Evaluate the following action taken by the team during the validation. For each scenario, identify its appropriateness (of action taken) by writing ‘appropriate’ or ‘not appropriate’ then map the case with the related validation principles. 1. The requirements engineer conducts an inspection of the requirements as mandated in the process and invites system architect, a programmer, a tester, and a legal compliance expert as inspectors. 2. Since no other project member was suitable to moderate the inspection meeting, the requirements engineer decides to be the moderator of the moderator meeting. 3. The requirements engineer decides to conduct the validation only once due to budget constraint.
Evaluate the following action taken by the team during the validation. For each scenario, identify its appropriateness (of action taken) by writing ‘appropriate’ or ‘not appropriate’ then map the case with the related validation principles.
1. The requirements engineer conducts an inspection of the requirements as mandated in the process and invites system architect, a programmer, a tester, and a legal compliance expert as inspectors.
2. Since no other project member was suitable to moderate the inspection meeting, the requirements engineer decides to be the moderator of the moderator meeting.
3. The requirements engineer decides to conduct the validation only once due to budget constraint.
4. Before the validation session begins, the requirements engineer reminds all reviewers to immediately correct the errors found in the document.
5. The inspection team requests for additional development artifact directly from the author.
6. The inspection team requests for adequate change of document type.
Step by step
Solved in 4 steps
