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
454 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

Fabricio Laguna talks Business Analysis and AI
I recently connected with Fabricio Laguna, aka The Brazilian BA. Fabricio is a passionate and pioneering business analyst from Brazil. During our conversation, we had a thought-provoking discussion on how artificial intelligence stands to shape the field of business analysis in the years ahead. While AI promises to transform many aspects of busines...
Business Architecture, Ontology and More with Terry Roach
It's been a privilege meeting Terry Roach, a visionary in the field of enterprise architecture and business architecture. Terry's insights into the evolution of business models, the importance of ontology in architecture, and the potential of AI to shape our future were not only thought-provoking but also a reflection of his extensive exper...
Today I had the pleasure of chatting to Jignesh Jamnadas, Chief Operations Officer at Mosaic, about his Blueprints for Success. As a Senior Finance and Operations Executive, Jigs (as he is known to many) has a holistic understanding of all facets of business and a flair for managing both people and processes. Having worked with Jigs, I was struc...

 



Upcoming Live Webinars




 

Copyright 2006-2024 by Modern Analyst Media LLC