U.S. Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25

- Free Preparation Discussions

IIBA ECBA Exam - Topic 1 Question 99 Discussion

Actual exam question for IIBA's ECBA exam

Question #: 99
Topic #: 1

[All ECBA Questions]

What requirements are good candidates for reuse?

ARequirements without direct ties to a particular tool

BRequirements expressed in more detail

CRequirements at low levels of abstraction

DRequirements with specific references to departments

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A

Requirements that are good candidates for reuse are those that are not tied to a specific tool, technology, or system. These requirements are generally applicable across various contexts and can be used in multiple projects without significant changes. They are typically high-level business requirements that describe what the business needs without prescribing how to achieve it. This makes them flexible and adaptable to different situations, which is essential for reuse.

by Kristel at Sep 19, 2024, 04:52 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Elli

7 months ago

Wait, can we really reuse requirements without tool ties? Sounds risky.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cherelle

7 months ago

D is too specific, not reusable at all!

upvoted 0 times

...

Martina

7 months ago

C seems like a solid choice too, low abstraction is key.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lorrie

7 months ago

I disagree, B can also be reused if detailed enough.

upvoted 0 times

...

Karon

8 months ago

A is definitely a good candidate for reuse!

upvoted 0 times

...

Estrella

8 months ago

I definitely recall that requirements tied to specific departments are usually not reusable, so D seems like a no-go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elza

8 months ago

I feel like detailed requirements might be more specific and less reusable, but I could be mixing that up with another topic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Donette

8 months ago

I remember a practice question that mentioned low levels of abstraction being less reusable, so I might lean towards option A.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lanie

8 months ago

I think requirements without direct ties to a particular tool could be good for reuse, but I'm not entirely sure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mitsue

8 months ago

Ah, I see. Requirements that are more detailed and at a lower level of abstraction are likely to be more reusable. I'll make sure to highlight that in my response.

upvoted 0 times

...

Isreal

8 months ago

Okay, I think the key here is that reusable requirements should be more general and not tied to a specific tool or implementation. I'll focus on that in my answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lettie

8 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this. I'll need to review my notes on reusable requirements to make sure I understand the criteria.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jeffrey

9 months ago

This seems like a tricky one. I'll need to think carefully about the key factors that make requirements good candidates for reuse.

upvoted 0 times

...

Shelton

9 months ago

I'm a bit confused by the two XQuery expressions. Are they supposed to return the same result, or are they testing different things? I'll need to double-check my understanding of XPath and how to select elements based on both position and attribute values.

upvoted 0 times

...

Devorah

2 years ago

I'd go for option A. Keeps things flexible and avoids the dreaded 'vendor lock-in'.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rosalyn

2 years ago

Ha! Requirements with department references? Might as well just name the company too. Good one!

upvoted 0 times

Arlen

2 years ago

C) Requirements at low levels of abstraction

upvoted 0 times

...

Michel

2 years ago

B) Requirements expressed in more detail

upvoted 0 times

...

Lino

2 years ago

A) Requirements without direct ties to a particular tool

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Isabella

2 years ago

Definitely not the ones with specific references to departments. That's way too specific and tied to a particular organization.

upvoted 0 times

Kate

2 years ago

C) Requirements at low levels of abstraction

upvoted 0 times

...

Albina

2 years ago

B) Requirements expressed in more detail

upvoted 0 times

...

Lawanda

2 years ago

A) Requirements without direct ties to a particular tool

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Delsie

2 years ago

I agree with Alexia. Requirements at a higher level of abstraction are more reusable. But I'd still want some detail, not just vague statements.

upvoted 0 times

Kimi

2 years ago

C) Requirements at low levels of abstraction

upvoted 0 times

...

Lindsey

2 years ago

B) Requirements expressed in more detail

upvoted 0 times

...

Eden

2 years ago

A) Requirements without direct ties to a particular tool

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Francine

2 years ago

I believe requirements expressed in more detail can also be good candidates for reuse, as they provide a clear understanding of what needs to be done.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alexia

2 years ago

A requirements without direct ties to a particular tool sounds like the way to go. That way, we can reuse it across different projects and tools.

upvoted 0 times

Paris

2 years ago

A) Requirements without direct ties to a particular tool sounds like the way to go. That way, we can reuse it across different projects and tools.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lauran

2 years ago

That makes sense. It would make it easier to reuse across different projects.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kandis

2 years ago

C) Requirements at low levels of abstraction

upvoted 0 times

...

Essie

2 years ago

B) Requirements expressed in more detail

upvoted 0 times

...

Jerry

2 years ago

A) Requirements without direct ties to a particular tool

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Melodie

2 years ago

I agree with Percy. Requirements at low levels of abstraction can also be good candidates for reuse.

upvoted 0 times

...

Percy

2 years ago

I think requirements without direct ties to a particular tool are good candidates for reuse.

upvoted 0 times

...