Archive of Requirements gathering Articles

UML Class Diagrams are very effective at uncovering requirements. They give us insight into how the business thinks about objects and their relationships. And from that understanding, we think to ask questions we might otherwise overlook. In this part of our series, we look at how to represent when one object is made up of other objects. The two types of relationships we explore are composition and aggregation.

We continue our exploration of UML Class Diagrams with this article that explores how to represent basic business relationships in a class diagram. Drawing these relationships can dramatically clarify requirements documents. Using a class diagram to supplement other requirements documents provides for a centralized reference that enables a shared understanding of the problem domain. That understanding prevents mistakes in interpreting requirements.

UML Class Diagrams can be used not only for documenting software design, but for documenting software requirements. One of the challenges in writing clear, unambiguous requirements is being precise about what a particular word means. This is especially true with symbolic terms like “quote” or “customer” – where everyone knows what they mean – but they mean different things to different people.

Barry Boehm, inventor of the spiral model of software development, may also be the originator of the CRACK acronym for the type of users we want on our projects. When defining (and executing on) projects, we don’t just want CRACK users, we want CRACK stakeholders. And we want them to stick around. In fact, we’re addicted to them.

How do you approach starting a small requirements project as part of a large initiative within a massive enterprise? Do you boil the ocean? Your customer knows she needs “requirements” to give to her development team. She asks you – what will you deliver, and how long will it take? Great questions. If you have to write a statement of work, with time/cost estimates, and a list of deliverables – what would you do?

[photo by Henkster]

Writing good requirements is more than just about following a set of rules. You can capture knowledge about your goals and your product with a set of well crafted requirements. But to truly write good requirements, you have to gain a level of understanding that surpasses knowledge. Insight springs from understanding, and insight leads to great requirements and ultimately great products.

No matter how good your quality process is, you are introducing bugs. This article reviews the places where bugs are introduced in the software development process (from stakeholders to users), and reviews ways to address those bugs.

An excellent article by Jonathan Babcock raises a thought provoking idea. When gathering requirements, we can end up with requirements that no one actually wants, because everyone thought someone else wanted it. This is apparently known as the Abilene Paradox, a term coined by Jerry Harvey. We can apply our insights into stakeholders and traceability to prevent it.

Each elicitation technique we have in our toolbox is a tool. But not every elicitation job is the same. If we have a hammer, we might be working with nails, or screws, or even an egg. In our analysis, we have to develop a deep understanding of our customer’s business(es). And that means we need to understand not only the goals and ROI, but the processes, rules, and requirements. Which is the right tool for each job?

The 10th International Business Rules Forum is coming up fast in October 2007. Scott Sehlhorst and James Taylor will be presenting Getting it Right. Rules and Requirements in Software on Thursday at the conference. The articles on rules and requirements that he and I have been publishing on our blogs for the last few months are leading to this presentation. The IBRF has graciously offered a 10% registration discount code to readers of Tyner Blain. Read on to get it.