Skip to main content

Constraint-Based Use Case Versions

As I mentioned yesterday, when you divide a use case into versions and distribute them among iterations, you can divide them along feature lines or requirements lines. When you divide use cases into versions along requirements lines, you relax certain constraints (nonfunctional requirements metrics) that are attached to the use case. Your team implements the most relaxed version in the first iteration. The team then implements progressively more stringent constraints in each succeeding iteration, culminating in a final iteration in which they implement the original, unrelaxed constraint.

Imagine a use case for your product is to maintain a comfortable temperature. Some of the associated nonfunctional requirements are usability constraints limiting the amount of time and effort it takes for a user to achieve this goal. Yet it could be that the functionality - not the usability - is the most challenging and risky requirement for developers to implement.

To enable the developers to implement a version of the use case in the first iteration, you can relax the usability constraints so they can focus on the functionality. As they iterate, the developers progressively incorporate the more stringent constraints:
Maintain Comfortable Temperature (low usability)
Maintain Comfortable Temperature (medium usability)
Maintain Comfortable Temperature (high usability)
Keep in mind that the purpose of iterating is to accommodate change. You should expect the use case versions in the iteration plan to change as you learn from early iterations. Sometimes these changes will be as simple as tweaking the stringency of the constraints. In other cases, you may have to take the more serious step of relaxing other constraints or deferring the implementation of use case versions further in the iteration cycle.

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