Software Requirements Specification Document

The entire class will collaboratively be working on one Software Requirements Specification (SRS) document. The document will be complete in different stages, and the final version(4.0) will be delivered in Week 13.

SRS Delivery – When

Each week the class will deliver different versions of the document, some will be to the instructor, and others will be available for Teams and Community of Practices to review.
Major Versions 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 will be delivered on the Odd Weeks, and Minor Versions (1.5, 2.5, and 3.5) will be delivered on the Even Weeks starting on Week 7.

Week	Version	Reviewed by	Expectations
07	1.0	QA CoP	Section 1 Introduction
08	1.5		Section 3 External Interfaces, Functions, and HMI
09	2.0	QA CoP & Instructor	Section 3 Performance, Databases, Design constraints
10	2.5		Section 4 Verification, Constraints, and Motivation
11	3.0	QA CoP	Section 2 References. 5: Appendices
12	3.5		Section 3 SW System attributes, Supporting information
13	4.0	Instructor	Final Version

SRS Delivery – Who

Each week, the Chief Editor’s Community of Practice (CoP) will compile and deliver the document’s correct version. Every other week, the Quality Assurance CoP, using an updated checklist, reviews the SRS’s major versions to be implemented into the next SRS version.
The Scrum Masters will provide a status report of completed tasks. And Lead will provide a stop-light status of the entire SRS Document.

Evaluations

The SRS document will consist of a major part of your grade. Version 2.0 and the Final Version will be graded by the Instructor.
The SRS must meet the following criteria:

Complete: The SRS must completely represent the stakeholders’ requirements for the target system.
Consistent: All the terms and definitions are consistent with each other. There are no contradictions in any of the requirements or other parts of the document. No repeating text, undefined acronyms, magic numbers,
Correctness

Each SRS section conforms to the IEEE specification.
Requirements only use ‘shall’
Verification uses Requirement statements with a prefix, “Verify that …” and contain a description of how it will be measured or evaluated.
Check for: Omission, Contradiction, Inadequacy, Ambiguity, Unmeasurable, Noice, Unfeasibility, Unintelligibility, Poor structuring, Remorse, Modifiability, Opacity (invisible dependency).

Traceable: Every requirement must map to data collected during the elicitation process.

User Profile, Use Cases, and Product Functions (Section 2) maps to an elicitation discovery.
Each requirement (Section 3) maps (1-to-n) to an architecture or product function.
Each verification (Section 4) maps directly to a requirement (1-to-1, subsection number to sub-section numbering).

Professional: The formatting must be professional. All the formatting decisions must be intentionally made and contribute to the readability of the document. This includes but is not limited to:

Margins: The amount of white space on the edge of the papers is appropriate.
Page Numbering: All pages are numbered, and the page numbering is professional.
Paragraph spacing: The amount of space between paragraphs and between lines is appropriate. No unnecessary white space, including page breaks between sections, excessive line or paragraph spacing, excessive margins, etc.
Section Format: Each section and subsection needs to have a paragraph describing its purpose and outline additional sub-sections. If there is only one sub-section, then it is included as part of the parent section.
Lists: Sections are appropriately numbered, requirements are appropriately numbered, and lists are professionally created.
Tables & Figures: Figures, graphs, illustrations, and tables have proper captions and numbers.
Font: All text is in black, 12-point, proportionally-spaced serif fonts. Consistent formatting is used throughout the document.
Mechanics: Absence of spelling or grammatical errors.

Performance

Students will be evaluated based on their contribution to the SRS.
The Ponder Quiz will determine students’ contributions. Those who contributed to the SRS and helped their team and community of practice will get bonus points to the SRS. Those that were burdens or caused problems with the team or community of practice have a reduced score.

Assessment

Your grade will be a combination of the overall grade for the document and your individual contribution on the project.

Document grade

Grade for the document will be derived from the following rubric:

	Exceptional 100%	Good 90%	Acceptable 70%	Developing 50%	Missing 0%
Requirement Statements 30%	Every single requirement in the SRS meets all the criteria specified in the Wiegers article	One requirement fails to meet one of the criteria specified in the Wiegers article	There exists a systematic problem with some of the requirements	The requirements exhibit glaring problems	The requirements are not sufficient quality to move on to the SDD
SRS - Completeness 10%	Every single stakeholder need is identified and described	The requirement list is completely consistent with the collected elicitation data	An item was described in the elicitation data that is not represented in the requirements list	The SRS exhibits glaring completeness problems	The SRS is not of sufficient quality to move on to the SDD
SRS - Consistent 30%	The document is completely consistent with itself	There are no contradictions in the requirements but “some” ambiguity exists	“Minor” inconsistencies exist or there exists “substantial” ambiguity	A “substantial” inconsistency exists or large parts of the SRS suffers from ambiguity	Consistency problems are so bad that it seems as if more than one project is being described
SRS - Traceability 10%	Every single concept and term is well defined, all the requirements can be traced to elicitation data	All the requirements can be traced to elicitation data	An important term or concept is not well defined	There exists serious traceability issues with the SRS	The SRS is not of sufficient quality to move on to the SDD
Professionalism 20%	The paper is easy to read and ideas are clearly communicated	Everything is properly organized, the formatting is professional, no grammar or spelling errors, writing style is “professional”	One instance of a spelling error, grammar error, formatting errors, or poor writing	There are glaring problems with the document itself	Gross spelling/grammar errors or other aspects of the writing that make the paper difficult to read