Talk:Business requirements

Issues with current form

• Content is overly long (nice essay maybe, but not an encyclopaedia article)
• Format/BRD coverage is too in depth (and besides, MRD and other xRD are not included here.)
• The tools section conflates other issues and needs to be written in a way that stays withing the bounds of the topics and contributes to understanding for a layperson or should be removed.
• The section on completeness actually belongs in a category of "Quality attributes" where completeness is one of several criteria

Additionally these criteria also apply to other 'requirements types.'

• The section on prototypes should be removed. A Prototype page already exists and this duplicates some of that content. DONE
• There are schools of though with regards to requirements that are missing here and should be included.
• There is no description of the origins of the term, and no description of the contention in industry about the topic beyond a need for prototyping (which isn't the only solution to the problems and doesn't address all related problems.
• Poor/No references
• The link in the opening paragraph points to a page on Data Models, which while part of the concept isn't the whole story.
• Benefits section shouldn't be a table.
• Roles section should be labelled something like "who creates and who uses business requirements"
• The second-last para in the Completeness section makes judgements on the value of certain practices; such judgements would seem to be outside scope of this article. It also appears to conclude with some unsubstantiated anti-Agile FUD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.147.214 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Improvements

Given the state of the content I think delete and trim things as much as possible. This page should work for a 14 year old investigating what his mother does for a living. Needs more simplicity. Additionally some areas are not covered that should be, and some stuff is over emphasised. This really should be a straightforward topic.

Simple Definition

Put some content here

Related topics

All the requirements and analysis pages could go here.

I have started hacking away at an example here. I expect I shan't be quick. Craigwbrown (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The article needs to be clearly about BR not about BR analysis (there's one on that already, and like most of the R articles, is in serious need of attention). So if at any point the article's contents seem to be straying into HOW TO create the BR it is off beam - indeed, since WP is NOT a how-to manual, arguably any process recipe to be followed (as opposed to being described in general terms) is inappropriate. I've rewritten the first few sections of the article - all of it was really confused. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Business requirements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141207102134/http://bealprojects.com/requirement-is-what-we-have-to-do-to-achieve-an-objective/ to http://www.bealprojects.com/requirement-is-what-we-have-to-do-to-achieve-an-objective

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)