Skip to main content

Alternative to CRUD

So if CRUD use cases don't belong in requirements documents, what use cases do you include in their place?

First, I should reiterate that CRUD use cases may still be appropriate outside of a requirements document, such as in a design specification. As I've mentioned, once a use case author begins fleshing out text use cases with steps, she is engaging in design, anyway.

Second, when a product manager is tempted to include CRUD in a requirements document, he should instead specify the user's larger goal. Presumably, information somehow needs to get into the system and stay up to date. Why? What does having that information enable the system to do for the user? An example of a larger goal is Generate Periodic Financial Reports. In that example, the user doesn't want to enter information; she just wants her reports!

The product manager still has to capture nonfunctional requirements relating to the accuracy and timeliness of information in the system. A useful approach is to have the use cases represent on-going, end-to-end processes instead of discrete tasks the user performs. That way they encompass the nonfunctional requirements and any data administration that product designers decide to include in their design.

For example, consider a Pay Employees use case that encompasses not just one round of payroll, but the process of paying employees during the lifetime of the company. Such a process contends with the hiring and firing of employees, and changes to employee titles, salaries, and marital status. Attach nonfunctional requirements to the use case that constrain the accuracy and timeliness of the information and limit the amount of time and effort users are engaged in carrying out the process (including the administration of information).

Comments

Scott Sehlhorst said…
Definitely some great ideas about keeping requirements at a higher (more appropriate) level. I've struggled to put this in practice in some circumstances. Here's an example of how I did it - which I think is aligned with what you suggest, but if not, would love to know how you would propose doing it differently.

On a large project with a portion of the team having no experience at developing enterprise software, the developers needed someone to point out that CRUD was required in order to enable valuable use cases.

Unquestionably, the CRUD needed to be in the system. Definitely, someone needed to tell the implementation team about what CRUD was needed, and how it needed to work (user ACL, etc).

I chose the approach of identifying a "manage accounts" use case (with a system administrator as the actor). Then subordinate use cases to represent the CRUD were defined using composition.

This aggregating use case was then traced to the valuable use cases, to show the dependencies.

With a global team structure, how would you propose communicating the expectation that CRUD exist, if not using a portion of the requirements doc to do it?
Roger L. Cauvin said…
Scott, I think your idea about "composition" is part of the solution.

As my post suggests, I would express the larger functional requirement as an on-going, end-to-end use case. (I would just give the name of the use case, the actor, and any needed explanation. A use case diagram with notes often suffices) Then I would attach constraints to that functional requirement.

If I considered it important to convey the fact that CRUD-style administration would likely be part of the design, I would depict some use case "composition". For example, I might show that the Pay Employees use case includes a Manage Payroll use case, which in turn includes CRUD use cases. But I would explicitly label these lower-level use cases - and the <<include>> relationships - as a design example or suggestion.

Ideally, a product designer or architect documents these use cases instead.

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

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the