From: Adriano Comai (comai@analisi-disegno.com)
Date: Mon Dec 23 2002 - 03:55:26 EST
Ian,
> Systems are as you know made of components, connections, people, and
> procedures to be followed. Definitions work quite well for components and
> connections, not too badly for procedures and absolutely hopelessly for
> people! So, systems engineering is never going to submit to precise
> definition in all corners of its existence.
>
> Doesn't that make it all a bit fuzzy? Oh Yes!
sure. I've no problems with the fact that the definition of "requirement" is fuzzy.
In my opinion, requirements management is just the management of a relationship, between a customer and a supplier (with some other stakeholders involved, of course). The management of a (continuous) communication among people. No problem with fuzzy definitions, but the need to reach a reciprocal understanding and an agreement about expectations, and to maintain this agreement during the whole relationship, even when requirements change.
My problem is with the locution "requirements engineering". It's difficult to "engineer" a fuzzy thing.
Happy Holidays to you all.
Adriano Comai
http://www.analisi-disegno.com
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: owner-re-online@it.uts.edu.au
> [mailto:owner-re-online@it.uts.edu.au]Per conto di Ian F Alexander
> Inviato: venerd́ 20 dicembre 2002 16.06
> A: agabb@tpgi.com.au
> Cc: RE-online@it.uts.edu.au
> Oggetto: Re: [re-online] Requirements Definition
>
>
> Andrew, Don, Adriano,
>
> well yes, we always have to work with the expressed requirement,
> never with
> the real thing.
>
> Therefore, it is unfortunately no use appending phrases like
> "expression of
> real needs" or "real world" or whatever to requirements; the real world of
> people and trees and sunshine is simply impossible to get into any sort of
> specification (leaving Polanyi's Tacit Knowledge, Wittgenstein's Tractatus
> and Plato's cave as far out of the discussion as I can!).
>
> Since requirements can't be "real", there is no use, either, in trying to
> govern the messy process by laying down never-so-perfect dictionary
> definitions. You can't do business by forcing your clients to adhere to
> strict definitions -- they won't. What you can do is to be
> careful and clear
> yourself, and to work hard to make what you present to them (words,
> pictures, scribbled diagrams, demonstrations, answers to their questions
> ..) as simple and straightforward and human as you can.
>
> Systems are as you know made of components, connections, people, and
> procedures to be followed. Definitions work quite well for components and
> connections, not too badly for procedures and absolutely hopelessly for
> people! So, systems engineering is never going to submit to precise
> definition in all corners of its existence.
>
> Doesn't that make it all a bit fuzzy? Oh Yes!
>
> On that note, Happy Christmas to all.
> Ian
>
> Ian F Alexander MA MSc CEng
> http://www.scenarioplus.org.uk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 11:30:49 EST