Skip to main content

3 Types of Requirement

Priority-driven processes only work if you can model the process around task patterns for a single requirement. There is little point in prioritizing say, coding over testing, or design over specification, since all these activities must take place at some stage, even if they happen inside an activity that is called something else. But are all requirements the same (in the sense of using the same processes) or are some requirements more the same than others?!

Recently I was asked to advise on the requirements capture process for an organization wanting to apply agile techniques in a controlled environment. I came up with some slightly different names for types of requirement, though I think the concepts will be familiar to you if you've analyzed other software development methods. The requirements types (shortened to PCF) are as follows:
  • Business problem statements (Problems)
  • Solution contraint statements (Constraints)
  • Solution feature statements (Features)
I've written elsewhere about FDD, which provides a very good process for managing and prioritizing features. However often projects applying processes like FDD do not pay enough attention to the other types of requirement that precede features.

Problems, for example, should identify issues in terms of a measurable aspect of the current solution and the degree to which a performance improvement would overcome it. Constraints express aspects of the solution that the current designers are not expected to change (though they should also state the rationale behind the constraint, and how and by whom it may be changed if justification exists). Only by considering all of these three types of requirement can the essential requirements of a system be captured.


Popular posts from this blog

"Plan of Intent" and "Plan of Record"

Ron Lichty is well known in the Software Engineering community on the West Coast as a practitioner, as a seasoned project manager of many successful ventures and in a number of SIGs and conferences in which he is active. In spite of knowing Ron by correspondence over a long period of time it was only at JavaOne this year that we finally got together and I'm very glad we did.

Ron wrote to me after our meeting:

I told a number of people later at JavaOne, and even later that evening at the Software Engineering Management SIG, about xProcess. It really looks good. A question came up: It's a common technique in large organizations to keep a "Plan of Intent" and a "Plan of Record" - to have two project plans, one for the business partners and boss, one you actually execute to. Any support for that in xProcess?

Good question! Here's my reply...

There is support in xProcess for an arbitrary number of target levels through what we call (in the process definitions) P…

Does your Definition of Done allow known defects?

Is it just me or do you also find it odd that some teams have clauses like this in their definition of done (DoD)?
... the Story will contain defects of level 3 severity or less only ... Of course they don't mean you have to put minor bugs in your code - that really would be mad - but it does mean you can sign the Story off as "Done"if the bugs you discover in it are only minor (like spelling mistakes, graphical misalignment, faults with easy workarounds, etc.). I saw DoDs like this some time ago and was seriously puzzled by the madness of it. I was reminded of it again at a meet-up discussion recently - it's clearly a practice that's not uncommon.

Let's look at the consequences of this policy. 

Potentially for every User Story that is signed off as "Done" there could be several additional Defect Stories (of low priority) that will be created. It's possible that finishing a Story (with no additional user requirements) will result in an increase in…

Understanding Cost of Delay and its Use in Kanban

Cost of Delay (CoD) is a vital concept to understand in product development. It should be a guide to the ordering of work items, even if - as is often the case - estimating it quantitatively may be difficult or even impossible. Analysing Cost of Delay (even if done qualitatively) is important because it focuses on the business value of work items and how that value changes over time. An understanding of Cost of Delay is essential if you want to maximise the flow of value to your customers.

Don Reinertsen in his book Flow [1] has shown that, if you want to deliver the maximum business value with a given size team, you give the highest priority, not to the most valuable work items in your "pool of ideas," not even to the most urgent items (those whose business value decays at the fastest rate), nor to your smallest items. Rather you should prioritise those items with the highest value of urgency (or CoD) divided by the time taken to implement them. Reinertsen called this appro…