{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Promact/requirement-management/issues/7","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Promact/requirement-management","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Promact/requirement-management/issues/7/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Promact/requirement-management/issues/7/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Promact/requirement-management/issues/7/events","html_url":"https://github.com/Promact/requirement-management/issues/7","id":216957544,"number":7,"title":"Requirement Handling in written flow.","user":{"login":"DhrutiShah","id":8500870,"avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/8500870?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/DhrutiShah","html_url":"https://github.com/DhrutiShah","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/DhrutiShah/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/DhrutiShah/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/DhrutiShah/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/DhrutiShah/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/DhrutiShah/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/DhrutiShah/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/DhrutiShah/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/DhrutiShah/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/DhrutiShah/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"id":543518657,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Promact/requirement-management/labels/thread%20management","name":"thread management","color":"bfd4f2","default":false}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2017-03-25T07:39:59Z","updated_at":"2017-03-28T03:56:34Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Client is creating the requirements in red mine with just basic information. but what should be done in that feature in DETAIL will always discussed on call. this is what they prefers. so what happens is we have to draft the mail for the same for written proof. so first of all have to draft just understanding flow as per discussion. then team members analyzed the tasks and mail iteration started for queries and so on..\r\n\r\nNow if there are 3 to 4 points which we have discussed on call, then he/she will confirmed that points. but never confirmed the full understanding flow, because they have to read such a long mail. and moreover features are too small, so we can't create wire frames for each feature by which he can easily confirmed the understanding flow. but sometimes it happens that what he is trying to say and what we are understanding is might be different. so after full flow implementation and testing, at that time of demo they asked we don't want this. we want this. so the rework comes. \r\n\r\nso what approach can be followed by which they also confirmed the understanding flow and also mail iteration can be reduced? "},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Promact/requirement-management/issues/comments/289656004","html_url":"https://github.com/Promact/requirement-management/issues/7#issuecomment-289656004","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Promact/requirement-management/issues/7","id":289656004,"user":{"login":"karandesai28","id":20238013,"avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/20238013?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/karandesai28","html_url":"https://github.com/karandesai28","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/karandesai28/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/karandesai28/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/karandesai28/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/karandesai28/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/karandesai28/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/karandesai28/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/karandesai28/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/karandesai28/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/karandesai28/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2017-03-28T03:56:34Z","updated_at":"2017-03-28T03:56:34Z","body":"I tend to have different point of view @RiyaShah mam. I'll try to re-frame here what I think @DhrutiShah  mam wanted to convey and how we can inculcate the solution to issue in our system:\r\n\r\nThere is no mechanism to convey client that his requirement specification is incomplete, unclear, shallow or detrimental. This increases heavy consumption of time and resources in asking the same in numerous email threads, and analyzing, maintaining and updating estimation after each reply. If somehow, in our system we inculcate phases like- (again leading to [this](https://github.com/Promact/requirement-management/issues/9) )\r\n\r\n1. \"Requirement's Analysis in progress\"\r\n2.  \"Waiting for client's reply\"\r\n3. \"Incomplete requirements\" (Puts the functionality on halt indicating client to add more details)\r\n4. \"Waiting for confirmation\"\r\n5. \"Ready for implementation\"\r\n\r\nThis way we can convey the clients from the system itself that developers would or would not be able to proceed based on requirements specified. This will automatically emphasize client to put relevant and all required details beforehand which will reduce query email threads, rework and time consumed in analysis.\r\n\r\nThis will also resolve client's problem of reading long thread mails as they can comment directly in the system asking what more details we want or what issue is being faced."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"karandesai28"}}