Does the analysis present all costs and measures of effectiveness for all alternatives? Have equalcost
or equal-effectiveness alternatives been examined?
10. Are the criteria used for assessing alternatives identified? Are they meaningful? Are they consistent
with higher order objectives? Are they intuitively acceptable or, if not, adequately explained?
11. Do the results look reasonable? Is it clear from the analysis why the effectiveness measures came
out as they did?
12. Were sensitivity analyses conducted showing how changes in technical performance affect utility, cost,
and/or schedule? Do the results suggest reasonable ranges or thresholds for performance and cost?]
8.4 Interface Specification
Here is a very primitive interface specification template:
???
Glossary:
Includes conventions, abbreviations, explanations of symbols, and glossary.
???
Interface name
.
???
Definition:
Syntax definition for each form.
Test Documents
133
???
Parameters:
Name of the calling parameters and their type { string | variable | character | real |
integer | floating point | none | scalar } and any defaults.
???
Return:
Name of the returned parameters, their type { void | string | variable | character | real |
integer | floating point | none | scalar } and meaning.
???
Exception:
Describes the behavior if a problem occurs and known triggers.
???
Usage:
Example describing each operation showing:
??“ Informal description
??“ Pre/post condition template
??“ Typical calling usage (optional)
??“ Purpose
???
Constraints/protocol:
Timing, CPU, or memory restrictions, availability, MTBF, MTTR, throughput,
latency, data safety for persistent state, capacity, or ordering limitations.
Pages:
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310