Textual requirements specifications are full of text, but also numbers. We tend to think that the most important content of a requirements specification are the actions expected as the translation of the high level needs, the main systems and subsystems after a system decomposition, stakeholder names… but we also find numbers on such documents.
This blog is all about how to write *good* requirements but…. what does *good* mean? I’m sure that the characteristics of a good requirement are different from one company to the other.
When I was young, my literature teacher told me: "please, avoid repeating the same noun over and over on your texts, use synonyms, pronouns...". Maybe your teachers told you the same, and they were right, but for sure they were not thinking about requirements, rather they were talking about poetry.
Another important metric that RQS takes into account is the number of verbs used in a requirement. Where most of the companies, in their guidelines and checklists are expecting for, at least, one main verb (i.e. one action); others are also prohibiting including several main verbs into the same requirement. It’s a common mistake to involve multiple needs in the same requirement.
One important aspect that must be fully clear in every requirement is the fact of “who” or “which subsystem” is the responsible for the action described in the requirement.