Requirements Inspection Process


Contents


Overview

An essential ingredient in producing quality software products is producing the product the customer wants and the users need. Validation is an activity that continues to ask developers that question, "are you building the right product?". It is clearly possible to construct an artifact that meets a set of requirements. It is possible to do that within a fixed time period and budget. It is also possible that the product developed is wrong because development was done based on a wrong, or misunderstood, set of requirements.

The intent of a requirements inspection is to determine if a given set of requirements are sufficiently stable, acceptable, and understood to support system/software development. A major factor in this effort is 1) insuring the individual developing the requirements has a firm grasp what is expected, 2) potential designers can comprehend what is stated in the document, and 3) potential designers find the requirements as stated technically feasible. Eventually a requirements document must have the litmus test of customer review and a acceptance, but for now a first round of review involves just the project staff.

Objectives

The objectives of the Requirements Inspection activity is:

Entry Conditions

The Requirements Inspection can begin when:

Exit Conditions

The Requirements Inspection is complete when:

Tasks

Tasks that should be completed as part of the Requirements Inspection activity are:

  1. Participants review the rationale for using inspection methods.

  2. Participants review the defined roles for an SRD inspection.

  3. The moderator distributes the SRD to the inspection participants.

  4. The moderator selects two of the participants to serve as recorders.

  5. The requirements author discusses the SRD section by section, noting in his/her words the nature of the problems to be solved and the requirements that have been elaborated.

  6. The reviewers ask questions and ask for clarification regarding remarks of the author and the content of the SRD, including possible conflicting opinions.

  7. The recorders keeps a log of all defects found during the session.

  8. The recorders keeps a log of all clarifications requested by the reviewers.

  9. The recorders combine their notes, producing a single log containing the remarks of the session. Conflicting records are resolved by the recorders, but if resolution is not achieved, both sets of remarks are included and clearly marked that a difference of perception existed.

  10. The recorders submit the defect and clarification log to the author.

  11. The author revises the SRD by addressing the points raised during the inspection.

  12. The author notifies the participants when the revised SRD is available.

  13. The author posts the change history of the SRD.


Modified: June 6, 1997