Re: As a "general rule"?
- From: Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:10:31 +0000
rickman wrote:
What does a requirement mean when it is stated as a "general rule"?
I find it amazing that engineers who's entire job is dealing with specs
and requirements and hard facts will generate a formal requirement that
"handbook xyz be followed as a general rule".
They have taught us that a requirement should be unambiguous and
testable. I find this type of requirement to be neither. Anyone else
find this sort of irrational behaviour in engineers?
There is nothing rational about making everything a requirement and
not including any suggestions/guidelines. Nor would it be rational
to insist that those suggestions/guidelines be treated as requirements.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: As a "general rule"?
- From: rickman
- Re: As a "general rule"?
- References:
- As a "general rule"?
- From: rickman
- As a "general rule"?
- Prev by Date: Re: _sbrk_ and the sequence of requirements
- Next by Date: Re: Let's get real about requirements!
- Previous by thread: Re: As a "general rule"?
- Next by thread: Re: As a "general rule"?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|