Requirements Document Comments

Team: Jestre

Grade: (95 out of 100)

Document presentation (5 out of 5)

• Organization - put the link to the older version of the requirements document on your notebook page and not at the end of the newer version. I almost missed it.
• Document author - ok
• use of English - ok

Project Description of Target System (10 out of 10)

Scenario descriptions (10 out of 10)

• 3 scenarios provided - OK
• level of description -
• clarity -

Storyboarding ( 10 out of 10)

• Evidence of storyboarding - OK, but kind of sparse.
• Connection with scenarios - you only really address the first scenario in your storyboard pictures and you don't give a complete storyboard. For instance, you left out a picture of what it looks like for the user to access the Jestre mail page even though you were quite explicit about how that would work in your scenario description.

Functional Requirements (24 out of 25)

• Number of requirements
• Clarity of description -
• Decomposition -
• Prioritization - still a bit vague on the prioritization of the last two functional requirements.

Non-Functional Requirements (15 out of 15)

• Clarity - good
• Measurability - you went to some effort to show how you would determine if particular non-functional requirements were met.
• Variety - good

Platform and Network Environment (8 out of 10)

• Vehicle platform -
• Development platform - still not so clear on this

Risk Analysis (12 out of 15)

• Risks identified -
• Alternate strategies identified - not the best format for explicitly listing a risk (such as inability to implement drag and drop) and the alternative strategy (build bare bones functionality before investigating drag and drop, i.e., an incremental approach).