RE: Kovitz vs Traditional functional/design specs?

Subject: RE: Kovitz vs Traditional functional/design specs?
From: Christina R-Shull <Christina -dot- R -at- ttimail -dot- com>
To: Geoff Hart <Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>, TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:12:00 -0600


I am a Technical Writer that is now performing Quality Assurance Engineering
for my company. I have a QA background and am experienced with helping
developers create and document their processes. From a development point of
view and from a quality assurance point of view:

1) The functional specification describes what the system will do with no
reference to implementation (how it does the job).

2) Design specification is the how the system does the job.

If you do the design before you know the functional requirements, how do you
ensure that you are designing the correct system for the end customer?

Doing design before you have a clear understanding of at least some of the
functional requirements is a sign of a 'broken' development process. Below,
Geoff states -

> How you define the two specifications, and what labels you use, are purely
> irrelevant
> outside the academic discourse community; that's splitting linguistic
> hairs.
> What's truly important is that everyone involved in the
> process understands and agrees upon the meaning of the labels, and that
> someone is responsible for ensuring that this understanding and agreement
> happens.
You need to do more than agree upon the labels, you need to make sure you
have the right process in place first!

Thank you,


Previous by Author: RE: Mac/Window button names
Next by Author: RE: Kovitz vs Traditional functional/design specs?
Previous by Thread: Kovitz vs Traditional functional/design specs?
Next by Thread: RE: Kovitz vs Traditional functional/design specs?

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads