Skip to main content

Requirements for Product Upgrades

A common mistake when specifying the requirements for a product upgrade is to detail each of the incremental enhancements developers should implement. While such a specification is important, it does not constitute requirements and bypasses an essential prerequisite.

Imagine you have a mature software product that is popular in the marketplace but has a key weakness: customers have difficulty using it the first time. A competitor has included a wizard-based user interface to overcome this problem. Wikipedia defines "wizard" as follows:
A wizard is an interactive computer program which acts as an interface to lead a user through a complex task, using step-by-step dialogs.
So you have a pretty straightforward solution to the problem, and you can document this solution by simply specifying what the wizard will do. But it's not a product manager's job to do so. This activity is a design activity, not a requirements activity.

A product manager should document the problem being solved, not the solution to that problem. In this case, the problem is that it takes too long for a customer to use the product for the first time. The requirement, accordingly, should be a learnability constraint. That constraint should already be included as a requirement for the existing product; the upgrade merely tightens the constraint (specifies a smaller amount of time to use the product the first time).

Often, a product upgrade does not add new requirements. Rather, it simply tightens existing nonfunctional requirements. If you find your product manager specifying a lot of new requirements for a product upgrade, she probably is shirking her responsibilities.

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