[SystemSafety] Spam (10.12):Re: A Fire Code for Software?

[Michael Jackson]

Paul: 

You write: “…  all requirements should be Clear, Concise, Correct,  Coherent, Complete and Confirmable (Testable). Developers should accept nothing less, no matter what discipline they operate in.”

Three questions about requirements (for cyber-physical systems): 

(1)  What exactly does such a set of requirements stipulate?
(2)  Does the developer need other information beyond the requirements document, and, if so, what? 
(3)  In the light of answers to (1) and (2), what does it mean for requirements to be ‘complete’? 

Can you point me to an illustrative example of: 

(a)  Such a set of requirements
    and/or
(b)  An explicit description of a satisfactory structure and content of the requirements document?

Regards, 

— Michael Jackson


> On 18 Mar 2018, at 11:13, paul_e.bennett at topmail.co.uk wrote:
> 
> On 18/03/2018 at 10:01 AM, "Peter Bernard Ladkin" <ladkin at rvs.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>> 
> [%X]
> 
>> Another move could be holding SW and SW-based-kit supply companies 
>> more accountable for deficits in
>> their products. But the question of assigning responsibility for 
>> such a deficit is already
>> fiendishly complicated, because of the complexity of the supply 
>> chain. It might just result in
>> expanded legal departments everywhere, along with ensuing price 
>> rise to pay for them.
> 
> I am told that the Consumer Protection Act (in the UK) has the necessary
> sharp teeth if the legal eagles would bare them. It would definitely make
> the court cases and preceding investigations longer as they would have
> to get a much more thoroughly detailed brief.
> 
>> I don't think the question of getting everyone to use more 
>> reliable development methods for SW is an
>> easy one. Neither do I think it will be the solution to the "SW 
>> problem". Requirements engineering
>> poses challenges that are at least as big, and to my mind less 
>> susceptible to pro forma solution.
> 
> Getting good requirements delivered to you demands developers to be
> more questioning. I know I have expounded this here before but all
> requirements should be Clear, Concise, Correct,  Coherent, Complete
> and Confirmable (Testable). Developers should accept nothing less, no
> matter what discipline they operate in.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET
> Systems Engineer
> Lunar Mission One Ambassador
> -- 
> ********************************************************************
> Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....
> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............
> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
> Tel: +44 (0)1392-426688
> Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
> ********************************************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE