CIS 555 Discussion Responses

There are two discussions here that need to be responded to thoroughly. Responses must be on APA format 150+words 1-2 legitimate verifiable sources per response. CIS555 discussion 1 post responses. Respond to the colleagues posts regarding: “Risk Management” Please respond to the following: • From the e-Activity, suppose that you were the engineer that designed this type of car and you were thinking about operational risk management. Determine the types of risk, product-related or process-related, that you would consider when it comes to the operation of the car in public parking spaces. Defend why you would consider this type of risk. • Imagine that you have been contracted to work on a given project for which you have elicited requirements from stakeholders. However, there are inconsistencies in the documentation you were given, incomplete descriptions of processes, and interviewees have given you conflicting information. Propose a solution to resolve these inconsistencies and conflicting information using techniques discussed in the textbook. YM’s post states the following: “Risk Management” Please respond to the following: • From the e-Activity, suppose that you were the engineer that designed this type of car and you were thinking about operational risk management. Determine the types of risk, product-related or process-related, that you would consider when it comes to the operation of the car in public parking spaces. Defend why you would consider this type of risk. Risk management is an essential part of requirement evaluation, for our scenario the risk I would consider is product-related risk where assumptions of risks that are too likely to occur and one risk to consider is if the backup sensor fails and if it doesn’t warn the driver It could collide with another vehicle. if the car collides with another car it raises another risk which is, who is going to pay for the damage the insurance company or the carmaker company. if the carmaker must pay it will raise a process related risk which increases the budget of the car.   • Imagine that you have been contracted to work on a given project for which you have elicited requirements from stakeholders. However, there are inconsistencies in the documentation you were given, incomplete descriptions of processes, and interviewees have given you conflicting information. Propose a solution to resolve these inconsistencies and conflicting information using techniques discussed in the textbook.   Clashes in terminology inconsistency in the documentation you were given and conflicting information can be resolved by careful elaboration of glossary terms that everyone agrees and sticks to since such glossary definition all terms used and for some of them a list of accepted elicitation.   Reference Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications   (text book) Axel van Lamsweerde CIS555 discussion 2 post responses. Respond to the colleagues posts regarding: “Documentation through Diagrams” Please respond to the following: • Imagine that you have been working on a project to design and build a given system. You have completed the elicitation and evaluation phases and now you need to specify and document the system-to-be. Suppose you have decided to use diagrammatic notations for the specification and documentation. Your options are to use context diagrams or frame diagrams. Evaluate each type of diagram and select the one you feel is the best fit. Provide a rationale.  • Compare Entity-Relationship (ER) diagrams, Structured Analysis and Design Technique (SADT) diagrams, data flow diagrams (DFD), and Unified Modeling Language (UML) use cases. Determine which diagram you are most likely to use for your system documentation. Provide a rationale. MH’s post states the following: Imagine that you have been working on a project to design and build a given system. You have completed the elicitation and evaluation phases and now you need to specify and document the system-to-be. Suppose you have decided to use diagrammatic notations for the specification and documentation. Your options are to use context diagrams or frame diagrams. Evaluate each type of diagram and select the one you feel is the best fit. Provide a rationale. I would most likely select the frame diagrams because they provide more information than context diagrams.  Context diagrams illustrate only the system components and their interactions with neighbor components (Lamsweerde, 1).  Frame diagrams, like problem diagrams, expand upon context diagrams by detailing the components that must be built, explicitly indicating which component controls a shared interaction, and which components are affected by a specific requirement (Lamsweerde, 1).  In addition, they are structured in such a way that they can easily be reused which will, with luck, make the documentation process more expedient (Lamsweerde, 1). Compare Entity-Relationship (ER) diagrams, Structured Analysis and Design Technique (SADT) diagrams, data flow diagrams (DFD), and Unified Modeling Language (UML) use cases. Determine which diagram you are most likely to use for your system documentation. Provide a rationale. An Entity-Relationship Diagram is a visual representation of the “things” or “objects”—the facts or data entities—their attributes, and the relationships between them.    Structured Analysis and Design Technique (SADT) diagrams graphically document the data (using datagrams) and the activities that process that data (using Actigrams). Data flow diagrams (DFD) are used to graphically illustrate a system’s operations (or processes) and the flow of data between them. A use case diagram is a Unified Modeling Language (UML) diagram that illustrates the relationship between use cases and actors for a system.  Of these diagrams, I would likely use entity-relationship diagrams, data flow diagrams, and use case modeling diagrams in my system documentation.  The stakeholders that I typically work with are familiar with these diagrams which will make communicating about the system easier. Reference Axel van Lamsweerde. 2009. Requirements Engineering. Book on Amazon.com.