Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Probably an easy one:
Are there any rules of thumb or pointers that could help recognise political requirements?
Let’s say one of stakeholders (your boss, a head of another department or an actual user) asks for a feature or particular characteristic of software being developed by yourself or your team. Is there a litmus test to determine whether requirement is political?
This question is really simple and is not about how to deal with political requirements or whether they are bad or good for software. How do you tell that whatever you have been asked to do is to pursue someone’s tacit or actually openly stated political agenda?
Will it really help you to know? I mean - if you're already embroiled in political games you'll know anyway. If you're not it isn't something you'll be able to use.
If you're going to have to implement the feature anyway I'd say just get on with it. Finding out that it's part of some management game will only demotivate you.
That said - if you're working on the sort of application that's so themware that you can't tell whether it's a real user feature or a political lever of some sort then it's probably a safe assumption that everything is political.
I would say that you should assume that all requirements are political.
If you are in a situation where more than one person is responsible for determining the set of features you implement, then every feature is effectively a negotiation between those people. That negotiation makes those features political.
However, even if there is only person deciding what features ship, there is still a pretty strong chance that those decisions are political. In any organization of reasonable size (say more than ten people), you are going to have politics. The politics in that situation will differ than the "design by committee situation". They will focus on currying the favor of the person who decides which features ship, rather than on "if you support my feature, I'll support yours" that exists in the committee scenario. That process, however, is still political.
I'm not trying to say that it's not possible to have a development environment free of politics. It is. However, I would say that to pull of it off that you need:
A small, tightly knit team
A boss that focuses on creating an environment that fosters creativity, and delegating creative ownership, rather than focusing on control over the creative process.
Smart, highly talented and creative people that share a strong sense of purpose and aesthetic values.
Missing any one of those things, you are doomed to a repetitive deluge of office politics.
The best idea is to find out what all the features are to be used for, i.e. find out not only how a feature is to be implemented, but also learn why it should be done. It really helps to know the background of the desired solution. It might even allow you to suggest an alternate feature set that might better suit your customer (maybe even play your own political game).
As long as there is anything you do not understand, do not do the project. It will only cause problems at some point.
Obviously it's a tricky question and much depends on your definition of the 'political'.
I would start with the simple question:
* Are the authors/originators of the requirement really using the software in question?
The requirement could come from your boss but it could be a translated valid requirement of the real user
Here are some I've seen:
It directly contradicts other requirements
It is clearly not feasible technically
It is "out in left field" ... it doesn't fit into the defined problem space
It contradicts common sense
BEWARE ... sometimes this results from your use-cases being wrong or incomplete. I've also purposely allowed some of these to proceed to development (e.g Eye-candy that sells the product but is useless or at least generally not used by the operators).
Use the SCRUM approach. Don't describe a feature as
"It should be doing this and that in the following way"
While the sentence above describes all you need to know to implement the feature, it does not justify the feature. My SCRUM book says features should be written down as a story. A story looks like this:
"As a <user-role>
I need a <functionality>
So that I get <business value>"
A feature that cannot be justified using such a story is an unjustified feature and thus there is no use to actually implement it.
E.g.
"As a visitor of a web portal I need a way to authenticate, so I can access my customer data, but nobody else can"
Now you don't only know that you need an authentication for your web portal, you also know who needs it (the visitors, basically everyone planing on using it more intensively) and you also know why it is needed, as it gives the user some value.
Other examples:
"As a passenger I need a list of all my booked journeys, so that I know when I'm going to travel where and won't lose the overview"
"As a book keeper, I'd like to have the sales tax being automatically printed to each bill based on customer data, so that I don't have to enter it manually each time I'm printing a bill"
If every feature needs to be written like that, you'll automatically see if a feature is for the customer, because it is really necessary, or just something your boss/company wants to have and also why they want to have it (what is the big picture behind it? Why are they doing it?).
The use of ambiguous words or phrases is often political.
However,
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
... and how to prove to management that use-cases can be informal and still useful?
Hi folks,
I came in the middle of a project and found out that there are no use-cases, user-stories, requirements, neither anything similar to a specification. Since the deadlines are short, the current dev team don't want to spend time on such things. I wanted to join that project, but by digging more I found out that the current development adds features just by considering their "wow-effect" and chooses what to add just by using the easiness that the underlying technology provides. I was surprised how they have managed to go so far (more than 4 months) without requirements, but this is what we have now. I believe that the way they have chosen is the most sure one to kill the product which has a good marketing value.
Am I right, and what would you do in a similar circumstances to prove the dev team/management to make use-cases/requirements before moving forward? Thanks in advance, kh.
P.S. Two copies of Cockburn's book are on the bookshelf...
You should give your colleagues the use-case spiel :D Tell them that use-cases are useful as they're:
A way of capturing business processes in a manner which is reasonably comprehensible by all stakeholders. This helps to bridge the gap between programmers, clients and users.
Traceable units of functionality. Use-cases are formed (ideally) in the analysis phase, referenced in the design phase, and can be used as sources for test cases later on.
Quick and easy to write up and useful, even if informal.
If you need more ammunition, you might want to read Use cases - Yesterday, today and tomorrow by none other than Ivar Jacobson.
If your colleagues still can't see the potential usefulness of use cases as a business analysis tool, then they're probably beyond help :P You should remind them that they're developing software to meet other people's needs and solve their problems in the long term, not to ostentatiously impress them in the short term with petty gimmicks. And so a little bit of direction and specification helps. Even if the use-cases themselves don't prove to be that useful, the simple act of coming up with them will force your colleagues to consider the actual underlying purpose of the software.
Ask questions, of both sides. Of development, ask them if they are certain that all of the ways in which they have considered using the application are all of the ways in which the end-users will want to use it; if they say they have, ask for proof. Of management, ask if they've ever used software that does everything they want, but still ends up being hard to use (they will have). These questions will seed the concept that what will be delivered might not be what is desired, on both sides; use that seed of an idea, then, to open up discussions (not documents, not at the start) on how the software will be used, and in what way any differences can be resolved. They'll get around to use-case documents eventually.
I am a product manager by profession, and my first reaction to your post is that ideas can come from anywhere, and if the dev team has decent ideas they should be incorporated into the product.
Having said that, a product can not develop a soul (a simple message) through a string of disconnected ideas that do not serve the ultimate purpose: solving the needs of a target user. And, ultimately it boils down to making the case that time is better spent on requirements/use cases that make sense for the product, while the opportunity cost of not having a clear strategy/end goal will lead to too many chefs and a jaded product message.
The ultimate way to make this message hit home is to involve other stake holders and have development demonstrate their work. Eventually, there will be disagreement and a more formalized (less cowboy) approach will lead to a more refined and simple product.
One of the problems you mention is tight schedule and scope creep induced by the devs themselves. Explain them, that by using use cases you can earn time by dropping features, which will potentially end up on the "never used" pile. With use cases you can find out what are the features customers need and will pay for and by removing unimportant features out of the scope you would have time to implement. Use cases apart from defining the scope also help to identify all the stakeholders, which might help you to focus even better while defining the scope and prevent forgetting about trivial things, which are not so apparent, but are a must if the product should be usable. The third most important thing about use cases is that they allow you to start thinking about corner cases which might be important for the customer before development and therefore you can find out with the customer what would be the ideal solution instead of letting the coder decide on his/her own under pressure of deadline.
Just show them.
Example is not the best way of educating people, it is the only one.
Lead by example focusing on extensions and exceptions. In other words emphasize the failure scenarios because everyone knows how the system should work. The real value of written Use Cases is identifying what should happen when something goes wrong.
That noted, consider you may have to live without written use cases. And, for the environment you describe, a major win is any sort of requirements documentation. Screen comps and/or prototyping are often easier to introduce.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 13 years ago.
Improve this question
In our main product, we've got a feature request that's been around for a couple of years now that's been requested quite a few times. It's technically easy to implement, the problem is that it will fundamentally change the concept of what the tool does, and will likely cause more bug reports as people mis-use the new feature to match the new concept (which we won't be able to work around). We've got a separate feature that works around the issue quite well, but we still get requests to implement the new one.
Should we
listen to our users, and implement the new feature, even though it changes the concept of what the product does and what we want it to do, and will increase support costs
add some more support articles explaining how to use the workaround
make the workaround more obvious in the UI so the users find it more often
something else
Implement it as a plug-in.
It will be available for users who really want it, but won't fundamentally change your product.
Most users won't end up installing it, so your support base will be smaller.
It won't get in the way of users who don't use it.
If this feature runs counter to the philosophy of your product, it indicates that the product does not conform to the mental model of your users. The consequences of that are much larger than just a single missing feature. You need to get inside your users heads, and figure out how to adjust your model to their expectations, or guide their expectations towards your model.
Put enough thought into this and it could become a great opportunity for you.
In 'The Mythical Man Month' (which you have read, haven't you?), Brooks says words to the effect that 'conceptual integrity of the architecture is the most important thing'. That means that if the requested feature breaks the conceptual integrity of the overall design of your product, you probably should continue to avoid implementing it, regardless of how much it is requested. Or, you need to reshape the architecture so that the requested feature fits into the revised architecture.
One of the products I work on has a 'much requested feature' that was added. It behaves unlike any other feature in the product. It is a horrid wart. But since the competition does it, we had to do it. But instead of remaining true our architecture (which happens to differ fundamentally from the competition's in this area), we aped the competition's feature, down to silly details.
I still bitterly resent the fact that the feature was botched into the system with broken semantics w.r.t the rest of the product. To rub salt into the wound, I had to present the new feature as the 'greatest thing since sliced bread' to our customer base -- that really hurt.
Having said that, no-one has complained (as I think they should) about the feature. It probably gets used sometimes. It is one less difference that the competition can use against us.
(And note: I was not against the feature being implemented in a style consistent with our product's normal way of working; I was only against it being implemented in the style that our competition uses - because the other related features work analogously to the broken implementation in their system, whereas our system is more sane and friendly.)
It's tough. Sometimes the market wins out.
It's almost impossible to answer this, as we don't know exactly what you're talking about.
Having said that some points:
The number of users who actually want the feature, probably are far higher then you think, as most users will never log feedback.
You describe a 'workaround', this implies your product either has a problem, or it's UI needs to change.
I'd be inclined to implement it, as this will make your customers happy.
An option would be to give them a menu option, which directs them to both methods.
Possibly a wizard of some sort, which helps them decide which workaround to use.
I would try to re-design the UI for your work around to make it easier and more obvious for your users. At the end of the day, the customer pays the bills so we have and obligation to meet their needs. When what they ask for will cause more problems, it comes back to us to offer a different solution such that we don't create more future bugs, and we still keep the customers happy.
While not a programming question, I've seen quite a few people over the years struggle with this type of issue.
You need to ask yourself a few questions
1) Have you, or management, done a cost-benefit analysis?
Ask yourself "How will the feature.."
increase sales? i.e. will more people
buy it
decrease sales? i.e. loosing customers that are put off
impact customer service?
2) If the product will change radically - would it make sense to spin it off to an entire new SKU?
3) Management will get what they want in the end. Do you want to work with them to provide your customers the best experience possible & be the hero, or against them and look for other opportunities.
Define "our users". Is it 5% of your user base, 80%, 95%? Have you surveyed enough of them to find out if this is something that the vast majority of the users want, or is it just a rogue group of users (they can be the most difficult and hard to please).
I think that needs to be established first. If it's the majority of your user base and it adds value in their eyes, then I would try to reach a compromise where you meet in the middle, not compromising the integrity of your product, but still offering the customer an alternative solution that would still meet their needs.
Announce the workaround as the solution to the request to those who have requested it. Make the workaround more prominent in the UI / easier to use.
I would go with whatever has more potential ROI. Will you increase profits by implementing this feature? If so, does that exceed the cost of supporting the new feature? If potential profits are greater than your support cost, I'd suggest going with the feature.
If there is no gain to be made either finacially or by lowering costs for support, then it makes no sense to do it.
I'd go with a simple guess at the cost (in terms of usability) versus the benefit, at least as a major factor to weigh. For example, if the feature will likely help 45% of users but make the program harder to use for the other 55%, don't do it.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
As we are a small company, I work as both a project manager and developer. The specifications I create for clients contain a number of elements used to describe and define the project, including user stories alongside any other elements I feel need to be included to define the project (e.g. wireframes, userflows, sitemaps etc.) to the client.
If a functional specification “describes how a product will work entirely from the user's perspective. It doesn't care how the thing is implemented. It talks about features.“. Then does anyone see any problem with using User Stories to define a functional specification for a website? Does anyone actually do functional specifications in this way?
Really I am trying to up my game a little, and wondering if this would approach would work for larger clients who perhaps have more stringent ideas on what a functional specification should contain, whereby a formal approach may be required. Definitely at the moment our clients respond well to our method of producing documentation.
I am interested in hearing what people who do project management professionally think about this.
I'm at odds with what a couple of other people have said.
First up the bit I agree with - stories are a great way of stating functional requirements. For my money they're one of the best ways of actually communicating requirements in a way end users will really take in. I've seen too many specs that get signed off without ever having been read.
The one thing I would say you might want to append to them is non-functional requirements - covering performance, security, data volumes, audit, archive and so on. While they can be covered in stories, sometimes they're better covered in a way that crosses all stories.
In terms of whether it's suitable for large companies this is where I disagree. In my experience (and I've done projects for Shell, American Express, a couple of multi-national banks and others) they're often no more formal than smaller companies so they'll be fine with stories. The reality is that a user in a large company is no better equiped (or interested) in reading class and sequence diagrams than they are elsewhere.
The size and complexity of the project may require more detailed requirements but it's the size of the project, not the size of the company that matters when you're determining how you document requirements.
For me the best requirements documentation is documentation that's suited to it's audience, and for me user stories hit the nail on the head most of the time - they're short enough and clear enough that when they sign them off they mean something because they've read and understood them (as opposed to the sign off of a 100 page spec which invariably means they haven't really read it), but good enough for the developers to work from too.
Yes, you can use user stories for your functional requires. I do it all the time, and have been for years. In my opinion, it works really well, and better than other systems I have used.
Would this approach work for larger clients? To make a gross generalization, no. They are going to have some system that use to define requirements, and likely its not user stories. If you come in with user stories, there is going to be a disconnect with the current practices, which you will have to work through.
I have been successful using user stories with larger organizations, but it take a concerted effort, which both parties need to be committed to.
What you're describing are the use-case scenarios that define the features, this is what is required from a usability perspective and is exactly what the client will understand and agree to. Screen mockups and flow diagrams will definately help both the client and developers.
An implementation specification may then be required to instruct developers on what needs to be included in the actual construction, the depth of this will be determined by your developers capabilities that include their knowledge of the house architecture/framework and methodologies/conventions and may include specifics on what impacts various parts of the application.
We also work in small teams (sometimes one or two developers) and believe the above is all that's required in this instance.
Larger companies with much larger teams may use Modeling Software, UML diagrams and other more detailed specifications. In the case where you the primary developer, you should still spend the time designing your application, but if nobody is going to review the designs and insist on all the formalities, your time is better spend implementing the software.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a first time intern at a large corporation and I created a GUI tool that lets my coworkers visualize the log file that their product produces. The tool, known as MRI, is nearing completion and I face a conflict.
One party, (Two ambitious Indian guys that live in California) want me to adapt MRI to a new format and to display much more detailed information. The current version of MRI is built around the idiosyncrasies of the 20 year old log file format. In my opinion it is a bad idea to attempt to grow a more powerful, more universal tool out of a less powerful and idiosyncratic one (Better to start from scratch; something I probably don't have time to do).
The other party is composed of several marketing types and my father. They are drooling over the shiny new GUI that I slapped on top of their crazy old log file, and every one of them wants some feature that would help them with their day to day work.
Whom should I please? I just want to code. Which path will lead to less dumb conflicts like this?
Sounds like you are getting your first taste of the world of a manager! I'm doing exactly the same thing 10 years later, with a much bigger budget and head count. So it never really ends.
I love the answer about doing some time estimates for each requested addition, and then sitting down all parties and working on a negotiation that gets the greatest degree of satisfication. I'm betting that since you are an intern, and many of the people you mention have seniority, that they will be able sort out amongst themselves who has the biggest stake and most power in the situation. But if not, don't hesitate to act as moderator -- after all, this is your project.
Other things to think about:
Types of stake holders:
Customers - the person who controls the budget is often the most powerful of stakeholders, after all, they control your ability to do the work by controlling your funding. For an internal tool, this is probably an internal stakeholder, but it may be someone from a non-engineering group, if this tool is for a non-engineering purpose.
Users - in the long run, users often make or break a tool. They definitely determine the tool's longetivity. It's not unusual, though, for users to lack advocates. And in a big internal project, it's entirely possible that users are not the customers.
Technical Management - particularly when you are an intern and when you are working on an internal project, technical management is the group that's most important for you (as an individual) to please. They may have their own stake in the feature set, as they may be looking for a certain feature path for the product that fits a long term technological end game. Ideally, they should be on your side, and helping to figure out the best feature set.
In a big company, hopefully these roles are really well defined. Probably with an org chart. But not necessarily. And in a group that's used to working together, they may not make it really clear to a new comer exactly what the official roles are. As the guy doing the work, you're job should be to accurately and honestly tell them your best guess on what effort it will take to get the feature done. And to be open to ideas for making it cheaper/easier.
Negotiation:
The best negotiation advice I've ever gotten was "A good negotiation is one where everyone thinks they won". Sadly, the frequent outcome is that everyone feels equally screwed. The trick between every stakeholder leaving happy and every stakeholder feeling beaten down is to see the big picture and be innovative about getting everyone's needs met. In the end, no one really cares how you do it, if you can make their jobs easier, they will be happy. So finding features that serves everyone well can be the key to resolving the conflict.
Being able to do this well will really make a positive impact on your bosses. This is an extremely rare skill, and this type of finesse does get noticed.
Not having it does not mark you as a pariah, however, not many engineers enjoy negotiation. And it's never worth making every engineer be good at it. It's far better to find an engineering manager who is good at negotiating and to let them be the "speaker for the geeks", so the rest of the engineers can do their work in peace. :)
Sit the two parties down in the same room. Show them a list of the features each has asked for and how long you think each will take. Then explain that all of it is possible but all of it takes time, and ask them to come to agreement on what they would like when. Note down what is agreed and mail it to everyone afterwards so there is a record. Don't forget to pad your estimates to allow for testing and debugging time.
Alternatively, work out who the person directly responsible for managing you is, implement what they tell you (feeding back estimates of how long each thing will take) and tell anyone else who asks you to implement anything to go talk to that person to get it on your schedule; then doing the above management work becomes their problem.
Explain, if doing one of the above does not cause the matter does not resolve itself, that the Californians' features would require a refactor, and if you are going to do that you would rather hold off implementing any features for the other party until that is complete since doing the same work twice is wasteful.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
How do you show your clients/employers that you understood their requirements?
What do you recommend to use? Use-Case diagrams? Flow-Charts? Data-Flow-Diagrams? Decision Trees?
I'm not really asking for a very detailed answer. Just something simple to help me communicate with the person who wrote the requirements and to see if both of you are on the same page.
I usually put together a PowerPoint deck fairly early in a project, giving a high-level overview of the project, along with some architectural diagrams (the simpler the better) and screen mockups/wireframes. Then I have a "kick-off" meeting for requirements review, and talk through the business problem and proposed solution.
I simply explain the requirements back in my own language, supplying my assumptions and adding in limitations.
The requirement may be "Button turns green when clicked"
I would ask "Ok, so when the user clicks on the button, the background color of the button turns green, but the text stays the same color?"
Basically prompting the person giving the requirements to explain how THEY envision it working.
My role has a lot of requirements gathering. The best way I find is a two pronged approach, talk through a PowerPoint presentation keeping it all simple and high level, and showing a Proof of Concept or a mock up. Walking and talking the customer through will see them responding with many "what if's" such as "Can I chance the colour?" this gives everyone a broad idea of what they are getting. If you can get something the users can touch and play with that works really well at uncovering the hidden what if.
Then, back this high level up with really detailed low level requirements. Spell out the dotted "i" and crossed "t". Get the users to read through and sign them before anything more than the POC is done. Generally word with a lot of screenshots works well.
Unless the users can bring you UML's and data flow charts, don't use them in anything the customer sees or signs. If it is signed by the customer and you had to regigg the back end to meet a "what if" you have to totally get everything resigned.
The final thing is to ensure that the customers can talk to you in their own words about their requirements and spell out what they are getting. One way to do this is to sit in on any middle management sell to higher management.
Don't try and bamboozle the customer, if they want something changed at the last minute, explain what the cost will be, in time and money, and ask them if this totally required. Doing this, will often stop people making trivial changes, and force them to think about why they want the change.
Requirements are getting what the customer needs from what they say they want.
Edit-
To the point about showing screenshots early- this sometimes requires a good PM to let the customer know the time scales and where everything is at. If the PM helps to set some decent time frames and expectations, the customers won't get excited. The good thing of POC and screenshots is people get an image of what it could be like and can often work that inside their minds.
If you want to avoid screenshots do a wire-frame look or use a whiteboard and 20 mins of drawing. Just remember to save the whiteboard as a photo before you whipe it.
Whiteboarding (and the good old OHP) can be a godsend to requirements gathering- developing a good clear style of drawing concepts can save hours in workshops.
Flow charts tend to confuse some non-technical people (ie clients), as well as data flow diagrams. Use Cases are good and understandable, as well as Business Requirement and Technical Requirement documentation, possible some sort of rough wireframe sketches.
It really depends wich requirements you're talking about.
Functionnal requirements? Maybe that UML is the rigth tool for. But I would prefer a test o test specifications
GUI requirements? Nothing beats a paper and a pencil.
Security requirements? By describing the limits of your security, you avoid unexpected deceptions.
Reliability requirements? Both testing mechannism, and software/hardware backup/recovery plan.
Other requirements: depends of your client.
But anyway, keep in mind, and explain to the client that requirement WILL change during the development phase and that it will always be a discussion and a compromise between cost and functionnality. Being honnest give more confidence to your customer.
I think that the best way to show that you really understand the client idea is to build prototypes.
By the way I was present in the last edition of the Requirements Engineering conference and in one of the workshops (MERE), Siemens was showing and interesting software based on composing a video of the client idea (it was for projects not limited to software) just to ensure that all the requirements are fully understood.
Any way, the thing is that some times a creative way to show them is better. Don't limit yourself to the standard diagrams.
I have had good experiences with creating a simple vocabulary, with terms from the domain and their meanings and relationships, and then go through it and make sure everybody agrees on everything.
Writing and discussing the vocabulary forces you to think, rather than just thinking that "we'll figure that out later".
It's no silver bullet, of course, and should be used along with other means such as a functional requirements specification and possibly a prototype.