The premise of this paper is that introducing quality assurance (QA) processes into undergraduate classes on software requirements analysis will improve the resulting product, and with this, there can be no argument. The authors develop their theme by introducing two assignments into an undergraduate requirements analysis course at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and measuring the changes that occurred.

The authors admit that their research was “not a complete success,” and recommend further study. There are two primary problems with their results. The first is that they created their own instrument to measure learning, claiming that there were no standardized instruments for evaluating learning effectiveness. While there is no universal standard to measure learning, there are a number of well-known instruments available that can be obtained from professional training organizations, such as the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). These will measure learning more accurately than the authors’ self-developed product.

The second problem is the methodology used to instill the learning in the students. The primary approach was for the students to criticize the work of the other students in the class. Unfortunately, the students were not trained in how to do this, so their QA reviews were highly inconsistent. The authors themselves admit that many students “put minimal effort into the exercise.”

While the authors’ original premise is valid and worth researching, this paper provides no particular solution or guidance on how to do this effectively.