it was a nice experience

Course is really awesome

Very Informative Course

very knowledable course

Very beneficial course

Clear and Effective!

Very useful content

Very useful course,

Excellent Course!!

Worth Learning

Best Course

Really good

excelent

Excellent

the best

Great

شكرا

C

An excellent course aligned to the INCOSE Requirements Writing Guide (advance / parallel reading advised). Authoritative tutor (chair of INCOSE Requirements Working Group). Course identifies, groups and addresses rules (for a given structured notation) in turn. Subject matter and questions do require close attention (particularly module 3). Coursera / materials provides great accessibility (multi-platform, multimedia, module quizzes etc). Module learning objectives not always clear / punctuated (visual / audio pause). Minor typos / ambiguity here and there. Real-world practise with varied people / scenarios will always be trickier but rules and prompts addressed in this course will certainly help your work in requirements specification and review. Will be recommending to colleagues!

· Well-written requirements are invariably difficult to read because we are not allowed common English language

· Preparation for end of course assessment helped by using module questions (same / very similar)

·

Pros: A refreshing way to learn the not-so-enthusing field of requirement writing. This is definitely a much better way to start off requirement writing than trying to read long guides and standards on the same topic. The quizes make you think and that's the best way to learn.

Cons: The course is by no means complete and could have definitely packed in more material, like explaining more of the 40-odd rules as laid out by INCOSE. Most annoying though are the numerous 'bugs' in the weekly quizes which I can't figure out have not been weeded out yet given that the course has been around for some time.

The overall course is really good, but the problems with requirements statement are kind of too subjective. For example, "unnecessary precision" was being used for a missing tolerance in one of the exercises. I don't know if this was an error or the concepts are too subjective.

My suggestion would be to better define these concepts (maybe using requirements!) and also add an option for the student to provide feedback on each of the exercises. Like this we could point out when we disagree with the answer.

This was a good overview of Requirements Writing, an important part of the Requirements Engineering discipline, which is a major component of Systems Engineering. I wish it was a bit more thorough and with more examples and practices, but very good anyway. I highly recommend it to technical writers, project managers, product managers, business analysts, and anyone who is involved somehow in the process of writing specifications.

Good summary of how not to write requirements. The content is a little dry but is clear enough. I find it a little annoying to remember specific terminology of why a requirement is not correct, when the semantics are very similar (e.g. conjunctions and logical conditions).

The course definitely reinforced my previous learning and would recommend to anyone who needs to write or review requirements as it is a bit of an art!

The lecture material is really fantastic for learning the fundamentals of requirements writing, but for a course about precise writing the quizzes are rife with ambiguities in terms which makes it impossible to avoid wrong answers even with a good understanding of the material. I would really appreciate harder questions rather than tricks.

Overall it's an informative and straightforward course. There are certain times where there are some overlap in the answers to questions which they don't cover explicitly in the lessons, however just going over the practice tests is very useful.