories to SRS to use-cases. How are you all currently capturing user-stories at your workplace (if at all) and how do you suggest I 'make a case' for absence of SRS in presence of user-stories?

    Read the article

  • functional requirements - use wording based on verbs?

    - by yas
    Question: Should the functional requirements in a requirements doc use wording based on verbs? Context: School assignment, working in a team, working through the SDLC. The requirements doc has been done and we are now into design. Problem: The requirements doc has an enumerated list of what I'd call features of the app - the functional requirements. In that list are things that I'd think of as "how's" rather than "what's" and now, trying to work on design, I feel like a part of design has been prematurely dictated. I've not done this before! To me, I should be dealing strictly with things that describe "what." Example of current: Pretend that the job is to make an omelet. Listing: crack the egg, break into bowl, scramble, etc.; crosses over the line into the territory of how. Along that track, so does wording like: create, generate, list, calculate, determine, validate, etc. - verbs, basically. Right now, I have a list of requirements that are partially rooted in verbs. My idea of a requirements doc for an omelet would be more like: has two eggs, x ounces of ham, x ounces of bacon, x ounces of montery-jack cheese, x ounces of cilantro, etc. - nothing but what (nouns). I might have, and could have, spoken up before finalizing the requirements doc if I'd had any experience.

    Read the article

  • Functional/nonfunctional requirements VS design ideas

    - by Nicholas Chow
    Problem domain Functional requirements defines what a system does. Non-Functional requirements defines quality attributes of what the system does as a whole.(performance, security, reliability, volume, useability, etc.) Constraints limits the design space, they restrict designers to certain types of solutions. Solution domain Design ideas , defines how the system does it. For example a stakeholder need might be we want to increase our sales, therefore we must improve the usability of our webshop so more customers will purchase, a requirement can be written for this. (problem domain) Design takes this further into the solution domain by saying "therefore we want to offer credit card payments in addition to the current prepayment option". My problem is that the transition phase from requirement to design seems really vague, therefore when writing requirements I am often confused whether or not I incorporated design ideas in my requirements, that would make my requirement wrong. Another problem is that I often write functional requirements as what a system does, and then I also specify in what timeframe it must be done. But is this correct? Is it then a still a functional requirement or a non functional one? Is it better to seperate it into two distinct requirements? Here are a few requirements I wrote: FR1 Registration of Organizer FR1 describes the registration of an Organizer on CrowdFundum FR1.1 The system shall display a registration form on the website. FR1.2 The system shall require a Name, Username, Document number passport/ID card, Address, Zip code, City, Email address, Telephone number, Bank account, Captcha code on the registration form when a user registers. FR1.4 The system shall display an error message containing: “Registration could not be completed” to the subscriber within 1 seconds after the system check of the registration form was unsuccessful. FR1.5 The system shall send a verification email containing a verification link to the subscriber within 30 seconds after the system check of the registration form was successful. FR1.6 The system shall add the newly registered Organizer to the user base within 5 seconds after the verification link was accessed. FR2 Organizer submits a Project FR2 describes the submission of a Project by an Organizer on CrowdFundum - FR2 The system shall display a submit Project form to the Organizer accounts on the website.< - FR2.3 The system shall check for completeness the Name of the Project, 1-3 Photo’s, Keywords of the Project, Punch line, Minimum and maximum amount of people, Funding threshold, One or more reward tiers, Schedule of when what will be organized, Budget plan, 300-800 Words of additional information about the Project, Contact details within 1 secondin after an Organizer submits the submit Project form. - FR2.8 The system shall add to the homepage in the new Projects category the Project link within 30 seconds after the system made a Project webpage - FR2.9 The system shall include in the Project link for the homepage : Name of the Project, 1 Photo, Punch line within 30 seconds after the system made a Project webpage. Questions: FR 1.1 : Have I incorporated a design idea here, would " the system shall have a registration form" be a better functional requirement? F1.2 ,2.3 : Is this not singular? Would the conditions be better written for each its own separate requirement FR 1.4: Is this a design idea? Is this a correct functional requirement or have I incorporated non functional(performance) in it? Would it be better if I written it like this: FR1 The system shall display an error message when check is unsuccessful. NFR: The system will respond to unsuccesful registration form checks within 1 seconds. Same question with FR 2.8 and 2.9. FR2.3: The system shall check for "completeness", is completeness here used ambigiously? Should I rephrase it? FR1.2: I added that the system shall require a "Captcha code" is this a functional requirement or does it belong to the "security aspect" of a non functional requirement. I am eagerly waiting for your response. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • A two way minimum spanning tree of a directed graph

    - by mvid
    Given a directed graph with weighted edges, what algorithm can be used to give a sub-graph that has minimum weight, but allows movement from any vertex to any other vertex in the graph (under the assumption that paths between any two vertices always exist). Does such an algorithm exist?

    Read the article

  • How are minimum system requirements determined?

    - by Michael McGowan
    We've all seen countless examples of software that ships with "minimum system requirements" like the following: Windows XP/Vista/7 1GB RAM 200 MB Storage How are these generally determined? Obviously sometimes there are specific constraints (if the program takes 200 MB on disk then that is a hard requirement). Aside from those situations, many times for things like RAM or processor it turns out that more/faster is better with no hard constraint. How are these determined? Do developers just make up numbers that seem reasonable? Does QA go through some rigorous process testing various requirements until they find the lowest settings with acceptable performance? My instinct says it should be the latter but is often the former in practice.

    Read the article

  • How are minimum system requirements determined?

    - by Michael McGowan
    We've all seen countless examples of software that ships with "minimum system requirements" like the following: Windows XP/Vista/7 1GB RAM 200 MB Storage How are these generally determined? Obviously sometimes there are specific constraints (if the program takes 200 MB on disk then that is a hard requirement). Aside from those situations, many times for things like RAM or processor it turns out that more/faster is better with no hard constraint. How are these determined? Do developers just make up numbers that seem reasonable? Does QA go through some rigorous process testing various requirements until they find the lowest settings with acceptable performance? My instinct says it should be the latter but is often the former in practice.

    Read the article

  • How do you decide site availability requirements?

    - by Nathan Long
    I work on a web application to file a specific kind of county taxes. Our company wants our state to mandate that counties must accept electronic filings (as opposed to paper) from any system that meets some sensible requirements for uptime, security, data validation, etc. (Yes, this would help us as a business, but it would also force county governments to be more efficient.) We're creating a draft of those requirements to be reviewed and tweaked with the state. One of the sections is "availability." We want to specify something reasonably high, but not so high that any unexpected problem will get us (or a competitor) penalized. How do we decide what's reasonable for availability requirements?

    Read the article

  • How should I design a wizard for generating requirements and documentation

    - by user1777663
    I'm currently working in an industry where extensive documentation is required, but the apps I'm writing are all pretty much cookie cutter at a high level. What I'd like to do is build an app that asks a series of questions regarding business rules and marketing requirements to generate a requirements spec. For example, there might be a question set that asks "Does the user need to enter their age?" and a follow-up question of "What is the minimum age requirement?" If the inputs are "yes" and "18", then this app will generate requirements that look something like this: "The registration form shall include an age selector" "The registration form shall throw an error if the selected age is less than 18" Later on down the line, I'd like to extend this to do additional things like generate test cases and even code, but the idea is the same: generate some output based on rules determined by answering a set of questions. Are there any patterns I could research to better design the architecture of such an application? Is this something that I should be modeling as a finite state machine?

    Read the article

  • Sources of requirements? [closed]

    - by user970696
    I was reading a book about SW engineering the other day and it went like: Sources of both functional and non-functional requirements are: law (for specific cases) business and user requirements etc. //what else then? So the question is, what other sources of requirements there are when an analyst is gathering the information? Lets consider a desktop app for mobile operator. As for the comment, I do not think this is a broad question as the books usually mention 1-2 sources. I would like to know more, if anyone can help.

    Read the article

  • Modelling highly specific business requirements

    - by AndyBursh
    How can one go about modelling highly specific business requirements, which have no precedent in the system? Take for example the following requirement: When a purchase order contains N lines, is over X value in total and is being recorded against project Y, an email needs to be sent to persons A and B with the details This requirement supplements other requirements surrounding purchase orders, but comes in at a much later date in response to some ongoing problem elsewhere in the business. Persons A and B are not part of any role or group in the system, and don't hold any specific responsibility; they are simply the two people the business has appointed to receive these emails in this very specific case. Projects are also data driven, so project Y has no special properties to distinguish it from any other project. The only way to identify it is to compare its identifier to a magic number. How can one go about modelling this kind of case without introducing too much additional complexity? That I can think of right now, there are a couple of options. Perform the checks and actions inline with the existing code. Here we find the correct spot in the code, check the conditions in the requirement and send the emails to hardcoded addresses. Of course this is fraught with issues. At the very least it stops working if one of these people leaves or changes their email address. At worst you have to ensure that any tests and test data are aware that additional actions are taken for a specific set of criteria. Introduce some form of events system. Here we introduce an eventing system, so that we might react to some event, and fulfil the requirement outside of the usual path of execution. This sounds like a cleaner solution than option 1, but the work involved is ultimately probably slightly overkill for this one small requirement. That said, having it in place does allow the system to handle these kinds of specific requirements consistently and easily in the future. Are there any other (good/better) ways of handling highly specific requirements? I mean other than telling the other parts of the business no!

    Read the article

  • How do developers verify that software requirement changes in one system do not violate a requirement of downstream software systems?

    - by Peter Smith
    In my work, I do requirements gathering, analysis and design of business solutions in addition to coding. There are multiple software systems and packages, and developers are expected to work on any of them, instead of being assigned to make changes to only 1 system or just a few systems. How developers ensure they have captured all of the necessary requirements and resolved any conflicting requirements? An example of this type of scenario: Bob the developer is asked to modify the problem ticket system for a hypothetical utility repair business. They contract with a local utility company to provide this service. The old system provides a mechanism for an external customer to create a ticket indicating a problem with utility service at a particular address. There is a scheduling system and an invoicing system that is dependent on this data. Bob's new project is to modify the ticket placement system to allow for multiple addresses to entered by a landlord or other end customer with multiple properties. The invoicing system bills per ticket, but should be modified to bill per address. What practices would help Bob discover that the invoicing system needs to be changed as well? How might Bob discover what other systems in his company might need to be changed in order to support the new changes\business model? Let's say there is a documented specification for each system involved, but there are many systems and Bob is not familiar with all of them. End of example. We're often in this scenario, and we do have design reviews but management places ultimate responsibility for any defects (business process or software process) on the developer who is doing the design and the work. Some organizations seem to be better at this than others. How do they manage to detect and solve conflicting or incomplete requirements across software systems? We currently have a lot of tribal knowledge and just a few developers who understand the entire business and software chain. This seems highly ineffective and leads to problems at the requirements level.

    Read the article

  • Formalizing a requirements spec written in narrative English

    - by ProfK
    I have a fairly technical functionality requirements spec, expressed in English prose, produced by my project manager. It is structured as a collection of UI tabs, where the requirements for each tab are expressed as a lit of UI fields and a list of business rules for the tab. Most business rules are for UI fields on a tab, e.g: a) Must be alphanumeric, max length 20. b) Must be a dropdown, with values from table x. c) Is mandatory. d) Is mandatory under certain conditions, e.g. another field is just populated, or has a specific value. Then other business rules get a little more complex. The spec is for a job application, so the central business object (table) is the Applicant, and we have several other tables with one-to-many relationships with applicant, such as Degree, HighSchool, PreviousEmployer, Diploma, etc. e) One such complex rule says a status field can only be assigned a certain value if a many-side record exists in at least one of the many-side tables. E.g. the Applicant has at least one HighSchool or at least one Diploma record. I am looking for advice on how to codify these requirements into a more structured specification defined in terms of tables, fields, and relationships, especially for the conditional rules for fields and for the presence of related records. Any suggestions and advice will be most welcome, but I would be overjoyed if i could find an already defined system or structure for expressing things like this.

    Read the article

  • Codifying a natural language requirements spec

    - by ProfK
    I have a fairly technical functionality requirements spec, expressed in English prose, produced by my project manager. It is structured as a collection of UI tabs, where the requirements for each tab are expressed as a lit of UI fields and a list of business rules for the tab. Most business rules are for UI fields on a tab, e.g: a) Must be alphanumeric, max length 20. b) Must be a dropdown, with values from table x. c) Is mandatory. d) Is mandatory under certain conditions, e.g. another field is just populated, or has a specific value. Then other business rules get a little more complex. The spec is for a job application, so the central business object (table) is the Applicant, and we have several other tables with one-to-many relationships with applicant, such as Degree, HighSchool, PreviousEmployer, Diploma, etc. e) One such complex rule says a status field can only be assigned a certain value if a many-side record exists in at least one of the many-side tables. E.g. the Applicant has at least one HighSchool or at least one Diploma record. I am looking for advice on how to codify these requirements into a more structured specification defined in terms of tables, fields, and relationships, especially for the conditional rules for fields and for the presence of related records. Any suggestions and advice will be most welcome, but I would be overjoyed if i could find an already defined system or structure for expressing things like this.

    Read the article

  • Wiki for requirements engineering

    - by Shanon
    Hi, I'm looking to to build a wiki based tool the helps/aides in the requirements engineering process. More specifically I am hoping to end up with a tool that helps inexperienced users easily create and design requirements documents on a wiki platform. I was wondering if there exist any wiki/wiki platforms that either already exist or are easily extendible or would be worth looking at that for this purpose. For instance some of the features I was hoping to add would be to add structure to a document so that information is filled out in a standardised manner. Another idea I was looking at was to somehow create relationships between different types of documents (for example- a goal diagram gets evolves/ helps in the development of the class diagram). So far I have come across FOSwiki which claims to to fully customisalble...but I'm not sure what it means and what I can really do with that. Any input on FOSwiki is also highly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Software requirements specification, please help!

    - by Nicholas Chow
    For a school project, I had to create a SRS for a "fictional" application. However they did not show us what it exactly entails, and were very vague with explanations. The SRS asked of us has to have at least 5 functional requirements, 5 non functional requirements and 1 constraint. Now I have tried my best to make one however I think there are still a lot of mistakes in it. Could you all please look at it and provide me with some feedback on which parts I can improve or just tell me which parts are plain out wrong and how to make it better? (The project has a maximum of 12 pages so it is a bit long, I will post it below. FR1 Registration of Organizer FR1 describes the registration of an Organizer on CrowdFundum FR1.1 The system shall display a registration form on the website. FR1.2 The system shall require a Name, Username, Document number passport/ID card, Address, Zip code, City, Email address, Telephone number, Bank account, Captcha code on the registration form when a user registers.

    Read the article

  • Wiki based requirements engineering tool

    - by Shanon
    Hi, I'm looking to to build a wiki based tool the helps/aides in the requirements engineering process. More specifically I am hoping to end up with a tool that helps inexperienced users easily create and design requirements documents on a wiki platform. I was wondering if there exist any wiki/wiki platforms that either already exist or are easily extendible or would be worth looking at that for this purpose. For instance some of the features I was hoping to add would be to add structure to a document so that information is filled out in a standardised manner. Another idea I was looking at was to somehow create relationships between different types of documents (for example- a goal diagram gets evolves/ helps in the development of the class diagram). So far I have come across FOSwiki which claims to to fully customisalble...but I'm not sure what it means and what I can really do with that. Any input on FOSwiki is also highly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Should a programmer "think" for the client?

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    I have gotten to the point where I hate requirements gathering. Customer's are too vague for their own good. In an agile environment, where we can show the client a piece of work to completion it's not too bad as we can make small regular corrections/updates to functionality. In a "waterfall" type in environment (requirements first, nearly complete product next) things can get ugly. This kind of environment has led me to constantly question requirements. E.G. Customer wants "automatically convert input to the number 1" (referring to a Qty in an order). But what they don't think about is that "input" could be a simple type-o. An "x" in a textbox could be a "woops" not I want 1 of those "toothpaste" products. But, there's so much in the air with requirements that I could stand and correct for hours on end smashing out what they want. This just isn't healthy. Working for a corporation, I could try to adjust the culture to fit the agile model that would help us (no small job, above my pay grade). Or, sweep ugly details under the rug and hope for the best. Maybe my customer is trying to get too close to the code? How does one handle the problem of "thinking for the client" without pissing them off with too many questions?

    Read the article

  • How should a developer reject impossible requirements?

    - by sugar
    Here's the problem I'm facing: Quote From Project Manager: Hey Sugar, I'm assigning you the task of developing a framework that could be used for many different iOS applications. Here are the requirements: It should be able to detect the thickness of the thumb or fingers being used to manipulate the UI. With this information, all elements of the UI should be arranged & sized automatically. For a larger thumb, elements should be arranged nearer the center of the screen. For a smaller thumb, elements should be arranged nearer the corners of the screen. For a larger thumb, all fonts should be smaller. (We're assuming an adult in this case.) For a smaller thumb, all fonts should be larger. (We're assuming a younger person in this case.) Summary: This framework is required for creating user-friendly user interfaces programmatically. The framework should be developed in such a way that we can use for as many projects as needed, so it must also be very developer-friendly. I am the developer given this task, so my questions are as follows: How can I explain that these requirements are a little ridiculous? How can I explain that it would be better to concentrate on developing actual projects? How can I explain that even if this were possible, I wouldn't recommended developing such a thing? How do I say NO to this project politely, gently, and respectfully? How can I explain that even for a developer with 3 years of experience, this might not be possible?

    Read the article

  • using a wiki for requirements

    - by apollodude217
    Hi, I'm looking into ways of improving requirements management. Currently, we have a Word document published on a Web site. Unfortunately, we cannot (to my knowledge) look at changes from one revision to the next. I would greatly prefer to be able to do so, much like with a wiki or VCS (or both, like the wiki's on bitbucket!). Also, each document describes changes devs are expected to meet by a given deadline. There is no collection of accumulated app features documented anywhere, so it's sometimes hard to distinguish between a bug and a (poorly-designed) feature when trying to make quick fixes to legacy apps. So I had an idea I wanted to get feedback on. What about: Using a wiki so that we can track who changed what when (mostly to even see if any edits were made since the last time one looked). Having one, say, wiki page per product rather than one per deadline, keeping up with all features of the product rather than the changes that should be implemented. This way, I can look at a particular revision of the page to see what the app should do at a given point in time, and I can look at changes to the page since the last release for the requirements to be implemented by the next deadline. Waddayathink?

    Read the article

  • Requirements/issue tracker similar to online spreadsheet

    - by Maxim Eliseev
    Is there a requirements/issue tracker software which is similar to Google spreadsheet? We have Fogbugz but I find it more heavyweight and slow than a simple spreadsheet. Is there a Fogbugz alternative which is - fast - can show issues/requirements as a spreadsheet (at) and allows in-place editing - supports tree structures (where issue can have child issues)? It is required for a small project. There will be 2 developers and 1-2 other users. I guess that only one user will be actively maintaining it. UPDATE I do not say that a spreadsheet is better than Fogbugz or similar tools. In fact I am looking for a tool which is similar to Fogbugz and could replace a spreadsheet, but faster than Fogbugz and has an additional feature (table-like mode). I'd like to find a tool which can operate in a mode which looks like a table (one row per issue) but has a rich set features (similar to Fogbugs and JIRA). I find Fogbugz (and similar tools) inconvenient because I must enter the web form in order to edit anything. In-place editing (when issues are shown as a table) would be much faster.

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >