Feature coverage
This table shows the level of coverage of a detailed list of features requested by Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, India, thank you for their work. This table helps to understand REQCHECKER™ capabilities.
Software capable of recording text or documents, providing shared access to users, and saving change history is referred to as Document Management System (DMS), e.g. Microsoft SharePoint, Atlassian Jira, Redmine, Git, Subversion, etc.
It is important to understand that REQCHECKER™ is stateless; it analyzes information from different sources. It is therefore used in conjunction with a DMS. The table below was created taking into account the combination of the REQCHECKER™ software, the REQCHECKER™ Add-in for Microsoft Word software, and the selected DMS.
| No | Category | Features | Supported | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PROJECT | Does tool collects project detail like project name(system name), project type, duration, budget? | No | |
| 2 | PROJECT | Project scheduling and tracking facility | No | |
| 3 | PROJECT | Managing project sub systems, requirement specific to project | Yes | |
| 4 | PROJECT | User management of the project (Actors of the Project (System)) | Partial | Actors are referenced in requirements. |
| 5 | PROJECT | Facility of project risk and risk planning | No | |
| 6 | PROJECT | Project progress status display in dashboard | Yes | The HTML Viewer dashboard provides computation status, duration, project metrics, management rate, coverage rate, requirement and error counts. |
| 7 | PROJECT | Tool manages functional and non functional requirement of different project | Yes | |
| 8 | PROJECT | Review of various phase of system development life cycle | Yes | Matrix can be filtered by requirement phase |
| 9 | PROJECT | Project tracking with Gantt chart or related architecture | No | |
| 10 | PROJECT | Defining statkeholders and roles of them for project (system) | Partial | Stakeholders and roles are referenced in requirements. |
| 11 | PROJECT | Project, System and Requirement linking (Requirements of a specific system) | Yes | Two relationships: refine (covers) and related to (linking) |
| 12 | Elicitation/Gathering | Efficient and easy requirement collection and gathering | Yes | Collects from documents without modification |
| 13 | Elicitation/Gathering | Creation of Unique ID for each requirement | Yes | Supported by REQCHECKER™ Add-in for Microsoft Word |
| 14 | Elicitation/Gathering | Rich text formatting of requirements | Yes | Requirement are written with MS Word or other software then converted as PDF. |
| 15 | Elicitation/Gathering | Spelling and grammer checking facility for requirements | Yes | Supported by MS Word |
| 16 | Elicitation/Gathering | Automatic or semi-automatic way of requirement gathering | Yes | Automatic gathering from several data sources. |
| 17 | Elicitation/Gathering | Gathering and managing different source of requirements (e.g meeting minutes, interview summary, questionnarie summary, RE workshop) | Yes | Automatic gathering from several data sources. |
| 18 | Elicitation/Gathering | Input of requirement attributes like ReqName, Type, Version, Status | Yes | Several attributes are proposed by default. They can be extended with custom attributes |
| 19 | Elicitation/Gathering | Importing requirements from multiple heterogeneous format | Yes | Automatic gathering from several data sources, including PDF, software source code, Jira (including custom fields), Confluence, Redmine, and XQual. See Input formats |
| 20 | Elicitation/Gathering | Importing requirements from compatible format such as ReqIF | No | |
| 21 | Elicitation/Gathering | tool supports elicitation templates and checklists before gathering requirement | No | |
| 22 | Analysis | Creating and comparing baselines of the requirement (Versions) | Yes | Verification report can highlight requirement changes between two version of the document. |
| 23 | Analysis | Metrics and chart display for various requirement attributes like status, priority (e.g. Showing in different colour) | Partial | The HTML Viewer and Printable HTML Report provide status metrics and charts. EXCEL reports provide filtering and conditional formatting for other attributes. |
| 24 | Analysis | Navigation from higher level of requirement to lower level requirement, Decomposing higher level requirement into detail | Yes | Navigation is included in Markdown/HTML report |
| 25 | Analysis | Rollback and undo of version of the requirement (Working of previous version of the requirement) | Yes | Covered by DMS |
| 26 | Analysis | Tool is having feature of reporting bug and issues of requirements | Yes | The verification report in EXCEL is designed for review with comments. The HTML Viewer lists detected errors and lets users exclude a justified checking error for a specific requirement. EXCEL natively allows collaborative access or document management via email outside your organization. |
| 27 | Analysis | History of a requirements changes is easy to view | Yes | The verification report in EXCEL allows you to compare two project statuses in detail, view all changes, use filters, searches, etc. The history itself is managed by the DMS. |
| 28 | Analysis | Determining unclear, incomplete, ambiguous or contradictory requirements and resolving all these issues | Yes | The checking module detects problems inside requirement text; justified checking errors can be excluded and reviewed in the HTML Viewer. See Control Engine. |
| 29 | Analysis | Analysis of technical, economical, operational feasibility to implement the requirement | No | |
| 30 | Analysis | relationship of requirements to risks raised and risks mitigated in order to perform risk analysis and management tasks | No | |
| 31 | Prioritization | Requirement priority at the time of elicitation and modification facility | Yes | Must,Should,May is proposed, can be customized. |
| 32 | Prioritization | Voting on requirements for setting priorities | Partial | Can be achieved with the verification report. The new priority will not be automatically updated in source documents. |
| 33 | Prioritization | Navigation of requirements based on priority (Up and down in menu) | Yes | Verification and matrix report can filter and sort requirement by priority. |
| 34 | Prioritization | Deciding priority of requirements based on the business or project objectives | No | Manual operation |
| 35 | Traceability | Linking of requirements to other requirements of the same project. Dependency between requirements (Parent and child requirement) | Yes | Two relationships are supported: refine (covers) and related to (linking), with multiple fragments. When local AI is enabled, semantic links are also identified automatically. |
| 36 | Traceability | Traceability analysis to identify inconsistent requirement and missing links within the requirements (e.g., FR which are not linked to a use case) | Yes | Traceability controls include missing coverage, orphan requirements, wrong versions, incomplete fragments, and cyclic coverage. |
| 37 | Traceability | Results of Traceability analysis in tree or table (How many requirements are modelled to use case) | Yes | The Multi-Level Coverage Matrix presents the dependency tree by coverage level. HTML reports provide tables and the HTML Viewer interactive requirement graphs. |
| 38 | Traceability | Managing lifecyle of requirement. Creating and editing flow in requirement flow diagram or requirement dependency diagram if present | Partial | Proposed status are: Proposed,Approved,Implemented,Verified,Deferred. The list can be customized. Workflow transitions are not managed. However, REQCHECKER™ also calculates the impact analysis and indicates all the changes that need to be made in cascade if a requirement is modified. |
| 39 | Traceability | Verification of requirement:The tool should provide the ability to document that the requirement was fulfilled, how it was done, and who was responsible. | Yes | Use of attributes. |
| 40 | Traceability | The RE tool supports bi-directional tracing of requirements. Parent to child requirements mapping or requirement to design elements mapping | Yes | For REQCHECKER™ there is no distinction between requirement and design elements: all are extracted artefacts linked by parent-to-child coverage or relation. The multi-level matrix provides the dependency tree and local AI can propose semantic links. |
| 41 | Traceability | storing and managing the identification and documentation of stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities towards requirements | Partial | This can be documented in source documents. |
| 42 | Traceability | Generating a report for missing and/or orphan requirements. Facility of traceability matrix | Yes | |
| 43 | Ease of Use | Linking requirements to available documents (SRS) | Yes | Requirements are extracted from documents. EXCEL reports, the HTML Viewer, and the Printable HTML Report provide links to the associated source position when available. |
| 44 | Ease of Use | Importing structured requirement document like excel, XML format | Yes | Support EXCEL import |
| 45 | Ease of Use | Filtering view of requirements based on different artefacts (like status, priority) | Yes | Available in EXCEL reports and directly in the HTML Viewer. |
| 46 | Ease of Use | Sorting requirements by multiple criteria (ascending order of version) | Yes | Available in EXCEL reports. |
| 47 | Ease of Use | Exporting requirements into standard and commercial formats like word, excel, pdf, csv | Yes | Export is available for EXCEL and standalone Printable HTML, which can be printed or exported to PDF from the browser. |
| 48 | Ease of Use | Define custom format for documentation output (e.g. SRS template facility) | Partial | Printable HTML Report title, logo, status colors, filters, and table format can be customized. EXCEL report can be modified once generated. An open XML format is available to enable third-party tools to use the report data. |
| 49 | Ease of Use | Facility of querying requirement data | Yes | Full text query is part of REQCHECKER™ Add-in for Microsoft Word; requirements are also searchable in the HTML Viewer. |
| 50 | Ease of Use | Exporting requirements into standard and easily updataeble format like XML, sql, Json | Yes | XML export is available |
| 51 | Ease of Use | help facility of how to operate the tool | Yes | Detailed help is provided |
| 52 | Ease of Use | Searching requirements by keywords within repository | Yes | Full text query is part of REQCHECKER™ Add-in for Microsoft Word, including keywords combined by AND; the HTML Viewer also provides requirement search. |
| 53 | Ease of Use | Viewing various requirement artefacts and attributes reports in dashboard | Yes | The HTML Viewer dashboard and tabs present project metrics, requirements, files, semantic groups, errors, source links, and coverage relationships. EXCEL, Markdown, and Printable HTML reports are also available. |
| 54 | Ease of Use | Easily modifiable user interface of tool to add menu, fuctions and hot keys | Partial | Included in Word for authoring part. |
| 55 | Requirement Architecture | Organize requirements by groups (e.g. system, subsystem, req, sub requirement) | Yes | When optional local AI features are enabled, REQCHECKER™ groups related requirements by semantic analysis and identifies duplicates. Requirements can also be organized by group, for example in dedicated documents or Jira projects. |
| 56 | Requirement Architecture | Define and capture different types of requirement (FR, NFR, Business req) | Yes | As requirement attributes |
| 57 | Requirement Architecture | Custom format for requirement ID (e.g. for FR FR001, NFR, NFR002) | Yes | |
| 58 | Requirement Architecture | Provide a template for new projects (e.g., includes pre-defined requirement types) to minimize setup | Yes | |
| 59 | Requirement Architecture | Manage access permissions for requirements to different users of tool | Yes | Covered by the DMS |
| 60 | Requirement Architecture | Define a glossary for a set of requirements. | No | The glossary must be created manually or using third-party tools (such as Word). |
| 61 | Requirement Architecture | Linking email to specific requirements | Yes | Email can be stored in a contact attribute (e.g. #contact xx@yyy.com) |
| 62 | Requirement Architecture | Upload and link video/audio files related to requirements | Yes | Video and audio can be included in source documents. |
| 63 | Requirement Management | Version control of requirement, baseline creation | Yes | Requirement versions support impact analysis. The project file itself has an editable version, optionally incremented on save and shown in reports. |
| 64 | Requirement Management | Changing of same attibutes to more than 1 requirement (e.g. changing priority of many requirements to high) | No, unless the property is an attribute of ticketing software (Redmine, Jira). | |
| 65 | Requirement Management | Add, Update, delete, search and display of Primary/Functional Requirements | Yes | Add, update, delete are done in source document. Display and search is provided by REQCHECKER™ Add-in for Microsoft Word. |
| 66 | Requirement Management | Navigational faciltity to nested requirement management | No | Nested is not supported. Thus it can be achieved by prefix in requirement ID or by using a custom attribute. |
| 67 | Requirement Management | Generate requirements as list and update fields of any requirements | No | No, unless the property is an attribute of ticketing software (Redmine, Jira). |
| 68 | Requirement Management | Edit individual requirements quickly without much navigation | Yes | Edition is done in source documents |
| 69 | Review and Collaboration | Review the changed requirement and Track Requirements approval. Notify to respective stakeholders | Partial | Verification report highlights requirement changes between two version of the document. It includes columns for reviewer name and remarks. Update of requirement status must be done manually in source documents. |
| 70 | Review and Collaboration | Providing review facility of requirements to customers | Yes | Verification report can be send to customers. |
| 71 | Review and Collaboration | Report on whether a set of requirements have been reviewed | Partial | Verification report can be filtered on requirement that have remarks. With ticketing software (Redmine, Jira) this can be implemented as a specific attribute. |
| 72 | Review and Collaboration | Generate report on who is working on which requirements | Partial | Depends on the selected DMS |
| 73 | Review and Collaboration | List of rejected/approved requirements after review process | Yes | Verification report can be filtered on requirement that have remarks. |
| 74 | Review and Collaboration | Reusability of requirement for other projects | Yes | Can be achieved by sharing the source documents, ticketing project etc |
| 75 | Requirement Specification | Storage of requirement in central repository | Yes | Covered by the DMS |
| 76 | Requirement Specification | Requirements features and artefacts are stored in database tables | Yes | After computation, in memory database stores all requirement features and attributes. |
| 77 | Requirement Specification | Any Specification language is used to specify the requiremnet, like XML | No | Specification is done in natural language. |
| 78 | Requirement Specification | Negotiation with customers before requirements are specified | Yes | Verification report can be send to customers. |
| 79 | Requirement Specification | Specification in efficient manner so that it can be linked to design and code | Yes | A requirement can be covered in design documents, source code files (including QT QML), and the main description field of supported CMSs. |
| 80 | Requirement Specification | The requirements should be specified in a consistent, accessible and reviewable manner | Yes | Requirement is authored in natural language that is checked for ambiguous terms. |
| 81 | Requirement Modelling | Modelling project functional and non functional requirements | Yes | FR and NFR can be stored in an attribute. |
| 82 | Requirement Modelling | Use case modelling with actors and scenario from collected functional requirements | Yes | REQCHECKER™ Add-in for Microsoft Word includes a use case model for requirement |
| 83 | Requirement Modelling | Data modelling of the project (ER modelling) | No | Can thus be achieved by an external tool and included in source documents. |
| 84 | Requirement Modelling | Activity and sequences of the requirement | No | Can thus be achieved by an external tool and included in source documents. |
| 85 | Requirement Modelling | Requirement Flow Diagram to show the flow between requirements | Yes | The HTML Viewer provides interactive requirement graphs. The multi-level matrix also allows navigation to parent, child, or per level. |
| 86 | Requirement Modelling | Association of requirements to UML model with user interface | No | Can thus be achieved by an external tool and included in source documents. |
| 87 | Requirement Modelling | Model process flows and context diagrams directly in the tool | No | Can thus be achieved by an external tool and included in source documents. |
| 88 | Requirement Modelling | Textual and Graphical representation of use case diagram, activity diagram | No | Can thus be achieved by an external tool and included in source documents. |
| 89 | Requirement Modelling | Generating diagrams (Use case,activity, sequence) from written requirements or database | No | Can thus be achieved by an external tool and included in source documents. |
| 90 | Requirement Modelling | Modelling use case and converting it into textual requirements | No | Can thus be achieved by an external tool and included in source documents. |
| 91 | Requirement Modelling | Identifying objects from textual requirements to create class diagrams | No | Can thus be achieved by an external tool and included in source documents. |
| 92 | Requirement Modelling | Identifying objects from textual requirements to create Entities withing ER diagram | No | Can thus be achieved by an external tool and included in source documents. |
| 93 | Design and Code Integration | Functional Req -> Model -> Requirement flow diagram to help designer | No | Can thus be achieved by an external tool and included in source documents. |
| 94 | Design and Code Integration | Code mapping of requirements | Yes | Requirements can be covered in source code files, including QT QML files. |
| 95 | Design and Code Integration | Test cases development based on use cases and REQ | Yes | Test cases are written in documents or tickets, they are managed as requirements and can cover them, be part of the impact analysis, have properties, etc. |
| 96 | Design and Code Integration | Requirement lifecycle or workflow | Yes | Status is a requirement attribute |
| 97 | Other NFR | Are non functional attributes are gathered separately? | Partial | Possible, they can be tagged NFR |
| 98 | Other NFR | The tool shall collect non functional requirement like availability, portability, scalability, extensibility, resuability,maintainability, reliabilty type of requirements for system at project level | Yes | NFR categories are included in requirement attribute |
| 99 | Other NFR | Are NFR properties are related to functional requirement (Specification of NFR at module level) | Yes | NFR can be linked to FR |
| 100 | Security | Does RBAC (Role based access control) is specified/mentioned at the time of requirement gathering? | Yes | Role that can access to the feature of a requirement can be specified at gathering time. |
| 101 | Security | tool shall support role based Create Read Update Delete (CRUD) of the requirements (Module Permissions) | Yes | Covered by the DMS |
| 102 | Security | Ability to provide multiple roles for one user | Yes | Covered by the DMS |
| 103 | Security | Does tool support confidentiality of requirement by asking feature of symmetric or assymetric encryption algorithm like DES,RC4,AES, Elliptic Curve | Partial | Encryption depends on the selected DMS. The Web lock can prevent new REQCHECKER™ network connections outside the local computer while working on a confidential project. |
| 104 | Security | Does tool supports integrity of requirement? Which requirement should be prevented from unauthorized modification with techniques like hashing or digital signature) | Partial | Protection from unauthorized modification depends on the DMS. The HTML Viewer and Printable HTML Report record source file hashes to identify the analyzed inputs. |
| 105 | Security | Does tool supports the requirement of authentication for preserving identity of the user by any mehtods like biometric, password, smart card, memorty card | Yes | Covered by the DMS |
| 106 | Security | Does tool supports authorization requirement for allowing only authorized actors to perform CRUD (Create, Update, Read, Delete) operations on functional requirements | Yes | Covered by the DMS |