What you suggest is fine from the point of view of the Systems Engineering purists.
(There will be a few Agile devotees who think its all way overt the top... and you should just get out and do stuff with the usual reviews, etc).
However, you need to take into account what you are doing, and who you are doing it for.
Doing a project for yourself is different to doing it for somebody else - for money.
When you work for somebody else (either in a company or on contract) the ONLY means of communication are speaking, and writing. (Ultimately there will be a product or result which can be assessed.)
The whole point of a specification is to try and reduce the cost of making fixes and changes that come later. You may have seen the graphs showing cost of making fixes at different stages of a project, it goes something like this:
A fix made to a dumb idea costs $1
A fix made when the dumb idea made it into a specification (that has to be updated) costs $10
A fix made when you have built a prototype costs $100
A fix made about the time you are doing an acceptance before shipping costs $1000
A fix made after you have shipped and pissed off your customers costs $10000.
So what you write in a specification is pretty important.
To argue that you should have no specification at all is naive, foolish, and probably dangerous.
One of the biggest problems you have in writing a specification is knowing when you have gone too far. This varies depending on the size of the project. For example, a project taking 1-2 people about a year should have somewhere between about 2 and 4 WEEKS in total spent on specification... which includes the investigation of feasibility... the spec to be written by the people who actually do the work not some high falutin analyst type who does not know the gory details. A project taking 10 people 2 years needs a lot longer.
Now for some comments on your various points:
YES, write this. Keep it to 1-2 paragraphs, 1/2 page max.
MAYBE. Only if it adds value to everything else.
ESSENTIAL. Shows ALL inputs and outputs. Shows context. You can (and should) spend a reasonable amount of time on this.
- Critical Project Success Factors
MAYBE. Surely if the project meets the requirements its a success. I think this is not really needed.
NO. Your context diagram does this.
YES. Try and keep it brief.
- Actors (Data Sources, System Actors)
MAYBE. This sounds like technical gory bits of design to me which should not be in a FUNCTIONAL specification.
MAYBE. Put this (these) in an appendix. Explain with words. Try to keep these to a small number. I have seen suggestions that a project should have not more than 8 Use Cases explained in detail. Don't cover all the "unahppy" paths or you will never finish.
It is very rare for any piece of s/w to have a single Use Case / Use Case Diagram.
MAYBE. Only if it adds significant value, else you are wasting your time.
MAYBE. Only if it adds significant value, else you are wasting your time.
YES - if relevant.
YES - mandatory. Must say what the thing must do (and with what level of performance).
MAYBE - if there is anything special.
MAYBE - if useful.
- Domain Model (Data model)
MAYBE - if useful.
- Flow Scenarios (Success, alternate…)
MAYBE - if useful.
- Time Schedule (Task Management)
NO. This is not what should be in a spec. Its about schedule, planning, etc.
MAYBE. Goals are not requirements, they are vague fluffy wouldn't-it-be-nice things, which serve to muddy the waters. Try and avoid.
YES. Essential. Says what the thing must do.
NO. Part of planning and management, not the requirements of the thing you are making.
Explanation: I've been writing specifications for products, software, and complex systems for over 15 years. All commercial stuff. Mostly commercially successful and made a lot of money for various employers. Including specification for Agile s/w development where you still need a spec before you leap into the development. The ACTUAL development can be done in whatever process you want, but in the end you must have 3 things for success:
Know what you want to do. AND WRITE IT DOWN. (Thats a spec.)
Do stuff to meet #1 above.
Do some level of acceptance testing of the thing against the spec (which is essentially "did you do what you said you would do").
No, no, no, you can't separate something that is intrinsically a part of the job.
Let programmers code any crap that makes all tests tick green and than tell the other team to rewrite everything to make it also work fast? Doesn't work that way.
It is a job of the same programmer who writes the code to also think about performance. If you free them of that obligation, what would motivate them to learn and make things better each time?
Having said that, there is a career path if you choose to specialize in performance tuning. But it's not like a daily job, it is rather you offering your consulting services to various clients to help with their performance issues. But obviously to be able to do that you must already have passed beyond being able to write just working code and have gained insight into how make working code a fast code.
Best Answer
You should review some of their code and let them review each others. It's not that you want to be the Check In Police, but want to provide feedback as often as possible. Being a reviewer can reinforce their understanding. Let them review your code as well. Be the model.
Side Note: there should be no surprises during an anual review.