This course provides a great introduction to requirements writing. I would recommend this to anyone who is new to writing requirements and needs to quickly understand how to write good requirements.
Admirably rigorous and thorough, this course is an excellent resource for advancing or refreshing skills and mindset when it comes to capturing & defining requirements.
By Max C•
Great content, multiple choice answers really limit the demonstration of the student's knowledge.
By Franco S•
Very thorough course about the rules on how to write text-based requirements
By Udochi E Q•
I found this course very helpful and practical
By Edwin C v E•
The course is way too short. Less than 1 hour of video material (for the 4 weeks combined!) is far below average. The INCOSE writing guideline, which can be bought on the INCOSE webpage and which is listed as recommended reading, is more than enough for most people to grasp the concepts behind textual guidelines, and to write and review textual guidelines themselves. The INCOSE guideline even includes lots of examples. Pushing his own pricey book (which is not at all required to successfully pass the course) at the end of each and every video becomes fairly annoying after 2 or 3 videos and should have been left out completely.
Apart from these issues, the course content is good. It is based on the INCOSE writing guide (of which dr. Ryan was a co-creator) and ISO 29148. Solid and valuable material, but as stated above, the course is too pricey to make it worthwhile for some people.
By Michael K•
Although I enjoyed the course, I found it to be only a superficial introduction to the subject. It took me 2 hours and 12 minutes (132 minutes) to finish this "5 weeks" course with 100% grade. After viewing the first lecture in audit mode, I was quite enthusiastic and directly purchased the certified course. However, now I feel like I didn't get much for my $49 when I compare this short course with other Coursera courses. Many of them would offer the amount of material shown here in their first week - while providing much more in-depth knowledge in the remaining 3-4 weeks.
By James H•
The structure for the requirements that the course is trying to teach is good and logical. However the test information is very annoying. It seems to care too much about the naming the error in each requirement and never really asks you to fix the requirement. Who cares if the error is a passive voice or in the definite article, you need to be able to spot this an error and fix it. Re-structure the quizzes and tests - this course could be so much better.
By Johannes W•
This course is good content-wise, but, and that is a big mistake, it is not self-paced! Heaps of unsolved problems regarding this in the discussion forum. You can only take a week's content at a time, and then have to wait for a week to work on the content of the next week! No chance of finishing this four hour-course on a day, as you would usually want to do it.
By Arnau C•
Just OK. In my opinion, the answers are not clear: they are ambiguous.