Skip to main content

Requirements Semantics

Ironically, I've started a discussion on Seilevel's Requirements Defined message board about the definition of "requirement". In that and other forums, semantic differences and confusions have arisen, and I thought it would be worthwhile to get on some common ground regarding just what a requirement is. You can participate in the discussion here (but you'll have to register):

http://requirements.seilevel.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=149

Hope you can contribute!

UPDATE: You can find a comprehensive model of requirements concepts here.

Comments

Bruce Melendy said…
Roger - I'm enjoying and profiting from your blog posts and the discussions they've engendered. I got here looking for the excellent discussion on the Seilevel discussion board on requirements vs design that used to be here:

http://requirements.seilevel.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=149

Sadly, that is returning a 500 internal server error. Any idea whether it's still available?

Thanks,
Bruce
Bruce Melendy said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger L. Cauvin said…
Bruce, I can't find any of the old Seilevel discussion board messages, either. If anyone is able to locate them, please share a link.

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