nerdexam
BCS-ISEB

ISEB-SWTINT1 · Question #48

Scenario 1 A computerised system is being created to monitor the life support system on board a submarine. It monitors air quality, water supplies and temperature. This system will be supplied and…

The correct answer is B. A technical review. Technical review is most appropriate here because a functional specification for a safety-critical system (life support on a submarine) requires technically qualified peers to evaluate correctness, consistency, and completeness - exactly what a technical review provides. It's…

Reviews

Question

Scenario 1 A computerised system is being created to monitor the life support system on board a submarine. It monitors air quality, water supplies and temperature. This system will be supplied and maintained by SubsInc. SubsInc uses the V-model for software development and conducts four levels of testing, from unit through to operational and site acceptance testing. Two key risks identified for the air quality system are: 1. If the percentage of oxygen in the air falls too low, personnel may suffocate 2. If the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air rises too high, the air may become toxic. To address these risks, the requirement specification for this system includes the following requirements: R1) Oxygen must be replaced as it is consumed. R2) Carbon dioxide must be removed from the air. These requirements must be reflected in the functional, technical and program specification documents. You are a newly recruited test manager. When creating the functional specification for the temperature control system, which of the following review types would be most recommended to resolve any issues?

Options

  • AA walkthrough.
  • BA technical review.
  • CA management review.
  • DA code inspection.

How the community answered

(60 responses)
  • A
    15% (9)
  • B
    73% (44)
  • C
    3% (2)
  • D
    8% (5)

Explanation

Technical review is most appropriate here because a functional specification for a safety-critical system (life support on a submarine) requires technically qualified peers to evaluate correctness, consistency, and completeness - exactly what a technical review provides. It's led by qualified reviewers who can identify whether the spec accurately reflects the requirements and is feasible for implementation, which is critical before the document flows further down the V-model.

Why the others are wrong:

  • A (Walkthrough) is author-led and primarily educational/informational - it lacks the rigor needed for a life-critical specification and typically doesn't produce formal defect reports
  • C (Management review) focuses on project-level concerns (schedule, budget, risk) rather than technical correctness of a specification document
  • D (Code inspection) is a formal, metrics-driven review suited to code artifacts - the functional specification exists well before any code is written in the V-model

Memory tip: Match the review type to the reviewer's role - Technical documents need Technical reviewers. If the artifact has "functional/technical" in its name, a technical review fits. Save "inspection" for code, and "management review" for project status - not documents.

Topics

#technical review#review types#functional specification#review selection

Community Discussion

No community discussion yet for this question.

Sign up to join the discussion
Full ISEB-SWTINT1 Practice