Talk:Functional specification

message: I would highly recommend including a link to http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000036.html regarding the writing of functional specs. I've been writing web app functional specs for the last 7 years and this is without doubt the best "how to write" a functional spec I've come across.
212.24.93.12 12:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including 

message: This article is written in a way that one would believe that Functional Specs are only used in software engineering, this is untrue. Many 'traditional' engineering projects use functional specs to specify the functions of the engineering system that is being developed.
I think this article needs to be re-written to show this.
__________________________________________________________
I agree!
I also have to say I disagree with the majority of the content of this article. Some clear misinterpretations of what constitutes a Functional Specification, including clear confusions about the difference between a Functional Specification and a User Requirement Specification. The article, by interpretation, seems to consider (without specific reference)that the two documents are the same.
I am certain that specification documents that go by the same name, yet used in various industries, have very different contents and functions.
Sub-headed articles are required to distinguish these different applications from one-another.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientificEngineering (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: General Engineering 

message: After 20 years in business technology the one point I try to remind new programmers is that 'getting clear business requirements is very different from detailed functional requirements'. 
Further, without clear business requirements any programmer regardless of skill is potentially destined to failure in the eyes of the people paying the bills or using the end product.
There is a strong need to remove technology references in these business requirements. This avoids confusion about putting this field here or there and what types of screens etc and allows focus to settle on the job that the user expects the user to complete. 
For example, I expect the iPhone designers did have potential users saying I want 'easy access to my email', I bet they didn't accept requirements that say 'with a big hexagonal button on the top left in a particular shade of purple' the latter are technical implementation details. Implementation and requirements are very distinct.
If the business requirements are written clearly, the post-development acceptance testing (usually referred to as UAT - User Acceptance Testing) can clearly have a test applied that checks if a requirement is met or not in the eyes of the business representative.
Peterjcooper 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business vs Technical 

message: Q Chris has asked the question "Why was the template deleted?" Now the "old" software development process template isn't really deleted but replaced by the software engineering template. All date from the template are present in the new one. See also the discussion here
Now at the moment I think the old template should be removed here for three reasons:
* The "software development process template" is out of date anyway 
* The template is kind of destroying the lay out in the current article 
* I oppose the use of the vertical "software development process template" here because this article is covering both the systems engineering and software development. I think a vertical template is given the impression, that the article is most important part of the templates subject. And that is not the case here. 
So I really would like the template removed again here. But if you Q Chris have other ideas please let me know. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, now I understand I am happy with it being deleted. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the template deleted? 

message: I also have to say I disagree with the majority of the content of this article. Some clear misinterpretations of what constitutes a Functional Specification, including clear confusions about the difference between a Functional Specification and a User Requirement Specification. The article, by interpretation, seems to consider (without specific reference)that the two documents are the same.
I am certain that specification documents that go by the same name, yet used in various industries, have very different contents and functions.
Sub-headed articles are required to distinguish these different applications from one-another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientificEngineering (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Along these lines, the reference at the end is broken.  One can get to the book via Google Books (look up the title), but I'm not sure what the criteria are for citation in Wikipedia.  Besides, perhaps there are more recent works that c/should be cited?  (Not my field, or I would suggest one.) Mcswell (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate and Insufficient! 

message: From the article: 
:[Specifications] allow for consistent communication among those responsible for the eight primary functions of Systems Engineering.
What are the eight primary functions of SE? Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eight primary functions? 

message: I think that both kinds of documents are similar and therefore I suppose to create a reference to each other in "See also..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.154.160 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarity to "[[User requirements document]]"