Coevolving Innovations

Coevolving Innovations

… in Business Organizations and Information Technologies

‘Requirements Gathering’ does more harm than good

January 30, 2006
8 Comments

I believe that we can do a much better job of doing two things. Firstly linking business goals to the projects and programmes that deliver them. Secondly, co-ordinating business change in delivery projects and programmes with IT change. Systematic treatment of these two things together capture the essence of what I think of as ‘Business Architecture’

In order to explore these two topics, and to make it more fun, I’m going to suggest that requirements gathering does more harm than good. I have some clear views about why I think it does, some of which differ from current widely held views. I also have some ideas about how we can do better.

I’m hoping that you will join in by providing your views about whether you think it does more harm than good, if so why, and what you think we can do about it.

8 Comments

  • daviding

    Well, now you’ve tweaked one of my sensitive spots!

    In my practice of consulting on information systems, I’ve more-or-less expunged the idea of “requirement” from my vocabulary. My averseness is so extreme that I completed a consulting engagement last year — initially framed as a “needs assessment” — so that I wrote a text document of 75 pages without using the word “requirement” in it.

    Business mostly follows “commercial syndrome”. In Jane Jacob’s descriptions in “Systems of Survival”, churches are archetypes of guardian syndrome, where there are “rights” and “wrongs”. Business is much more about “commercial syndrome”, where everything is negotiable.

    The problem that I see with most projects is that “requirements” is seen by the analyst as a checklist. The consultant/analyst creates a long list of wants and needs, and then works with a client team to “prioritize” requirements. When funding is tight, the feature list becomes “lowest common denominator”. When funding is more forthcoming, there’s potential for bloat and over-engineering.

    This problem is somewhat exacerbated by the trend towards selection and configuration of software packages. The expensive option of Brand X may include Feature A and Feature B, but the cheaper option of Brand Y has Feature A as an option, and would require some customization work for Feature B. Does “requirements gathering” lead to overspending on software selection?

    One metaphor that I’ve used successfully is buying a car. No one gets to choose about having a catalytic converter — it’s necessary by compliance; and practically every car now has power brakes as a standard feature. For the option of a sunroof, however, I’ve rarely met a person who doesn’t want one. The question is really how much a sunroof costs. If the dealer really wants a car off his lot, and offers a sunroof for $20, almost anyone would take it. If the sunroof were $5000, though, hardly anyone would want one.

    In saying the “requirements” should be negotiable, one approach to establishing “best practice” in organizations is to introduce architectural standards. While this may preclude clients from “doing damage to themselves”, architecture becomes a two-edged sword. Architecture can become “guardian”, with pass-fail criteria, and becomes just as bad as requirements engineering.

    Jane Jacob’s prescription is that either governance syndrome or commercial syndrome work, as independent systems. When the two are crossed, corruption ensues.

  • Scott Sehlhorst

    Martin – great question. I couldn’t find an email contact on your site, so I’ll leave this as a comment.

    We started a poll asking this same question back on the 26th. The article Take this poll or we’ll shoot this kitten also includes links to a debate in a comment thread on an earlier post that raised exactly this issue. I hope you’ll take a look, and consider sending your readers to participate in the poll.

    Scott

  • dougmcdavid

    I already know some of the reasons you make this point, Martin, so I won’t steal your thunder as you unveil the full brilliance of your thinking!

    I just wanted to mention that my perspective has been changing lately in a way that supports what your basic point. For various reasons I have been examinging the whole notion of services, and now have a perspective that we are leaving huge value and wealth creating opportunities on the table by not recognizing that people, and the relationships among people, constitute the true source of value in service industries and service economies.

    So, with that background, I would say we should stop focusing so much on “requirements,” and start focusing on “desires.”

  • Pingback: coevolving.com » Blog Archive » ‘Gathering’ is so passive

  • martingladwell

    I don’t know about ‘brilliance’ but I’ll be developing the argument over the coming weeks!I will certainly be addressing many of the points David makes. The notion of requirements in the context of the ubiquitous ‘package’ and hoping to draw Doug and others out on what requirements of the future or some complete repalcement of ‘requirements’ would make creating (not gathering) them worth doing. Scott I’ve pointed my Business Analysis community at your page, if you don’t get a few hits I’ll have a selection of them shot for you.

  • Mike Wittenstein

    Gathering requirements (the way its generally practiced) limits most participants to think about what can be done given current constraints, avoiding the deeper and more valuable/insightful thinking aroudn developing an overarching better approach or solution.

    By first creating focus and alignment on desired outcomes, then on using design (as a problem solving tool) to overcome unnecessary constraints, we can get beyond “making a better way to do an old thing” to “making a way to do things better” which is what everyone is usually after anyway.

  • dougmcdavid

    Nice to see you, Mike!

  • Sheila Thorne

    The Holy Grail of Requirements Gather – Don’t Gather Requirements

    Oh gee my worst fears – someone going in and asking the users to come up with a list of requirements. That’s like to asking a two year old to plan dinner menus for the month. It is far better to go in and ask “what is the biggest pain in the ass (pita) you face today?” This would seem to have nothing to do with so called requirements. Yet it enables you to grasp a business issue that needs to be solved while not asking the person with the problem to fix it. Which they can’t really do, otherwise your presence would not be required.

    So, for my example, an automotive customer wanted to consolidate websites of several divisions to control cost. At the beginning of our work session I asked each automotive group what the biggest pita was. For each one – it was creating, printing and distribution the benefits guide. Note – this has nothing to do with a website. Each group was doing their own guide – 5 guides with the same material. Within 5 minutes the group realized they could consolidate the benefits guide put it on-line. Hardcopy would be sent by request. In less than 5 minutes, there was the major cost savings and time savings while leveraging the web. However, this was not done with the typical let’s do an “as is” and “to be”.

    Here is my number one example in a series of many. What about the rest of you; any similar experiences?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

« Older «
» Newer »

  • RSS qoto.org/@daviding (Mastodon)

    • Dec 19, 2024, 13:00 December 19, 2024
      From the 1982 publication of _Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems_, W. Richard Scott in 2004 reflected back on the history of organizational sociology.> Before open system ideas, organizational scholars had concentrated on actors (workers, work groups, managers) and processes (motivation, cohesion, control) within organizations. Scant attention was accorded to the environment within which the […]
    • Dec 19, 2024, 12:58 December 19, 2024
      For those interested in detailed distinctions between systems approach, systems thinking, General Systems Theory, system science, etc, Aleksandra A. Nikiforova (Lomonosov Moscow State University) started an entry in the Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization in 2022 that has been revised to 2024. https://www.isko.org/cyclo/systems .The International Society for Knowledge Organization is a “scholarly society devoted to the […]
    • Dec 15, 2024, 10:28 December 15, 2024
      The Future of Life Institute Safety Index is criticized by Mark Daley as too narrow, with an implicit bias disfavoring open sourcing.> The “Future of Life Institute” released their FLI Safety Index this week. [....] > By celebrating only those models that impose rigid controls on allowable thought and scorning those that grant the user […]
    • Dec 15, 2024, 10:11 December 15, 2024
      In understanding the precursors to the Gunderson and Holling 2001 _Panarchy_ book, it's good to keep in mind that when ecologists refer to "Adaptive Management", the clearer longer label is "Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management".Holling, C.S. (1979). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management -- Current Progress and Prospects for the Approach: Summary Report of the First […]
    • Dec 10, 2024, 13:59 December 10, 2024
      In describing "go energy" and "stop energy", @pahlkadot approaches yang qi and yin qi, in a dyadic processual approach.> This is a useful nuance as I develop a framework for building state capacity. One of my admittedly obvious and oversimplified tenets is that systems have both “go energy” and “stop energy,” much as a car […]

  • RSS on IngBrief

    • Notion of Change in the Yijing | JeeLoo Lin 2017
      The appreciation of change is different in Western philosophy than in classical Chinese philosophy. JeeLoo Lin published a concise contrast on differences. Let me parse the Introduction to the journal article, that is so clearly written. The Chinese theory of time is built into a language that is tenseless. The Yijing (Book of Changes) there […]
    • World Hypotheses (Stephen C. Pepper) as a pluralist philosophy [Rescher, 1994]
      In trying to place the World Hypotheses work of Stephen C. Pepper (with multiple root metaphors), Nicholas Rescher provides a helpful positioning. — begin paste — Philosophical perspectivism maintains that substantive philosophical positions can be maintained only from a “perspective” of some sort. But what sort? Clearly different sorts of perspectives can be conceived of, […]
    • The Nature and Application of the Daodejing | Ames and Hall (2003)
      Ames and Hall (2003) provide some tips for those studyng the DaoDeJing.
    • Diachronic, diachrony
      Finding proper words to express system(s) change(s) can be a challenge. One alternative could be diachrony. The Oxford English dictionary provides two definitions for diachronic, the first one most generally related to time. (The second is linguistic method) diachronic ADJECTIVE Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “diachronic (adj.), sense 1,” July 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/3691792233. For completeness, prochronic relates “to […]
    • Introduction, “Systems Thinking: Selected Readings, volume 2”, edited by F. E. Emery (1981)
      The selection of readings in the “Introduction” to Systems Thinking: Selected Readings, volume 2, Penguin (1981), edited by Fred E. Emery, reflects a turn from 1969 when a general systems theory was more fully entertained, towards an urgency towards changes in the world that were present in 1981. Systems thinking was again emphasized in contrast […]
    • Introduction, “Systems Thinking: Selected Readings”, edited by F. E. Emery (1969)
      In reviewing the original introduction for Systems Thinking: Selected Readings in the 1969 Penguin paperback, there’s a few threads that I only recognize, many years later. The tables of contents (disambiguating various editions) were previously listed as 1969, 1981 Emery, System Thinking: Selected Readings. — begin paste — Introduction In the selection of papers for this […]

  • Powered by FeedBurner

     Feedburner

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS on daviding.com

    • 2024/11 Moments November 2024
      Road trip to Rochester NY and Ithaca, with visits to art galleries as the days get shorter.
    • 2024/10 Moments October 2024
      Journey from Lugano Switzerland, return via Milan Italy, to fall in Toronto
    • 2024/09 Moments September 2024
      September neighbourhood music performances, day out with father, son's birthday party, travel via Milan to Genoa, systems conversation in Lugano
    • 2024/08 Moments August 2024
      Summer finishing with family events, and lots of outdoor music performances, captured with a new mirrorless camera for video from mid-month
    • 2024/07 Moments July 2024
      Summer festivals and music incubator shows in Toronto, all within biking distance.
    • 2024/06 Moments June 2024
      Summer jazz at the Distillery District, in Washington DC while at the annual systems conference, and then Toronto Jazz Festival

  • RSS on Media Queue

    • What to Do When It’s Too Late | David L. Hawk | 2024
      David L. Hawk (American management theorist, architect, and systems scientist) has been hosting a weekly television show broadcast on Bold Brave Tv from the New York area on Wednesdays 6pm ET, remotely from his home in Iowa. Live, callers can join…Read more ›
    • 2021/06/17 Keekok Lee | Philosophy of Chinese Medicine 2
      Following the first day lecture on Philosophy of Chinese Medicine 1 for the Global University for Sustainability, Keekok Lee continued on a second day on some topics: * Anatomy as structure; physiology as function (and process); * Process ontology, and thing ontology; * Qi ju as qi-in-concentrating mode, and qi san as qi-in-dissipsating mode; and […]
    • 2021/06/16 Keekok Lee | Philosophy of Chinese Medicine 1
      The philosophy of science underlying Classical Chinese Medicine, in this lecture by Keekok Lee, provides insights into ways in which systems change may be approached, in a process ontology in contrast to the thing ontology underlying Western BioMedicine. Read more ›
    • 2021/02/02 To Understand This Era, You Need to Think in Systems | Zeynep Tufekci with Ezra Klein | New York Times
      In conversation, @zeynep with @ezraklein reveal authentic #SystemsThinking in (i) appreciating that “science” is constructed by human collectives, (ii) the west orients towards individual outcomes rather than population levels; and (iii) there’s an over-emphasis on problems of the moment, and…Read more ›
    • 2019/04/09 Art as a discipline of inquiry | Tim Ingold (web video)
      In the question-answer period after the lecture, #TimIngold proposes art as a discipline of inquiry, rather than ethnography. This refers to his thinking On Human Correspondence. — begin paste — [75m26s question] I am curious to know what art, or…Read more ›
    • 2019/10/16 | “Bubbles, Golden Ages, and Tech Revolutions” | Carlota Perez
      How might our society show value for the long term, over the short term? Could we think about taxation over time, asks @carlotaprzperez in an interview: 92% for 1 day; 80% within 1 month; 50%-60% tax for 1 year; zero tax for 10 years.Read more ›

  • Meta

    • Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
    Theme modified from DevDmBootstrap4 by Danny Machal