Hi,
I would like to have the following capability relating to properties available for a Requirement:
Ability to define 'Priority' as a non-numeric values.
Within the business domain space we (IT) currently receive a whole host of high level "business requirements" from the business. Each of these requirements is prioritized using the MoSCoW prioritization scale:
(More info available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoSCoW_Method)
Currently, CC only allows numeric values to be defined for the 'Priority' property.
Another example: We may wish to prioritize certain requirements as either "High", "Medium" or "Low"
....and then we have some requirement types that are prioritized using (the currently allowed) numeric scheme.
Ideally, CC should allow both alpha and numeric priority values to be defined.So for instance I might have 'Value Choices' for requirements defined as:
"Must Have", "Could Have", "Should Have", "Won't Have", "High", "Medium", "Low", 1,2,3,4,5
Even more ideal would be if I could define different priority values per requirement type. So to further extend my example above, for 'Functional' requirements I might limit available priority choices to be 1,2,3,4,5 while for "Business Requirements" I might limit available priority choices to be "Must Have", "Could Have", "Should Have", "Won't Have.
Thanks
Adam
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Thanks for the feedback, Adam. I like the MoSCoW prioritization scale. Currently, you could achieve some of this by using a custom field instead of the actual Priority field. But we'll keep this idea underconsideration.
What does everyone else think? If you want to see this feature in CaseComplete, click the "Me too!" button above.
this would be useful! We currently use a lot of ugly $if constructs in report templates to convert the 1-2-3 priorities to the textual values that our customers expect - would be much cleaner if the field allowed non-numeric values directly
Some of us use the Must Have, Should Have, Nice to Have breakdown for prioritization, which is very similair. I think what this is pointing at is that many of us have a system of prioritization we use for timeboxing, and our business stakeholders more readily consume qualitative instead of quantititative systems of prioritization. I've been using CaseComplete for a while now, and I have had the question "what does a one or a two or a three mean" more than once. What would be useful is some sort of function mechanism within a custom report, it wouldn't need to be any more sophisticated than what your average spreadsheet provides.
Hi Andy - As "Sonova" mentions above, you can customize your report template(s) to convert numerical priorities into any customized text values that you would like by using $if statements. If you'd like some help customizing your template, shoot your ideas and where you're stumped in to support@serlio.com, or post a public question in our Custom Reporting forum, located at https://casecomplete.zendesk.com/forums/20546427-custom-reporting
I've found that text based priorities work best for communication purposes. 1,2,3, etc. don't mean anything without explaination. A lot of people use High, Med, Low and IEEE 1998 suggests Essential, Conditional and Optional - which I like because it is more informative. For now I will build a custom field, but please consider making this feild work like the Status and Type fields.
This is the very question I was about to ask. Throughout CaseComplete there are different options listed for priority Stories use MoSCow, Use Cases and Requirements have a numeric value and Issues have High, Medium Low.
It would be great to be able to configure this to allow a consitent approach to prioritisation.
I appreciate that different organsiations/requirement gathering approaches prefer to use different scales for prioritisation.
