Skip to main content

Comments on Last Night's Presentation

I have four comments on Seilevel's presentation I attended last night:

First, Jerry Aubin effectively argued that requirements management is vital to the success of a software project. Clearly, one of the main problems with product development is a failure to understand what to build.

Second, Jerry implied that good requirements management requires a great deal of formality. He seemed to contrast formality with agile methods. I don't entirely agree that agile methods are informal. While it's true that proponents of agile methods point out disadvantages of formality, they also tout a structured, test-driven, disciplined, and iterative approach to product development. The bottom line is that agile methods can be every bit as formal as other methods, but just in a different way.

Third, Joe Shideler insightfully pointed out that using "models" to elicit and document requirements helps to ensure completeness and accuracy. When you impose structure on specifications, you expose gaps that you can subsequently fill.

Fourth, the presentation highlighted the differences between what Cauvin, Inc. does and what Seilevel does. Seilevel doesn't do requirements! They are extremely knowledgeable and talented about writing software specifications, but these specifications are largely business process and user interface design specifications, not requirements specifications.

Joe Shideler's presentation made this last point abundantly clear. Almost all of the examples and models he presented contained detailed user interface assumptions. His click-action-response table example went so far as to specify all of the behavior of a particular button in a UI.

When a member of the audience raised the question of the line between requirements and design, Joe defined "requirement" as "something that the business user cares about". Does the business user really care about buttons in a UI? I would argue that the business user doesn't care about the UI at all except insofar as it helps her accomplish her goals within certain constraints.

I am grateful to the Seilevel folks for raising the level of discussion about requirements and specifications. And I'm glad that we have such talented people here in Austin. But I respectfully suggest that Seilevel changes its tag line from "requirements defined" to "specifications defined".

Random and Scott Sehlhorst also attended the presentation. See Random's review here and Scott's review here.

Comments

Scott Sehlhorst said…
Hey Roger - thanks for the link. Just so folks don't get the wrong impression - that post actually is not a review of the Seilevel presentations or presenters at all.

Watching their presentations reminded me that I need to keep focusing on improving my presentation skills, and I was overdue for commenting on some of Guy Kawasaki's great posts.

So - it's a coincidence, not a review.

Scott
Roger L. Cauvin said…
Scott, I meant to link to the previous entry in your blog, which may not have been a full-fledged review, but was at least one in which you commented on the Seilevel presentation. I have corrected the link. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

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

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

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