Sélectionner une page

So yes, you are wrong. But you`re also wrong if you always use shall instead of must. They represent the same degree of commitment. In a Federal Republic of Germany – and its negation – should be used to describe a requirement. A requirement described as « shall » tends to have a high priority, just as when using the term « shall ». If that helps, think about Gandalf`s intensity when he says, « Thou shalt not pass! » in The Lord of the Rings. He thinks it seriously and that is what brings voice to your RFA. At the beginning of the document, clearly state what you must, go, and should say clearly. To avoid ambiguity and exaggerated follow-up questions, clarify what they mean in the context of your RFA before you start documenting your needs. In my view, we should only use « shall » or « should not » when drafting textual product requirements and maintaining a priority attribute for each requirement. You must apply to use wood from your oil or gas lease as fuel.

Submit the application to our office where you received your lease. Whether you really use should or really should depend on the rest of the document you`re writing in and what makes grammatical sense for that particular sentence. I received a request for the correct use of terms when writing requirements. Should and should be lexically equivalent. This is something that needs to be done. Another use of targets is in minimum/maximum or threshold/target situations. Example: « The system must have a threshold response time of 1.0 seconds or less, with a target of 0.25 seconds or less. The requirement that needs to be verified is the first value, but I told the developer that I would like better performance – if it doesn`t have a big impact on cost and schedule. Of course, any value between the threshold and the target is acceptable. All requirements are important, but to achieve the most important and immediate business value from the start, requirements must be prioritized. The developers will initially try to provide all the requirements that Must Have, Should Have and Could Must Have must have, but the requirements for Should and Could will be removed first if the delivery time seems threatened. Basically, an FRG describes the problems that a product or service is trying to solve.

It logically lists the requirements of a product in relation to the needs of customers. He manages the project and keeps everyone involved on the same page throughout the lifecycle. Germany: The requirements are already complicated enough – we recommend sticking to the basics when writing the requirements. For example, if a team has too many potential epics (i.e. high-level stories) for the next version of their product, they can use the MoSCoW method to select which epics should have, which ones should have, etc. The minimum viable product (or MVP) would be all epics marked as Must Have. [4] Often, a team will find that even after identifying their MVP, they have too much work to do for their expected ability. In such cases, the team could then use the MoSCoW method to select which functions (or stories, if it is the subset of epics in their organization) are « indispensable », « should have », etc. the minimum marketable characteristics (or MMFs) would all be marked as indispensable. [5] If there is sufficient capability after selecting the MVP or MMF, the team may consider including targets and even elements. [6] Auxiliary verbs commonly used in QMS documents sometimes overlook the difference between shall and should. Why should statements (targets) be included in your requirements document? Because you may have a very important issue that you want to communicate to developers, but you can`t think of a way to do it in the form of a verifiable requirement.

For example, NASA developed a jetpack called SAFER and one of the requirements was: « The SAFER must not hinder crew mobility. » Well, anything that isn`t a sticker will likely hinder crew mobility, so how am I going to verify this statement if it`s written as a requirement? I can`t. Now that I realize this, I change the wording from a requirement « should » to a target « should, » and then ask my designers and developers at each subsequent review, « How are you going to design the jetpack so that it doesn`t impede crew mobility? » Learn more . I know « should » is pretty stuffy and you probably don`t use it that often when talking to your friends, but use it when writing requirements.