Skip to main content

Simple Requirements Example

The example below is for people with an analytical bent who are interested in understanding my definition of "requirement":
"A requirement states the least stringent condition that must hold to solve or avoid a problem that a prospective customer faces."
Assume we are developing a temperature control system, and the problems that prospective customers face include:
  1. Prospective customers feel too cold or too hot in their homes.
  2. Prospective customers will feel frustrated if it takes more than one minute of their time per day to maintain a comfortable temperature.
We would likely include in our requirements a Maintain Comfortable Temperature use case and attach an ease of use constraint to it.

Here are two possible ease of use constraints:

a. The system will be a thermostat with a dial to set the desired temperature, a switch that determines cooling or heating mode, and an on/off switch.
b. For a user that fits profile 'x', it should take no longer one minute of his time per day to maintain a comfortable temperature in his home.
It is conceivable that we could solve problem 2 with a temperature control system that did not have the user interface specified in constraint 'a'. Therefore, ease of use constraint 'a' is not a requirement, as it is not the least stringent condition that must hold to solve problem 2.

Constraint 'b', on the other hand, flatly restates the prospect problem in terms of a negative condition. It is therefore a requirement.

Comments

Scott Sehlhorst said…
Hey. I chuckled when I read this. Not only did you support your definition of a requirement, but you also supported my definition of a requirement.

Who knows - perhaps in all of the real world examples, we actually agree on this, even though we use very different language to describe our perspectives.

I completely agree that example "a" specifies the implementation and is therefore a solution-design artifact and not a requirement.

I also noticed that you had an ideation step in going to example "b" - you decided that the problem of regulating a 'target temperature' was the problem you were choosing to capture as a requirement for the system.

You could have chosen to buy the person a wardrobe of layered clothing that they could change throughout the day (that's what I do when my wife is in charge of the thermostat). You could have proscribed a program of temperature desensitization, so that the person had a broader definition of "comfortable". Or you could have used hypnosis to make the person unaware of anything short of life-threatening extremes.
Roger L. Cauvin said…
Well, I tried to be careful here. I'm not sure if what you call "ideation" is a good thing when it comes to requirements.

I framed one of the problems as the ease (in terms of time expended) of maintaining a comfortable temperature. Given this problem, there was no "ideation" in expressing the requirement as a limit on the amount of time it should take to maintain a comfortable temperature. The requirement did nothing more than restate the problem in terms of its inverse.

Perhaps the problem statement contains some implicit "ideation". To the extent that's the case, I think the problem statement (and thus the requirement) is flawed.

Don't get me wrong. "Ideation" sounds like a great thing. But it seems more like design than requirements to me.
Roger L. Cauvin said…
Rereading this entry and comments, I now don't think it's fair to contend that it contained any "ideation". By "maintain comfortable temperature", I did not mean setting a target temperature. Certainly, an A/C system with a thermostat might be a natural solution to the problem. But I explicitly rejected the alleged constraint containing that assumption as design. My intent was to frame the problem of feeling too hot or too cold as a requirement. That's what I meant by "temperature". Perhaps "perceived temperature" would have been clearer.

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