Skip to main content

Requirements and Apple's "Time Machine"

Apple's Leopard OS will include a service called "Time Machine". It backs up users' files automatically and transparently so that users can restore their machine to any previous state.

The remarkable aspect of this backup service is its ease of use. Consequently, it is interesting to explore it from a requirements standpoint.

Remember why CRUD is crud? CRUD requirements assume that users actually want to create, update, and delete information. But users don't really want to create, update, and delete information. They want to access it to achieve some larger goal. Enabling the user to create, update, and delete information is one way to manage and make the information available, but it is by no means a utopian design.

Remember Gmail and the 'delete' button? Why on Earth would anyone want to delete e-mail? Notwithstanding some privacy concerns and obsessive-compulsive issues, what users really want is to be able to find, read, and respond to messages of interest. Deleting e-mail helps eliminate clutter that can interfere with these goals, but it's not an end in itself. Thus it is not a requirement.

Similarly, conventional requirements documentation for a backup service would include specifications such as:
The system shall enable the user to backup files.
Or a use case such as:
Create Backup
Yet these specifications and use cases do not represent real requirements. No user wants to backup files. They want to be able to restore files (or, better yet, just have their files available). Backing up the files is an unfortunate design necessity to which the user would prefer to be completely oblivious.

A product manager who represents these design specifications as requirements is doing the company a disservice. It constrains product designers' creativity. Instead of thinking creatively about how they can completely shield the user from the burden of backing up files, they assume that the user must be saddled with this task, and any design work merely tinkers around the edges of making it easy.

Comments

Anton Chuvakin said…
Super-insightful point about backups and restors! I am going to send it to a few folks in our company ...
Roger L. Cauvin said…
Thanks for the comment, Anton!

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

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

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