Forums for the Business Analyst

 
  Modern Analyst Forums  Business and Sy...  Requirements  Separating requirements descriptions from their prioritisation
Previous Previous
 
Next Next
New Post 7/2/2013 8:53 AM
Poll
User is offline neil
1 posts
No Ranking


Separating requirements descriptions from their prioritisation 

A BA where I work instists on writing his requirements in a form where he uses the MoSCoW categorisations keywords within the requirement descriptions.  Hence the requirements all take the form of:

Requirement Priority
The system must do A M
The system should do B S
The system could do C C
The system will not do D W

so for any requirement that he has categorised as M the requirement text will contain the word "must", any that are categorised as C will contain the word "could" etc. 

I have suggested to him that this is poor form.  In my view it renders the priority column redundant.  Re-prioritising the requirements means having to change the requirement description.  Particularly confusingly, any W priority requirements could potentially be read as a double negative.

In it's simplest form, I'd suggest to him rewriting the above as

Requirement Priority
The system shall do A M
The system shall do B S
The system shall do C C
The system shall do D W

Then the steps of writing the requirement and categorising it are not confused, requirements can be reprioritised without needing to edit the requirement description, and the annoying double negative is removed.  However, he insists that his way of doing it is correct.

My question is, is it accepted practice for BAs to write requirements in this style?  Am I being too picky in objecting to this, or am I correct that it is poor form?  And does anyone have a reference to any advice that would back up this argument one way or another?

Thanks.

 

 
New Post 7/2/2013 7:43 PM
User is offline Kimbo
450 posts
5th Level Poster


Re: Separating requirements descriptions from their prioritisation 

Hi Neil,

There is no right or wrong way to right requirements really just good practice. As long as everyone uses the same approach on your project then there is no real issue. So you guys should work out which way you will do it and stick with it.

Now having said that, I agree with your argument and personally use the second version above.

Kimbo

 
Previous Previous
 
Next Next
  Modern Analyst Forums  Business and Sy...  Requirements  Separating requirements descriptions from their prioritisation

Community Blog - Latest Posts

Is Agile a reason to avoid documentation? I bet this question shows up again and again while working with product requirements. On one side, we have got long specifications, complicated diagrams, mystical technical design, too many prototypes and pretty obvious for engineers user guides (do we really need so much?). On the other side, can we actual...
The cloud-native application development has helped enterprises all around the globe reduce time-to-market, enhance performance, and develop agility and flexibility. Several enterprises are achieving these results by migrating their systems or traditional monolithic applications to the cloud. But to gain from the real benefits of cloud technology, ...
So you’ve found the perfect time and place to study and you’re ready to finally get some work done. You’ve pulled out your laptop, your textbook, and your notes, and four different highlighters. After five minutes of reading your textbook, you start zoning out and thinking about puppies. Then, you go on Tumblr and look at cut...

 






 

Copyright 2006-2021 by Modern Analyst Media LLC