Cell Phone Software Forum
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fab
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:48 pm Post subject: Functional specification partitioning |
 |
|
How would you decompose the *functional specification* of a complex system:
1) By sub-systems
2) By functionalities
3) Other
It would be obvious for me the 2nd option, but I also want to know your
opinion.
Fab |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
H. S. Lahman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:17 pm Post subject: Re: Functional specification partitioning |
|
|
Responding to Fab...
| Quote: |
How would you decompose the *functional specification* of a complex system:
1) By sub-systems
2) By functionalities
3) Other
It would be obvious for me the 2nd option, but I also want to know your
opinion.
|
It depends on whether the FS is a primarily a requirements specification
document or primarily a design specification document. (2) would be
appropriate for a requirements document because it is independent of
Systems Engineering decisions like application partitioning. (1) would
be more appropriate for a design specification document.
The unfortunate reality is that most FSes are hybrids. They exist
because no adequate SRS is available so providing one defaults to the
developers. However, the developers will naturally tend to regard it as
a design specification document that includes basic Systems Engineering
decisions.
*************
There is nothing wrong with me that could
not be cured by a capful of Drano.
H. S. Lahman
hsl@pathfindermda.com
Pathfinder Solutions
http://www.pathfindermda.com
blog: http://pathfinderpeople.blogs.com/hslahman
"Model-Based Translation: The Next Step in Agile Development". Email
info@pathfindermda.com for your copy.
Pathfinder is hiring:
http://www.pathfindermda.com/about_us/careers_pos3.php.
(888)OOA-PATH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tewilson@mitre.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:20 pm Post subject: Re: Functional specification partitioning |
|
|
On May 28, 10:48 am, "Fab" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
| Quote: |
How would you decompose the *functional specification* of a complex system:
1) By sub-systems
2) By functionalities
3) Other
It would be obvious for me the 2nd option, but I also want to know your
opinion.
Fab
|
A functional specification provides a thorough definition of the
problem the system is to solve, i.e., requirements, and in my opinion
should decompose as #2. Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult to
keep design out of the spec so you end up with a small amount of #1
(hopefully it is small). Attempt to keep your spec independent of the
solution (design). Another take on your question is that you may be
trying to understand a current system and describe/decompose it...if
this is the case then definitely #2 would be appropriate and then you
allocate #1 to those decomposed functions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
165 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
