Rating: 
Summary: great insights plus all the regular stuff
Review: .this tells you all you need to know about requirements. indeed, it tells a lot more than that because it explains things not just state them. it kills some urban legends and myths about requirements that everyone should know but most people do not. but then most people do not know what they don't know. scare your phb, impress your colleagues with your wisdom after reading this book. if you work with requirements, software, systems engineering, and especially systems architecture you need to read this book. even if you have read others and or think you know all about requirements you can still learn things that you didn't know or why what you thought was true actually is. this book would work symbiotically with the art of systems architecture by rechtin and maier. read them both. . . .
Rating:
Summary: great insights plus all the regular stuff
Review: . this tells you all you need to know about requirements. indeed, it tells a lot more than that because it explains things not just state them. it kills some urban legends and myths about requirements that everyone should know but most people do not. but then most people do not know what they don't know. scare your phb, impress your colleagues with your wisdom after reading this book. if you work with requirements, software, systems engineering, and especially systems architecture you need to read this book. even if you have read others and or think you know all about requirements you can still learn things that you didn't know or why what you thought was true actually is. this book would work symbiotically with the art of systems architecture by rechtin and maier. read them both. . . .
Rating: 
Summary: Theoretically nice but not practical
Review: A nice theory approach to writing requirment specification but hard to put into practice. Good for someone already have lots of experience in writing requirement specification and need something from different views. If you are looking for a book for content and style in requirment spec, I don't think it helps. Besides, I do not like the author's keeping saying "and so on.... so on." Give me an example and don't say 'so on' all the times.
Rating:
Summary: Theoretically nice but not practical
Review: A nice theory approach to writing requirment specification but hard to put into practice. Good for someone already have lots of experience in writing requirement specification and need something from different views. If you are looking for a book for content and style in requirment spec, I don't think it helps. Besides, I do not like the author's keeping saying "and so on.... so on." Give me an example and don't say 'so on' all the times.
Rating: 
Summary: Great book, but lacks examples
Review: Although it is titled as "Practical", the greatest problem of this book is the difficulties to put the methods it suggests into practice. At least, an example for each problem frame, but this book has only one case study that covers the information and workpiece problem frames only. Nevertheless, this is a great book that takes a radical approach to requirements analysis. So I give it 4 stars.
Rating:
Summary: The best book on the subject.
Review: CS and MIS majors should not be allowed to graduate without studying this text. Far too many projects have unnecessarily gone off course because of poorly doucumented and misunderstood requirements.
Rating:
Summary: Methodology elsewhere; style and content here
Review: Deep and unique - I feel I've really come to understand what a requirement is and how to communicate it to non-technical people. The reader, however, will have to be familiar with the concepts and terminology of software engineering or will miss some of the theoretical points. The only drawback for me, was the concentration on Jackson's approach. While the book ties the subject matter well to methodological components, I would suggest getting your methodology education elsewhere. Skip the theoretical "why", chapter 12 and beyond (Part III on style) is where the value of the book lies and justifies the cost.
Rating:
Summary: Methodology elsewhere; style and content here
Review: Deep and unique - I feel I've really come to understand what a requirement is and how to communicate it to non-technical people. The reader, however, will have to be familiar with the concepts and terminology of software engineering or will miss some of the theoretical points. The only drawback for me, was the concentration on Jackson's approach. While the book ties the subject matter well to methodological components, I would suggest getting your methodology education elsewhere. Skip the theoretical "why", chapter 12 and beyond (Part III on style) is where the value of the book lies and justifies the cost.
Rating:
Summary: Good for experienced practictioner
Review: I enjoyed this book and got a lot from it, Kovitz focuses not on a standard "join the dots" methodology but rather on outlining an overall approach followed by good detailed advice on possible analysis/documentation techniques and how to write clear, concise requirements. Hence I would say that its best for the experienced analyst who is already familiar with the concepts and various techniques described in section 2 and knows when to use/ when not to use them. He is truthful in what he says about needing to adapt requirements style and content to what the situation needs but in some development shops you would need to be an senior analyst to be able to vary from their standards. I would recommend it for any analyst with 2+ years experience who wants to improve and polish their ability to write requirements/specifications
Rating:
Summary: Good for experienced practictioner
Review: I enjoyed this book and got a lot from it, Kovitz focuses not on a standard "join the dots" methodology but rather on outlining an overall approach followed by good detailed advice on possible analysis/documentation techniques and how to write clear, concise requirements. Hence I would say that its best for the experienced analyst who is already familiar with the concepts and various techniques described in section 2 and knows when to use/ when not to use them. He is truthful in what he says about needing to adapt requirements style and content to what the situation needs but in some development shops you would need to be an senior analyst to be able to vary from their standards. I would recommend it for any analyst with 2+ years experience who wants to improve and polish their ability to write requirements/specifications
| 
