Jul 5, 2016
Excellent! There is a lot of great practical info you can apply in real life. I would suggest instructors include some more info about SPM in the framework of startups (rather than client framework).
Jan 30, 2018
It is very good knowledge. But my English poor for that, was, sometimes. So was hard to understand and catch information. As a result 90% for grade. It is ok. But it is ok.\n\nViam supervadet vadens
创建者 Brigita Š•
Apr 18, 2016
创建者 Mario A•
Dec 26, 2017
This is a great course that is very informative and well-taught. The only issue I have is with the peer-graded assignments. I started this course in November 2017 and was cruising until I got to the second week, which involved a peer-graded wireframe assignment. These peer-graded assignments don't open up until the week the course starts (in this case, the wireframe assignment was due December 18, 2017), so I while I was finished with the first week in mid-November, I was forced to wait until Mid-December to submit an assignment. I had to go back and basically re-learn that module in order to submit my assignment. I like the peer-graded assignments, and I like giving feedback to my peers, but I don't like waiting around to complete an assignment.
创建者 Maria M•
May 20, 2020
My rating is 4.5/5 stars. The content is thorough and the production quality is excellent. The only 2 things I didn't like were: 1) some of the resources provided are dated and have broken links; and 2) the peer-grading of assignments offers only objective grading, whereas course content is best aligned with subjective grading. Example: the wireframes exercise > objectively, you can hit all of the points on the grading scheme, but the quality of the wireframes is up to the marker and I'm assuming that most people who taking this course aren't UX designers or experienced Product Managers and thus cannot offer an adequate subjective assessment.
创建者 Dominic F•
Jan 20, 2020
The training materials are very well presented and easy to digest. I got plenty out of it. But the certificates are really, really easy to pass and I think it devalues them somewhat. If you're interested in this because you just want to learn for the sake of learning, or to supplement any practical knowledge of product management that you may already have through experience in your career (as was my case) and to just understand things better, this is great. But I wouldn't expect to get a new job/change career because of any certificate you earn from this course or others in the specialisation.
创建者 Kirill K•
Sep 28, 2016
Thank you very much for the course - it was really interesting and I've found some useful techniques to be used in my work. However, there are some moments to be improved to make course better: correct questions statements and lack of communication between partipants (there were a lot of interesting topics to discuss but only very few users were involved in discussions, thus, discussion were very poor).
But still thank you very much again!!!:))
创建者 C C•
Jan 15, 2019
This has been one of the better courses I've taken on Coursera. The Supplemental Material is better curated. Other courses just include Wikipedia links. For someone new to the field, specialty links are more helpful and provides a starting list of good websites to reference later. I do wish the course took a deeper dive into the topic and provided more examples.
创建者 Edgar G S•
Dec 26, 2018
Excellent course, friendly and simple, compact but well-balanced and comprehensive, very good quality in contents and resources.
As suggestion, you could improve in the examples and scenarios to make them more closer to real life, try to give a "taste" of the real world in the views of formats, forms, diagrams, docs, interfaces, etc.
创建者 Mohammad A•
Apr 11, 2020
I've enjoyed it so much as I 've learned how to deal with a wide range of tools through which I can produce high-quality requirements. The course is well-organized , tutors are skilled and well-prepared, and the resources and tests provided are meant to ultimately deepen your knowledge in this field. Thank you
创建者 MAGDELENAT P•
Jul 18, 2016
Interesting but would gain by digging more on each topic. And give more feedback from the real life. The worst part, for me, was one assignment (ambiguities) that I thought was neither well designed nor easy to peer review (due to its desing ;-). Then again the course was nice to follow and interesting!
创建者 Benjamin G J•
May 26, 2016
It is pretty solid. I can see that issues with quiz question ambiguity and under-checking of learning criteria are getting better. Problems were not serious, they are better in this course than in the last, and they are better in the next one, and they are better in the next one than this one.
创建者 Dejan T•
Apr 2, 2021
Useful. I think the quizzes take up to much time of the presentations. The presentations and quizzes are good, but maybe skip straight to the quiz questions without reading them aloud first. Often you read a bit faster that you speak, and you need to review the quiz scenario text anyway.
创建者 Kevin S•
May 23, 2017
I really enjoyed the course, specially the pair-reviewed work, as it is a great chance to learn from others and get real feedback for the work you do.
It is an amazing course, even for those with technical background, it gives great detail about the content.
创建者 Ayrton G B F•
Mar 26, 2017
It's a excellent course about writing requirements from clients' stories. I just wish I dad seen more techniques about linking business requirements (high level requirements ) to software engineering requirements (low level requirements) and its management.
Jan 20, 2016
Amazing course introducing real and workable concepts. I will be applying this to my workflow immediately.
Only downfalls being a little ambiguity in some questions and some `multiple choice` questions only allow one answer (radio buttons).
创建者 Claudia A•
Aug 26, 2020
All content of this course it's very useful. Now I realize the important that understand the client needs to produce a good software solutions. I am glad to have enrrollmented and I am going to keep learn more about it.
创建者 Dumidu H•
Nov 27, 2016
A good course to revise the concepts of capturing software requirements learned during a software engineering bachelors and to gather some of the newer techniques used in the industry such as use of user stories.
创建者 Keith v E•
Sep 23, 2019
Overall the content is good - I have found going through the process and the rather challenging peer review assignments does reinforce the concepts and at least makes sure one is focused on the material!
创建者 monica r•
Dec 18, 2015
Good overview. Wish there were more take away documents as well as links to additional information that summarized content in each section so you had a course book with terms at the end.
创建者 Masood N•
Nov 12, 2019
I found weeks three and four a bit difficult to grasp. Lots of vague definitions that were a bit too close to one another to be distinct. Overall however, very useful course. Good work.
创建者 Sharie S•
Apr 3, 2017
I like that it took the knowledge I'd acquired over 20 years of working in the technology field and applied it to the new organized business analysis field that has become the norm.
创建者 Loni W•
Jan 30, 2018
Client Needs and Software Requirements is extremely informative and really identifies many of the "gotchas" when eliciting requirements. Excellent for beginners and i
创建者 Feriel G•
Nov 3, 2020
Les cours sont clair dans un format court, on a pas le temp de s'ennuyer. grace à ce cours j'ai confirmer certainnes techniques et j'en ai appris d'autres nouvelles
创建者 Juan F•
Jun 10, 2020
it was good, and really need to check many times videos due to not bee a english native speaker, is it possuble to have subtitles in spanish our portugueese?
创建者 Luna L•
Sep 22, 2017
It's a great course for complete newbies. However, I think that management of changing requirements is an important topic and it wasn't included in the course.
创建者 Mara A•
Sep 19, 2017
Very good overview of software requirements. This course will help business analysts who are member of development teams employing the agile methodology.