Skip to main content

BUFR

If you are an executive at a software company, your development team may be familiar with agile or iterative software development.

At first, its advocates lamented "big up-front design" (BUFD). Software organizations that try to design the product up front in excrutiating detail waste a lot of effort, as implementing and testing the software uncovers many unforeseen problems. Agile development attempts to exercise the architecture (high-level design) and expose these problems early. It typically does so by "releasing" the software early for testing. It thereby attacks architectural risks early in the development process and defers the design details.

More recently, advocates of agile development have realized that a more serious problem than architectural risk is requirements risk. You never know all of the requirements until you release the product. If your organization engages in "big up-front requirements" (BUFR), you tend to waste even more time than with BUFD. You're better off attacking requirements risks early in the process - again, by "releasing" the software early for testing and feedback - after having defined the key requirements but having deferred the details.

Since market problems and needs should drive the requirements for a product, the product manager must work collaboratively with the development team to iterate on the requirements. A product manager who engages in BUFR and then throws the requirements over the wall to developers subjects the entire product development effort to risk - requirements risk.

UPDATE: Some people refer to BUFD and BUFR as 'BDUF' ("big design up front") and 'BRUF' ("big requirements up front"), respectively.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

What Product Managers Can Learn from the Apple iPod

The Story When Apple unveiled its iPod digital music player back in October 2001, I dismissed it as a  parity product . I already owned the Cowon iAUDIO CW100 MP3 player, loaded with my favorite tunes. There was Apple, generating great hype over the iPod as if it were a breakthrough product. The idea of a portable digital music player was nothing new. The first mass-produced MP3 players came out in 1998. In late 2001, the concept may have been new to a lot of Apple customers, but it wasn't new to me. I proudly showed my MP3 player to friends when they gushed about the iPod. Thus Apple's iPod was not an innovative product in and of itself. Years later, however, I realized the significance of ecosystem of which the iPod was a part. Apple had released iTunes (with technology purchased from  SoundJam MP ) and created the iTunes Store for finding and downloading music. Unlike Napster , it was a safe and legal way of distributing and acquiring music. The prior way of playing

Stop Validating and Start Falsifying

The product management and startup worlds are buzzing about the importance of "validation". In this entry, I'll explain how this idea originated and why it's leading organizations astray. Why Validate? In lean startup circles, you constantly hear about "validated learning" and "validating" product ideas: The assumption is that you have a great product idea and seek validation from customers before expending vast resources to build and bring it to market. Indeed, it makes sense to transcend conventional approaches to making product decisions . Intuition, sales anecdotes, feature requests from customers, backward industry thinking, and spreadsheets don't form the basis for sound product decisions. Incorporating lean startup concepts , and a more scientific approach to learning markets, is undoubtedly a sounder approach. Moreover, in larger organizations, sometimes further in the product life-cycle, everyone seems to have an opinio