MENU
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?
Suggested Answer: B
Get Premium CCBA Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
35 comments · newest first
CE
Ceola
11 months ago
I disagree, I find it understandable enough.
HE
Hester
12 months ago
Wait, is it really that unclear? I thought it made sense.
TH
Thaddeus
12 months ago
Definitely agree with atomic. Needs to be split up.
GR
Gregg
1 year ago
I think it's more about being atomic. Too many ideas in one requirement.
MI
Mireya
1 year ago
Sounds like it's not concise. Too wordy!
ST
Stephaine
1 year ago
I recall that prioritization is important, but this requirement seems more about clarity and structure. I’m leaning towards "Concise" as well.
WI
William
1 year 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.
JA
Javier
1 year 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."
OZ
Ozell
1 year ago
I remember we discussed how requirements should be clear and not overly complex, so I think "Concise" might be the right answer here.
AN
Annamae
1 year 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.
CA
Carrol
1 year 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.
AB
Abel
1 year ago
This one seems tricky, but I think I can figure it out. Let me re-read the requirement carefully.
TO
Tomoko
1 year ago
Okay, I think I've got it. The requirement is not very concise, as it includes multiple details. That's probably the answer.
LA
Launa
1 year 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.
CA
Carmela
1 year 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.
ME
Mertie
1 year 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.
CH
Chuck
1 year ago
Prioritized? More like 'Prioritize me a sandwich, I'm hungry!'
TY
Ty
1 year ago
C: Maybe it's not atomic?
GR
Graham
1 year ago
B: I think it's understandable.
BL
Blossom
1 year ago
A: Definitely not concise.
TO
Torie
2 years ago
Yikes, 'Understandable' is definitely not being met here. What a mouthful!
LA
Lanie
1 year ago
C: They should simplify it for sure.
RE
Reena
1 year ago
B: I agree, it's too complicated.
DA
Daniela
2 years ago
A: Definitely not understandable.
GL
Glennis
2 years ago
Wait, isn't 'AGlennisic' about having a single, specific functionality? This requirement seems to cover multiple things.
AS
Ashton
1 year ago
User4: It should be more specific and focused.
MI
Micah
1 year ago
User3: So, it's not concise then.
GL
Gladis
1 year ago
User2: Yeah, it's covering multiple things.
CO
Colette
2 years ago
User1: I think the requirement is not atomic.
MA
Mammie
2 years ago
This requirement seems a bit wordy. Concise would be better, don't you think?
MU
Murray
1 year ago
I think it's breaching the Concise quality characteristic.
EA
Earleen
2 years ago
Yes, I agree. It should be more concise.
JE
Jenelle
2 years ago
I believe it's also not understandable, too much information.
JU
Junita
2 years ago
I agree with Kattie, it's too wordy.
KA
Kattie
2 years ago
I think the requirement is not concise.