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

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