Showing posts with label stakeholders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stakeholders. Show all posts

05 December 2011

Do we really need Requirements Management?



Based on analysis and statistics from several organizations today, we know there is a critical need to adopt a requirements management practice. Let’s start by providing a definition in a simplistic manner. Requirements management represents the process of eliciting, prioritizing, documenting and agreeing on product requirements.

So now, what is the perception of product managers about the importance of this activity in an effective product management process? More specifically, what is the rationale behind adopting a structured approach for the definition of these customer needs? The justification for requirements management is to ensure that organizations meet the expectations and needs of its customers as well as its external and internal stakeholders. However, this is easier said than done. Even when organizations adopt an engineering approach towards software development, the most common pitfall is the customer's ability to verbalize what they want and need in a software product. So the overriding problem is how to ensure that the consumer needs are accurately articulated and analyzed by the product management team before they sent off for development.

We know and understand the importance of this up front elicitation and analysis activity, but we rarely spend the time required to do a good job. On one project I managed, the customer was very upset that we were spending so much time documenting their requirements for a website. Every time they would voice their concern I would ask them a simple question: Do you want the product to do what you expect it to do? Or is just any solution good enough for you. I asked that every time, without fail, when they complained. Of course they wanted it to do what they expected. I kept telling them that they needed to trust me, and believe that this work was essential to getting them the software product that they wanted and their customers would use. They relented. After a few requirements sessions the customer came up to me after a meeting and said “You are absolutely right about this. We have to do this.” Her change of heart came because we found a flaw in our logic that had not been verbalized by them. It was a simple thing. We were going through a use case on transferring funds and had an alternate path when the customer had only one account. The customer asked a simple question. Why do they even see the transfer funds option if they have one account? Good question. So we went back and rewrote the parent use case to remove that option for those customers. I pointed out how easy it was to correct that logic now instead of after they got the product in their hands. I also pointed out that there would be many more of these discoveries that we could correct in the requirements. That customer and I became great friends. The product was delivered and they were happy. There were some bugs and problems. I wish I could say it was bug free. But there were no major issues that required a lot of rework. When I moved on and a new analyst was working with them to document requirements for an upgrade, I heard the customer say “We want to spend time on these requirements so we get the right product at the end.” I felt that a huge battle had been won.

So all I can say is stick to your guns. Don’t let you customers tell you that you don’t need to spend time on requirements elicitation and analysis. Help them understand why they do need these activities and why the time will be well spent. Every time you find a problem and correct it in the requirements remind them of the time and money you just saved. We have an obligation to not only document and analyze requirements, but to help our customers understand why requirements management is critical for them as well.

I think it is obvious from this discussion that I believe in requirements management as a critical piece of any development project. I cannot, with a good conscience, work any other way. I hope that is true for you as well.

By: Marcia Stinson

29 July 2011

Shortening the Requirements Definition Phase on Your Project

Have you ever asked yourself why your requirements definition phase seems to take so long? On even short projects the definition phase can take as long as the implementation phase. Here are some suggested reasons why this may be the case.

1. Your elicitation sessions are unplanned and ad hoc. Planning your elicitation session and identifying key stakeholders is a key activity during requirements definition. Planning your sessions and setting them up ahead of time give stakeholders an opportunity to set aside the required time to both prepare and attend the sessions. Without this planning you may miss key stakeholders, requiring additional sessions to get their inputs.

2. There are too many attendees in the session. Have you ever attended a requirements gathering session with 15-20 people in the room? Have you asked why some of these people were providing requirements for a system they would never use? When you are planning your sessions identify key people who are required to attend. Keep the list to approximately 5-7 people. If additional people “show up” for the elicitation sessions, make it clear they are welcome to listen but that you are looking for input from the key stakeholders you identified. This is a great topic to discuss during the project kick-off as well.

3. The elicitation discussions quickly become revolved around technical and implementation issues. One of the key factors during elicitation sessions that can get you bogged down is focusing on how you are going to solve the problem versus just understanding the problem. Keep the discussion away from technical details and implementation solutions. Users will tend to lose interest in these discussions and you will lose valuable time.

4. The elicitation discussions wander off topic. Again, a key to preventing this is planning. Identify topics to be covered during an elicitation session and review them at the beginning of the session. Be a strong facilitator and keep the discussion on track. Identify a parking lot of items for later discussion versus sorting them out during the elicitation session.

Hopefully these suggestions will help guide your definition phase to a clear and timely conclusion.

By: Marcia Stinson