Making Metrics Practical - INCOSE

The simple conclusion that my willing participant

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: rements, and top level requirements, are initially the most interesting. The process I use, is described in earlier INCOSE lectures [Gilb, SQC, 2005] and [Gilb 2005, CE book, Spec QC chapter]. A small team of experts and managers will usually uncover 20-40 Major defects per page against only 3 standards (clear, unambiguous, no-design in requirements). They are about 33% effective in finding what is actually there at that moment. This can easily be proven by repeating the review process, after the initial batch of defects is removed. The simple conclusion, that my willing participant managers suddenly grasp, is that they have been approving and accepting highly substandard requirements, and other specs, for years. They are usually immediately ready to discuss how to rewrite the specs to a much cleaner level – like maximum 1.0 majors per page remaining, statistically, and inferred. 9. Use metrics to prioritize, and determine priorities. I argue that traditional weighting metrics are a very bad way of communicating priorities for...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/26/2014 for the course E 515 at University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online