Skip to main content

High and Low Level Requirements

I've seen some references in product management and requirements discussion forums about a supposed distinction between "high" and "low" level requirements. I have three main thoughts on this matter.

First, the distinction, if examined literally, doesn't seem to make sense. A user has certain problems she wants solved; requirements state the least stringent conditions that must hold to know that you've solved them. I don't consider problems as being either high level or low level, so why would there be "requirements levels"? Imagine saying to a user, "Oh, that's just a low level problem, so let's not worry about it now. I'm just documenting high level requirements." What?

Second, I believe the valid distinction is between requirements specifications and design specifications. If you specify user goals and constraints on those goals, you stay at a "high level", and you are documenting requirements. If you specify how the user will interact with the product in order to satisfy those goals and constraints, however, you are certainly getting into low-level details. But then you are specifying design, not requirements.

Third, both high and low level specifications are important. Denying that low-level specifications are requirements by no means diminishes their importance. It just helps to understand when you're doing requirements and when you're doing design. At Cauvin, Inc., specifying market requirements for a product is part of our product management services. We leave product design for design experts.

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

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