Re: As a "general rule"?




rickman wrote:

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:

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.

I don't agree at all. But just for the sake of argument, why do you
say that?

Because the following two statements are not the same, and the
difference cannot be expressed in the form of a requirement:

[1] Must be no heavier than 1 kilogram; lighter than that would
be desirable but is not required.

[2] Must be no heavier than 1 kilogram; there is no point in
making it any lighter than that.

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: As a "general rule"?
    ... I find it amazing that engineers who's entire job is ... Must be no heavier than 1 kilogram; lighter than that would ... Almost all of the specifications I see, are from customers ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: As a "general rule"?
    ... I find it amazing that engineers who's entire job is ... Must be no heavier than 1 kilogram; lighter than that would ... Where did you get the "pay extra" part? ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)