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 | Partial | Management rate is provided. |
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 and software source code.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) | No | Can be achieved with EXCEL cell conditional formatting. |
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. 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 | Checking module detects problem inside the requirement text. 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: refine (covers) and related to (linking), ability to cover multiple fragments |
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 | |
37 | Traceability | Results of Traceability analysis in tree or table (How many requirements are modelled to use case) | Yes | |
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 not distinction between requirement and design elements. All are artifact that are extracted and linked by parent to child (coverage) or relation (linking). The multi-level matrix allows to navigate to parent, to child, or per level etc. |
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 | Requirement are extracted from documents. Matrix allows to open the associated chapter or page of the source document. |
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. |
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 available for EXCEL and PDF |
48 | Ease of Use | Define custom format for documentation output (e.g. SRS template facility) | Partial | PDF logo 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 |
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 |
53 | Ease of Use | Viewing various requirement artefacts and attributes reports in dashboard | Yes | Requirements attributes are presented in EXCEL and markdown / HTML reports |
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 | Grouping is performed by semantic analysis of texts using the integrated AI of REQCHECKER™. Requirements can also be organized by group, for example in dedicated documents, dedicated Jira projects, etc. |
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 | |
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 and in code source files. |
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 | Partial | The multi-level matrix allows to navigate to parent, to child, or per level etc. This is not a diagram, but the flow is presented. |
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 code source 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 | Depends on the selected DMS |
104 | Security | Does tool supports integrity of requirement? Which requirement should be prevented from unauthorized modification with techniques like hashing or digital signature) | Partial | Depends on the DMS |
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 |