I don’t know how many of our readers have reached a conclusion to this debate, but we have for now. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to, enjoyed, or at least tolerated this ongoing discussion. Roger had some good comments in our previous article – we’ll try and address one of his points here. His point, I believe, is that using the word “requirements” to describe multiple levels of abstraction in the definition of a product is a bad thing.
Requirement Naming – Stick A Fork In It?
The discussion about requirements and the naming of things continues? Can we stick a fork in it already? Maybe, but probably not. Catch up on the cross-blog discussion with Roger and Adam.
Valuable and Functional Requirements
Roger asked some interesting questions on one of our previous posts about market and product requirements. In a couple recent articles, we presented some specific examples to clarify the semantics and language of different types of requirements. Roger asks six questions about functional and non-functional requirements in the comments on the last article. In this article, we answer them.
Alphabet Soup – Requirements Documents
This is my requirements document. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My requirements document is my life. [Kubrick, with some editing]. Michael provides a comparison of requirements documentation formats seen in the wild. A good companion to our earlier piece, Michael provides some “what to expect” guidance about how different companies use the different documentation formats. Check it out.
Requirements Documents – One Man’s Trash
…Is another man’s treasure. There are many different ways to document requirements when developing software. And there is a proliferation of requirements documents – MRD, PRD, SRS, FRS and design documents. Everyone has a perspective on what each document represents, and each person on the team has a unique perspective on what questions the document answers.
Joel Spolsky Speaks Specs
It seems that specs are like flossing: everybody knows they should be writing them, but nobody does.
Another for the wish I had said that list. Joel Sposky wrote a four part series on writing functional specifications in Oct 2000. Joel’s opening position is that all projects lasting more than a week, or with more than one developer, will be completed faster with specs than without them. He presents three giant reasons to use a requirements document as part of developing software
Three Giant Reasons
Interaction Design and Structured Requirements
subtitle: Wiegers and Cooper assimilated
Wiegers promotes structured requirements. Cooper touts Interaction Design. Both have great ideas. Both “wave their hands” at parts of the process. In this post, we’ll talk about how to combine the two philosophies to get the best of both worlds.
Requirements vs Design – Which is Which and Why?
A classic debate. It comes up often. Unfortunately, it’s a source of confusion that causes many teams to shy away from staffing, creating, or managing any formal requirements processes. There’s a discussion on Seilevel’s forum where this has been brought up again, and it’s shaping up to be a fine grudge match here in Austin. We can’t let the other folks have all the fun, so we’ll chime in too.
Requirements Document Proliferation
Too many companies don’t document their requirements.
Worse still, too many companies over-document their requirements.