Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "RMF/Teaching"

< RMF
(Interested Parties)
Line 33: Line 33:
 
* Formal Mind GmbH ([http://www.formalmind.com/contact Michael Jastram])
 
* Formal Mind GmbH ([http://www.formalmind.com/contact Michael Jastram])
 
* Herrmann & Ehrlich ([http://www.herrmann-ehrlich.de Andrea Herrmann])
 
* Herrmann & Ehrlich ([http://www.herrmann-ehrlich.de Andrea Herrmann])
* REArch Int. ([http://linkedin.com/in/duskosj Dusko Jovanovic])
+
* REArch Int. ([http://www.rearchint.com/ Dusko Jovanovic])
  
 
== Backlog ==
 
== Backlog ==

Revision as of 05:37, 4 July 2014

Requirements Management and Engineering (RE&M) is taught, both in industry and academia. The availability of open source RE-tools, and the RMF-based (fmStudio)[1] in particular, created some interest for using those tools for teaching.

During the initial discussions, two things became clear:

  • RM&E cannot be taught without taking the wider systems engineering (SE) context into account. In other words, RM&E must be considered a subdiscipline of SE, and must be treated that way.
  • A tool must follow the process, not the other way around. Therefore, the foundation for this effort must be a solid, leightweight SE develpment process that is appropriate for teaching and relevant in practice.

Objectives

  • Teaching Materials: Ideally, one outcome of this effort is a set of adaptable teaching materials.
  • Collaboration of Industry, Service Providers and Academia: These three groups can benefit vastly from each other: Industry relies on academia for skilled labor, while service provider deliver expertise to industry in the form of knowledge (consultants) and tools (vendors).
  • Standardization of basic RE (or SE) skills: Preparation of students with a basic set of skills that is relevant in industry, so employers know what to expect.

Ideas

  • Examples, Exercises, etc. (Herrmann) (Beispiel-Lastenhefte für die Lehre, Übungen und Musterlösungen.)

Join the Discussion

This discussion was initiated via email - a bad place to keep a conversation going. For the time being, we will start a new discussion thread on LinkedIn.

Open Questions

Systems Engineering or Requirements Engineering?

A number of participants pointed out that RE as a stand-alone discipline is losing importance in favor of Systems Engineering, of which RE is a sub-discipline. Therefore, at a minimum we should look into RE in the context of overall SE.


Interested Parties

Backlog

Contact / Initiator

Michael Jastram

Back to the top