From: Majordomo (owner-re-online@it.uts.edu.au)
Date: Fri May 21 2004 - 18:49:39 EST
=09by marcie.it.uts.edu.au (PostfixFiltered) with ESMTP id EB0B6261FC
=09for <re-online@it.uts.edu.au>; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:44:20 +1000 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (bay12-f102.bay12.hotmail.com [64.4.35.102])
=09by filter.it.uts.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AA61D6410
=09for <re-online@it.uts.edu.au>; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:44:12 +1000 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
=09 Thu, 20 May 2004 12:44:07 -0700
Received: from 128.237.11.72 by by12fd.bay12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
=09Thu, 20 May 2004 19:44:07 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [128.237.11.72] X-Originating-Email: [donald_firesmith@hotmail.com] X-Sender: donald_firesmith@hotmail.com
The Journal of Object Technology is a free electronic journal. You can rea=
d
it and any of my previous RE columns at www.jot.fm.
Don
Donald Firesmith
Senior Member of the Technical Staff
Acquisition Support Program
Software Engineering Institute (SEI)
Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
(412) 268-6874
dgf@sei.cmu.edu
http://www.donald-firesmith.com
>From: "Simon Hutton" <sjh@threesl.com>
>Reply-To: re-online@it.uts.edu.au
>To: <re-online@it.uts.edu.au>
>Subject: Re: [re-online] Prioritizing Requirements
>Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:35:17 +0100
>
>Donald,
>
>In the past, I have found requirement priorities to be an excellent way of
>engaging a wide range of stakeholders - often the stakeholders have lots t=
o
>say about their own domains, but ignore the other requirements. Inviting
>them to prioritise is a good way of encouraging them to look at the set as
>a
>whole. Their individual perspectives can then be aggregated, with the
>final
>priority representing a consensus view.
>
>Conflicts can also be identified and resolved - stakeholder A believes one
>requirement to be criticalo, whilst another believes it to be
>"nice-to-have". It raises questions about why that difference exists.
>
>A numerical approach that generates a normalised weighting for each
>requirements is useful. Each stakeholder scores each requirement against =
a
>few criteria - contribution to overall business need and willingness to
>trade the requirement, for example. These scores can be multiplied by the
>stakeholder weighting (ie how important is each stakeholder to the project
>-
>which encourages a proper stakeholder analysis), and aggregated for each
>requirement. The requirements can then be sorted by these total scores an=
d
>prioritised into groups. These final goupings then gain stakeholder buy-i=
n
>because each stakeholder has contributed. These numerical scores can also
>be used in a simple QFD analysis to cascade the priorities to system and
>design levels, retaining the consensus view of what stakeholder
>requirements
>are important. It also supports a sensitivity analysis because you can
>play
>tunes with stakeholder weightings to see what impact each stakeholder does
>make - who needs to be satisfied by the priorities, and the analysis allow=
s
>the priorities to be revisited to ensure they remain valid as the project
>progresses.
>
>I would be grateful if you could share your final article for those of us
>who don't subscribe to the Journal for Object Technology!
>
>Regards,
>
>Simon.
>
>_________________________________
>Simon Hutton BSc MSc
>Principal Consultant
>Structured Software Systems Ltd
>Telephone: +44 (0) 1229 838867
>Email: simon.hutton@threesl.com
>_________________________________
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Donald Firesmith" <donald_firesmith@hotmail.com>
>To: <re-online@it.uts.edu.au>
>Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:04 AM
>Subject: [re-online] Prioritizing Requirements
>
>
> > Everyone,
> > My next column on Requirements Engineering for the Journal of Object
> > Technology will be about prioritizing requirements. What does the grou=
p
> > think is the most important issues to address with regard to
>prioritizing
> > requirements? What are the biggest risks and misunderstandings? Does
> > anyone have any specific questions they would like to see addressed?
>What
> > are your favorite techniques for categorizing requirement priorities?
>You
> > get the idea. What would you like to see addressed? I thought that
>since
>I
> > have several weeks before the column is due, I would get the group's
>inputs
> > to make sure that I didn't let anything significant fall through the
>cracks.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Donald Firesmith
> > Senior Member of the Technical Staff
> > Acquisition Support Program
> > Software Engineering Institute (SEI)
> > Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)
> > Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
> > (412) 268-6874
> > dgf@sei.cmu.edu
> > http://www.donald-firesmith.com
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today =
-
> > it's FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----
> > To send a message to this mailing list send it to
>re-online@it.uts.edu.au.
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email majordomo@it.uts.edu.au
>with
>the
> > message `unsubscribe re-online' in the BODY of the mail.
> >
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Mon May 24 2004 - 09:00:20 EST