Talk:Requirements engineering

General remarks

• Very relevant topic, thorough and well researched article, with a lot of substance for the reviewer to work on :-)
  • Thanks for the complement
• Good sample of references and links to other material
  • Thanks
• You introduce a lot of (apparently cross- and interrelated) concepts, notions, phases etc in which the reader easily gets lost - And therefore sometimes misses your good points on how to conduct proper requirements assessment and definition
  • I've tried to clear this up, hopefully I succeeded :-)
• Some general advice for improvement of the article: 1)Make it clearer for the reader if "requirements engineering" should be understood as a well defined discipline and a coherent standard method of practice resembling e.g. Systems engineering, or is it just a collective term for a set of useful tools ? 2) Consider making your introduction/abstract and discussion/conclusion a bit sharper and mutually coherent
  • I've have made my definition a little more clear, and redid some stuff in the intro part and discussion to make them more coherent.

Specific remarks

Below please find som specific remarks, adressing particular sections in your article

Introductory paragraph

• Second sentence: Are you referring to requirements as "formalities"? Difficult to understand.
  • Ok, I might see what you mean. I have change the sentence a bit. The sentence is now: Often, if a project is about creating a new system, then requirements are made to specify the system, in order to create common understanding among the involved parties in a project.
• See also general remark, consider rephrasing the paragraph to set the scene for your article better
  • I’m not sure i know what you mean be rephrasing the paragraph? Do your mean the section in general? if yes I have done extra work on it

Application context

• First sentence: You write that requirements defines the stakeholders, users and customers - is it not the other way round ?
  • Fixed - Reworked this section
• Second sentence: You state the importance of understanding the requirements "completely and unambiguously. That is probably the core of requirements management and requirements "engineering", therefore you should consider elaborating the statement at this point in the article, maybe referring to the section "Req. elicitation" later in the article
  • Fixed - Reworked this section
• Sentences no. 8 and 9 are difficult to understand, consider rephrasing
  • Fixed - Reworked this section

Acceptance and use

• In general, this section (and even the header itself) is a bit difficult to understand.
  • Fixed - I have gone over the entire section and reworked it. The headline is also been altered.
• As mentioned in the general remarks you indicate that "requirements engineering" is a defined discipline or process, but you do not elaborate on or describe it's definition
  • Fixed
• What is the point of your references to software development issues in the first half of the paragraph?
  • Fixed
• It is a good idea to give examples like the one of the railway system, but the point is difficult to grasp
  • Fixed

Creating requirements

• In this section you introduce a definition of "requirements engineering" as a Deming-type circular process. Is that correctly understood by the reader? -If so you should consider using the graphic representation more, elaborating on all 4 steps in the circle as they are named on the diagram. As the article is written now it is difficult to see the connection between the "RE Lifecycle" and the issues you elaborate on in the following sections.
  • Fixed - I’ve tried to elaborate a little more on requirement lifecycle and I tried to explain it better.

Major concepts

You should consider deleting this header, it does not contribute to the reader's overview of the article, as long as you don't show a coherent whole framework for those "concepts"

• Fixed - I have deleted this headline, you are right is does not really contribute with anything

Requirements elicitation

• This is an interesting section, apparently introducing learning and skills from the domain of psychology into the world of "engineering". The human factor ! It would be even more interesting if you could elaborate on this "shift of mindset" a bit more, and maybe reflect on how an engineering or project management practitioner can apply these methods in his practice, in particular how to handle the "translation" of the "elicitated requirements" into engineering specifications
  • Thank you - Well yes I could elaborate more on this, but a have ALOT of text in that section already. So I don't think it is necessary to cover this futher, as well as there is further reading material if one would be more interested in this method.

Design and validation

• It becomes a little unclear where we are now in the RE lifecycle?
  • I have made a Requirement Life Cycle section that hopefully has cleared that up. :-)

Context

• You refer to this item as a "phase", bur for the reader it is very unclear where in your RE lifecycle this phase belongs. The considerations you mention in this section is probably clever and relevant, but the reader is lost at this point.
  • Fixed

Functional requirements

• Again you refer to this as a "phase in requirements engineering". What phase in what model? I'm afraid many readers would be lost at this point.
  • Fixed - I have made it different, I now refer to it as a method, see requirement life cycle
• If you believe the snow card is an good example of an applicable method you should consider showing a larger and readable picture, and to explain and elaborate on it. Otherwise don't show it.
  • Fixed - I have made the picture bigger

Non-functional requirements

• Your definition of non-functional requirements as "qualities" is interesting, you should consider giving some (authoritative?) references to this definition.
  • I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I have tried to elborate a little more on this section and provide examples
• You should give the source reference for your list of "qualities", it is unclear if the list comes from the ISO standard mentioned - also unlisted in the references.
  • Fixed

Requirements management

• Again you denote this as a "phase" - however this time I believe that we are back on the previously shown RE lifecycle again ?. You should consider explaining to the reader how these "management" (your own denotion) processes you describe here corresponds with the "engineering" processes of your RE lifecycle. Is "Requirement Management" an element or a process within Requirements engineering ?
  • Fixed

Discussion

• It seems to this reviewer that in this section you just repeat your arguments from the "Background" introduction for particular effort on requirements engineering in project work. Consider instead to make some application advice or reflections on the practices and methods you have described, e.g. describe a link between your "requirements engineering" and project management standard practices.
  • Hmm again I'm not to sure what you mean, but as said earlier I have reworked but the introduction and discussion part in order to make it a little more coherent

• Thank your for your review, it was very helpfull and gave new perspective! :-)

General remarks

Language

Some minor things, mainly grammatical; like using "the" in front of customer* and some phrases become "Speech" instead of written text.. see details in specific remarks.

Layout

Be attentive of how your final article looks, use preview to make sure that what you have written is also displayed in that way.. I have found that sometimes an extra "enter" is needed to convince wiki to give me the next line. Also, start your headers from level 2 '==' as level 1 is reserved the title of your page (according to the Help page on formatting)

• This should be fixed now, thanks highlighting that. :-)'

Specific remarks

Introduction

Grammatical things

"among the involved parties"

• Fixed

"from a client" => "of a client"

• Fixed

"goal of the product" can a product have "goals" I've heard of projects with goals.. I may be wrong here.

• Fixed

"the developers create" developers can be replaced with 'they' and "they creates" is incorrect (it's a good test to do if it sounds off, change to one of the known words I, you, he/she/it, we, You, they :)

• Fixed - I’ve put in ‘Developers create’, otherwise in my opinion it creates a little confusion on who I’m talking about if I put in ‘They’

"to specific" => "to specify"

• Fixed

"is suppose" => "is supposed"

• Fixed

"the basis to get" => "the basis for getting"

• Fixed

"a iterative" => "an iterative" the usual test for a and an is checking the first letter of the word following it; is it a vowel then it is an

• Fixed

"reflect a product best possible" not sure exactly what is meant here, but I will guess rearranging it to "reflect the best possible product" gives the correct meaning.

• Fixed

The introduction is (besides the above stuff) very well written and explanatory.

• Thanks :-)

Background

due to the header it is difficult to see that the text is an introduction to the following sub-headers..

• I have also removed it, thanks for noticing

Application context

Grammatical things

"basis for" => "basis of"

• Fixed

"and that is where" => "and this is where"

• Fixed

"to understand" => "understanding"

• Fixed

"the need", "the problem"

• Fixed

"is done" => "is reached" or "has been established"

• Fixed

"need of" => "need for"

• Fixed - Removed words while redoing section

"be clear defined" => "be clearly defined"

• Fixed - Removed words while redoing section

"It is about" <= speech, and what is It in this sentence?

• Fixed - Removed words while redoing section

"creating stable" => "creating a stable"

• Fixed

"the destination" <= I think "where you might end" sounds a bit better?

• Fixed

I'd scrap "though" and start at "The intention of the requirements"

• Fixed

you mix times.. "is" and "would".. use "will"

• Fixed - Removed words while redoing section

"management requirements" ? missing a komma? and then "form" without s

• Fixed

"There exists multiple examples" => "Multiple examples exist"

• Fixed

"because poorly" => "because of poorly"

• Fixed

"shows the problems" => "shows that the problems"

• Fixed

perhaps use ":" to list the three categories?

Perhaps elaborate bit more about the challenge you mention

• Fixed - I have elaborated a little bit and given an example :-)

Acceptance and use

layout

a big text like this one can be heavy to take in one chunk.. if you insert more "enter" or I guess in english you call them "breaks" or "new line" you can force the text into sections which are easier to read.

• Fixed

Grammatical things

"requirements engineering"

• Fixed - Removed words while redoing section

"dominant force of change of products" <= needs some rephrasing to display the actual meaning clearly.

• Fixed - Removed words while redoing section

"the could cause" => "this could cause a"

• Fixed - Removed words while redoing section

"Even though" be careful with starting off sentences like that if they stand alone, "on the other hand" might be what you mean.. or you could just decide to state it as "Requirements engineering can be..".

• Fixed - Removed words while redoing section

"for example" => "for example;"

• Fixed

again "requirements engineering" be consistent in that one, not mentioning it again.

• Fixed

"applies" => "also applies"

• Fixed - Removed words while redoing section

try to read the sentence without the insert.. "components which.." consider revision of the last part.

• Fixed

"There exist several standards" => "Several standards exist"

• Fixed - The sentence has changed, so I’ve chosen to go with what is says now.

"define." and "where in" => "In"

• Fixed

"likely the" => "likely that the"

• Fixed

Interesting and with substance

• Thank you :-)

Creating requirements

Layout

remember the header issue

• Fixed - Renamed the header and fixed the issue regarding level of headlines.

Grammatical things

"different ways" <= perhaps add an indicator of ammount? several, many, some.

• Fixed - I have elaborated a little more on which ways im talking about. So i think it’s not necessary to put an amount on it.

"accordingly" => "according"

• Fixed

"a system" => "the system" ?

• Fixed

"supposed"

• Fixed

"achieve the"

• Fixed - Removed words while redoing section

"best as possible." => "the best." ?

• Fixed - Removed words while redoing section

ouch.. missing the s in your text for the picture as well.

• Fixed

"in this article".... are they? which article.. the one I'm reading or the one you are referring to?

• Fixed

Major concepts

no intro?

• Fixed - removed header, didn't really add anything :-)

Requirements elicitation

Layout

Again a very large chunk of text.. try to divide it, perhaps using the same scheme as I do with ";The objective technique:" next line ":The objective technique is..." use the preview function to make it look readable and structured.

Beautiful table. well thought.

• Thank you

Grammatical things

req-s again.. is the header or text incorrect?

• Fixed - In this case it would be the text.

"to understanding" => "to understand"

• Fixed

take out "Though"

• Fixed

"use full" => "useful"

• Fixed

"for which the requirements need to fulfill" ? the requirements have to fulfill the surrounding environment?

• Fixed - Wups, seems like I have made a double sentence there. Nice spottet, thanks!

"called more like a" speech language => "called a"

• Fixed

"where some like" => "where something like"

• Fixed

"in to" => "into" (best test.. make the space a deliberate pause when reading)

• Fixed

"desires"

• Fixed

"through"

• Fixed

impressive chapter, very few errors and very understandable.

• Thanks :-)

Design and validation

Grammatical things

"minded for" => "minded towards"

• Fixed

"intention" => "intent"

• Fixed

"phase,"

• Fixed

"useful to" => "useful for"

• Fixed

"fulfills the"

• Fixed

good

Context

Grammatical things

"most reflect" => "mostly reflect"

• Fixed

"the project has" => "of the project"

• Fixed

"establishing context"

• Fixed

"identifying systems or processes"

• Fixed

only minor stuff

Functional requirements

Grammatical things

"one"

• Fixed

"meanwhile" => "while"

• Fixed

"in order to leave out any doubt regarding the goal of the requirement."

• Fixed

"exits" => "exist"

• Fixed

"uses cases" => "user cases"?

• Fixed - It’s actually suppose to say use cases. It is a technical term.

"in the picture below" <= but I see it above or besides the text?

the picture is fairly small if you were to see the idea of it without clicking on it.

• Fixed

Non-functional requirements

Grammatical things

Whoa.. "Quality means..." that sentence needs some serious rework.. think about what it means as it is written now.

• Fixed - Redid section, so hopefully it makes more sense now.

"irrespective"? => "regardless"

• Fixed

"specify a some" ?

• Fixed

"There exits ISO standards" => "ISO standards exist"

• Fixed - Sentence has been reworked

"The idea is then" => "The procedure is"

• Fixed

"system goals"

• Fixed

"argument of"

• Fixed

"example on list of" => "example of a list with"

• Fixed

Perhaps (if possible) move the picture to the right of the text

• Fixed - I have made the picture bigger and larger in the left side. It's a little hard to control in the right side

Acceptance test

Grammatical things

"engineering disciplines" => "engineering discipline"

• Fixed

"various ways" & "testing a system"

• Fixed

"should consists" => "should consist" or "consists"

• Fixed

Requirements management

Grammatical things

"activates" ? => "activities"?

• Fixed

"in a more"

• Fixed

"exist" ok, think of it this way.. exit_, a way out, or more with s.. exist, is present

• Fixed

Discussion

Grammatical things

"exist"

• Fixed

if you haven't already, search and replace all "requirement engineering" with "requirements engineering"

• Fixed

"sizes"

• Fixed

"computers systems" => "computer systems"

• Fixed

"systems have" as in they have

• Fixed

"affect" => "effect" verb vs. noun

• Fixed

"for everyday" => "for every day"

• Fixed

"consequences"

• Fixed

"why today the .... quality" => "why the .... quality today"

• Fixed

"be emphasize the" => "be emphasized that"

• Fixed

"solution by" => "solution in"

• Fixed

"every persons" => "every person"

• Fixed

Strength and weaknesses

Grammatical things

"as wells" => "as well"

• Fixed

"Though that the fact .... same" => "The fact .... same though"

• Fixed

"benefit of using"

• Fixed

"and generate higher"

• Fixed

"contributions"

• Fixed

"Though it is" => "It is"

• Fixed

"but it is" => "but"

• Fixed

• Thank you for your review, I can definitely see the language in the article has improved due to you catching my grammatical errors. :-)