Skip to main content

Waterfall, Market Research, and Requirements

Over at the Product Management View, Joel St-Denis recently wrote:

My personal opinion is that the Waterfall approach to development is better aligned with the responsibilities of solid product management, as it provides more reasonable periods of time to properly research your market and better define your requirements.
While I agree that dedicating sufficient time to market research and requirements definition is important, I do not agree with Joel that a waterfall approach to product development is advantageous. In fact, I believe that a waterfall approach hinders valuable market research and requirements definition.

Waterfall approaches assume a phase-by-phase sequence to product development. Your product manager researches the market and defines the requirements, and the development team analyzes the requirements and domain, designs the product, implements it, and tests it. By definition, once the team finishes a phase, it moves on to the next phase and does not revisit previous phases.

Agile approaches, by contrast, assume an iterative approach. The team performs the same activities as in waterfall but iterates on them (revisits each phase repeatedly and incrementally produces a demonstratable version of the product). The assumption is that, after some initial research, the best way to learn about the needs of the market and the challenges in meeting them is to put something in front of the customer.

Go here for more details on the difference between waterfall and agile approaches to product development.

I suspect Joel is unaware of the primary rationale for an agile approach. The main reason to use an agile approach is precisely so the product manager has an opportunity to "test" the market and thereby better understand its needs. To the extent the product manager dedicates less time researching the market up front (BUFR), she spends more time getting valuable feedback after each iteration of development.

Market research is notoriously unreliable when it focuses on abstractions or hypotheticals. A truly innovative product is by definition a hypothetical before it is developed. If they are dormant, even the market problems that the product solves may be too abstract to research reliably and comprehensively.

The way to make market research reliable is to make it more concrete and more real. Your product manager should research the market before product development begins. After a point, however, the best research tool at her disposal is a demonstration of a working product. A demonstration makes the research concrete and real.

By arming her with concrete and real product demonstrations after each iteration, an agile approach to product development enables your product manager to conduct reliable, comprehensive market research.


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