Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

IIBA CCBA Exam - Topic 3 Question 74 Discussion

A business analyst (BA) is verifying a set of requirements. One of the requirements is ''After the customer has received an email confirmation, the customer is likely to access the order status in the order history which is available upon order submission.'' Which one of the following requirements quality characteristic is breached?
B) Prioritized
A) Concise
C) Atomic
D) Understandable

IIBA CCBA Exam - Topic 3 Question 74 Discussion

Actual exam question for IIBA's CCBA exam
Question #: 74
Topic #: 3
[All CCBA Questions]

A business analyst (BA) is verifying a set of requirements. One of the requirements is ''After the customer has received an email confirmation, the customer is likely to access the order status in the order history which is available upon order submission.'' Which one of the following requirements quality characteristic is breached?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Ressie at Aug 29, 2023, 08:36 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CCBA Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Ceola
10 months ago
I disagree, I find it understandable enough.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hester
10 months ago
Wait, is it really that unclear? I thought it made sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thaddeus
10 months ago
Definitely agree with atomic. Needs to be split up.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gregg
11 months ago
I think it's more about being atomic. Too many ideas in one requirement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mireya
11 months ago
Sounds like it's not concise. Too wordy!
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephaine
11 months ago
I recall that prioritization is important, but this requirement seems more about clarity and structure. I’m leaning towards "Concise" as well.
upvoted 0 times
...
William
11 months ago
This question seems familiar; I think we had a practice one about clarity in requirements. "Understandable" could also be a possibility, but I'm not confident.
upvoted 0 times
...
Javier
11 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like the requirement could be broken down into simpler parts, which makes me lean towards "Atomic."
upvoted 0 times
...
Ozell
11 months ago
I remember we discussed how requirements should be clear and not overly complex, so I think "Concise" might be the right answer here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annamae
11 months ago
Ah, I see now. The requirement is not atomic, as it's describing multiple actions the customer might take. That's the quality characteristic that's breached.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carrol
11 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused. The requirement mentions the customer accessing the order status, but I'm not sure which quality characteristic that would breach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Abel
11 months ago
This one seems tricky, but I think I can figure it out. Let me re-read the requirement carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tomoko
12 months ago
Okay, I think I've got it. The requirement is not very concise, as it includes multiple details. That's probably the answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Launa
12 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I'll need to review the material on FUTA tax deductions to refresh my memory.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carmela
12 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about this one. I'll have to think it through carefully and review my notes on Windows event IDs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mertie
12 months ago
I'm a bit confused by the wording of the question. It mentions "a single hierarchy," but the options talk about creating a new node. I'll need to carefully read through the options to make sure I understand how the hierarchy is being modified.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chuck
1 year ago
Prioritized? More like 'Prioritize me a sandwich, I'm hungry!'
upvoted 0 times
Ty
1 year ago
C: Maybe it's not atomic?
upvoted 0 times
...
Graham
1 year ago
B: I think it's understandable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Blossom
1 year ago
A: Definitely not concise.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Torie
1 year ago
Yikes, 'Understandable' is definitely not being met here. What a mouthful!
upvoted 0 times
Lanie
1 year ago
C: They should simplify it for sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reena
1 year ago
B: I agree, it's too complicated.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daniela
1 year ago
A: Definitely not understandable.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Glennis
1 year ago
Wait, isn't 'AGlennisic' about having a single, specific functionality? This requirement seems to cover multiple things.
upvoted 0 times
Ashton
1 year ago
User4: It should be more specific and focused.
upvoted 0 times
...
Micah
1 year ago
User3: So, it's not concise then.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gladis
1 year ago
User2: Yeah, it's covering multiple things.
upvoted 0 times
...
Colette
1 year ago
User1: I think the requirement is not atomic.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Mammie
1 year ago
This requirement seems a bit wordy. Concise would be better, don't you think?
upvoted 0 times
Murray
1 year ago
I think it's breaching the Concise quality characteristic.
upvoted 0 times
...
Earleen
1 year ago
Yes, I agree. It should be more concise.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jenelle
1 year ago
I believe it's also not understandable, too much information.
upvoted 0 times
...
Junita
1 year ago
I agree with Kattie, it's too wordy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kattie
1 year ago
I think the requirement is not concise.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel