Author Topic: Requirement priority  (Read 5644 times)

Sunshine

  • EA Practitioner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1094
  • Karma: +101/-9
  • Its the results that count
    • View Profile
Re: Requirement priority
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2020, 03:33:45 pm »
...
Does their need to be?
The fact that this is well defined, widely used, makes it a better fit than some sort of MOSCOW varient, or an organisation specific 1 2 3 4, or low med hi IMHO
Yeah good point. Keeping it simple is always a good tactic.
Must admit the "W" part of MOSCOW always baffled me. Why on earth would you say want you don't want it to do. It could include everything in the universe including Won't tell in appropriate jokes :)
Happy to help
:)

Uffe

  • EA Practitioner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1859
  • Karma: +132/-14
  • Flutes: 1; Clarinets: 1; Saxes: 5 and counting
    • View Profile
Re: Requirement priority
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2020, 07:32:23 pm »
Must admit the "W" part of MOSCOW always baffled me. Why on earth would you say want you don't want it to do. It could include everything in the universe including Won't tell in appropriate jokes :)
Not right out of the gate, no. But at a later stage, if a certain feature has been agreed or is otherwise expected, but won't in fact be built (ever, or just in this release) -- due to renegotiations, time or budget constraints, or whatever -- it makes sense to explicitly say so, and it makes sense to have standardized language for that situation too.

/U
My theories are always correct, just apply them to the right reality.

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 7923
  • Karma: +205/-127
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Re: Requirement priority
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2020, 08:22:07 am »
Must admit the "W" part of MOSCOW always baffled me. Why on earth would you say want you don't want it to do. It could include everything in the universe including Won't tell inappropriate jokes :)
Not right out of the gate, no. But at a later stage, if a certain feature has been agreed or is otherwise expected, but won't, in fact, be built (ever, or just in this release) -- due to renegotiations, time or budget constraints, or whatever -- it makes sense to explicitly say so, and it makes sense to have standardized language for that situation too.

/U
You can also use a modified "W" to require that some features NOT be created.  Something along the lines of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".  I'm a great believer in saying what systems must not do as well as what they can/should. 

Paolo
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!

skiwi

  • EA Practitioner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1949
  • Karma: +42/-82
    • View Profile
Re: Requirement priority
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2020, 08:52:36 am »
I'm a great believer in saying what systems must not do as well as what they can/should. 

Paolo

I agree with that, it is important to capture decisions about what is out of scope, and why.
I do that in the scope section not in the requrements (although if I did I could see the need for requirements levels such as: not needed, too expensive, don't do this, too modern, costs jobs, whatever you do don't do this; for example)
Orthogonality rules
Using EA15.2 (1555) on Windows 10 Enterprise/64 bit. Repositories in SQLServer2019 & Access2003/JET4.0. WebEA on Pro Cloud Server 4.2.64

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 7923
  • Karma: +205/-127
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Re: Requirement priority
« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2020, 09:56:10 am »
I'm a great believer in saying what systems must not do as well as what they can/should. 

Paolo

I agree with that, it is important to capture decisions about what is out of scope, and why.
I do that in the scope section, not in the requirements (although if I did I could see the need for requirements levels such as: not needed, too expensive, don't do this, too modern, costs jobs, whatever you do don't do this; for example)
As in "Whatever you do, don' smoke" - Yul Brynner   ;)

Paolo
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!