Skip to main content

Use Case Versions

Last year, I touched on the concept of use case versions. A use case version is a use case with simplifying assumptions attached to it. Use case versions help with incremental delivery, scheduling, and product roadmaps.

Use case versions help with incremental delivery by enabling shorter iterations and releases. With incremental delivery, you should be iterating on the development of the product and "releasing" the product for testing and feedback after each iteration. But often a use case is far too complex to implement within a single iteration time-box. In such situations, you can implement a succession of simplified versions of the use case instead.

For example, imagine your organization is implementing an e-commerce web site. One of the highest-level use cases (perhaps even the only use case at the requirements level) is Purchase Items. You've attached various nonfunctional requirements to this use case regarding usability, payment flexibility, etc. It's unlikely that your developers will be able to deliver a fully tested implementation of the use case that satisfies all of these requirements in a single two week iteration.

What to do? Throw up your hands and extend the length of the iteration? No need. Instead, divide the use case into versions:
Purchase Items (cash only, no receipt)
Purchase Items (cash, receipt)
Purchase Items (cash and check, receipt)
Purchase Items (cash, check, credit, receipt)
Now your developers can realistically implement each version of the use case within the two-week time-box. Furthermore, they can deliver concrete, end-to-end user value at the end of each iteration.

Note that the simplying assumptions in this example were feature assumptions. It is a feature of the system to support credit payments. It is a feature of the system to support receipts. Such features represent design choices to satisfy the nonfunctional requirements. Scheduling the incremental delivery of a system is not a requirements activity.

You can, however, divide use cases into versions along nonfunctional requirements lines. To do so, you loosen the constraints (rather than features) on the first iteration and attach progressively more stringent constraints in succeeding iterations. My next entry will explore a specific example of constraint-based use case versions.

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