Skip to main content

Problem Statements

Over on the Requirements Defined blog, Joe writes:
A clear problem statement is, in many cases, just as important as the requirements themselves.
I agree completely that clear problem statements are of utmost importance in product management. However, I don't think Joe shares my view that problem statements are requirements, or at least are logical transpositions thereof.

If the problem is
It takes more than five seconds for a user to make a reservation.
Then the requirement is
The total amount of time it takes for a user to make a reservation shall not exceed five seconds.
Joe goes on to explore how you can further analyze and decompose problem statements:
For example, a company may know that their overall processing time for orders is too long. They may not, however, understand all of the individual problem statements that add up to that company-wide issue. Breaking this problem down into individual subcomponents for analysis and definition requires the exact same skill set used in solution analysis.
Again, I agree that problem decomposition is an essential product management activity. Where Joe and I seem to disagree here is over whether "subproblems" serve as the foundation for requirements - or for design.

Typically, customers do not care about "subproblems" except insofar as they contribute to the larger problem they want to solve. "Subproblems" contain assumptions about the way the product or organization currently operates. A new product will often dispense with at least some of these assumptions. Therefore, which "subproblems" you choose to address is a matter of design.

Part of a product manager's role is to find the right place to fit into, or even transform, customers' processes. In this sense, a product manager engages in some of what we might call "business process design". However, the product manager should always strive to select the highest-level problem to solve, to the extent feasible.

Comments

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