How do you define software requirements?

Domain expertise is critical to understand the problem. Unfortunately, much information is lost in the translation between the two technical domains (user and programmer). Suppose the domain expertise required is high on both sides. In that case, the only solution is to have developers who know the domain or product managers, architects, and developers immersed in the user workflow. Dual expertise persons must be then completed by high-end experts on both sides.

In my experience, diving deep into the "why" behind requirements often uncovers hidden nuances. Ideally you want to use the 5 "whys" method of root cause analysis. I've found that direct immersion—putting oneself in the user's shoes—often reveals invaluable insights. When we truly grasp the problem at its root, we can craft requirements that are both clear and purposeful, ensuring the end product genuinely addresses user needs and provides optimal value.

It’s important to ask as much questions as possible in order to understand the requirements as detailed as possible. I am a big advocate for engineers asking business-oriented questions. This ensures that engineers understand the context and constraints they need to operate in. If you understand the motivation and reasons behind the requirement, you will be able to make so much more accurate technical decisions.

The importance of this step cannot be overstated. A comprehensive understanding of users and stakeholders is a decisive factor in achieving project success. Understand that users may find it difficult to fully articulate their needs at the beginning of the project. Maintain an ongoing dialogue with them whenever possible, and you will be more apt to deliver software that is optimized for their needs.

This is a very important step in the entire process. Often times I have experienced that stakeholders speak less of the problem and more on the solution they expect. As a project or a product manager collecting requirements we have to be skillful in asking more questions that will lead the stakeholders to narrate the context, situation and why a certain problem seems to be a problem to them.

We make a lot of small technical decisions daily. Those decisions can be made quickly. For bigger decisions and approaches it’s important to take a bit more time. That’s where technical specifications become very important. Technical specifications do not serve only for technical alignment between engineers, but they also help with alignment across organization. Everyone interested in how a certain functionality is developed is available to take a look. This is a very powerful and transparent way to ensure cross-department alignment!

Going with the principle to getting faster feedback, its always a good idea to share early and frequently on what the stakeholders can expect. This also goes in a long way to build team motivation as their frequently exchange with stakeholders/customers gives them the confidence that their work is useful.

One thing i've found to be helpful in defining a solution is by understanding the already existing options is fixing the problem. This always provides a perfect standing point towards achieving an optimal solution. Instead of reinventing the wheel, improving on the current solution/ideas will reduce the time used to deliver the solution.

The refined requirements are then formally documented in a requirements specification document. This document includes both functional requirements (what the software should do) and non-functional requirements (qualities the software should have, such as performance, security, and usability). Requirements are typically categorized, numbered, and organized for clarity.

When defining a solution is important to place boundaries on what exactly is aimed to be solved. The problem identified earlier might be to big to be tackled at once.

How to effectively document requirements can vary a ton between different organizations. For example, a 20-person startup may require fast decision making, and this could mean that the only place some work gets documented is in a task ticket written for the developer. At a large public organization, however, more rigid processes like technical design review meetings or a written RFC process might be necessary as the number of teams and different product streams require more careful and standardized planning. The best way to succeed in this step, regardless of organization size or type, is to communicate and agree on a system with others. The more collaboration and feedback a process gets, the better it will evolve to your needs over time.

To document software requirements, it is recommended to involve the entire team in the documentation process, not just developers, to ensure a shared understanding of the systems and processes and encourage contributions to keeping the documentation up-to-date. It is also important to make the documentation easily searchable and have a dedicated person responsible for ensuring its accuracy and keeping it up-to-date. Good documentation should be viewed as an integral part of the development process, continuously revised and refined throughout the project's lifecycle.

Documenting requirement is always very helpful. I have come across so many teams which discuss work over a call but no one likes documenting requirements. This is a very dangerous approach and will be a huge bottleneck when your team grows. Also when you start documenting, your brain starts to think about a lot of things which it had not though of. It helps clarify your thoughts and ensures that things are not lost in translation between different people in the team.

The requirements specification document is a crucial artifact that serves as a reference for the entire software development team. It should be well-structured, easy to understand, and accessible to all relevant stakeholders. Clear language and visual aids (such as diagrams and flowcharts) can enhance understanding.

I agree, but when documenting the requirements, you should be aware of what the requirements involve technically, and what the various options are for achieving the them, with a comparison of the advantages, disadvantages and trade offs between them. This information will be used by the executors of the implementation at the beginning, to make the right decisions when combining to that insights and conclusions that will arise only after the start of the work, but not at a too late stage, so you can still fallback to the right option.

Validating software requirements is vital to ensure they align with user needs and project goals. Techniques like inspections, walkthroughs, and prototyping help in early error detection, reducing rework. In my experience, a combination of these methods, along with clear communication among stakeholders, leads to a successful project. Investing in this phase ensures completeness, consistency, and correctness in requirements, laying the foundation for customer satisfaction.

Requirements need to be validated to ensure they accurately capture the stakeholders' needs and expectations. This might involve reviewing the requirements with stakeholders, conducting workshops, or using prototyping to demonstrate how the system will fulfill the requirements. Verification ensures that the documented requirements are internally consistent and meet the defined standards. This involves checking for completeness, correctness, and clarity. Traceability is the ability to link requirements throughout the development lifecycle. This helps ensure that each requirement is addressed and implemented, and it also aids in impact analysis if changes are made later in the project.

An example of validating the requirements would be a demo, a sandbox environment where you can set up a a prototype of the functional, non-functional and business requirements.

I agree, but I think that you should try to provide an accurate mock, as much as possible, so developers can start understand and provide their input about difficulties or barriers they encounter, based on that mock.

We inspect different patterns during development to check if the software requirements are correct. This enables us to find defects early and make the right decisions. These inspections are noteworthy for seeing defects early and saving costs. When we inspect, individuals read the document and note down any issues. There are three common ways to do this: scrutinizing without a plan, utilizing a checklist, or considering different cases. Each method helps make sure the software requirements are reasonable.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. In my experience, actively managing requirements throughout the development lifecycle isn't just a 'nice-to-have' – it's crucial. Continually revisiting and reassessing ensures the team remains aligned and adapts to feedback or emerging complexities. By regularly aligning, we can ensure a smoother development process and a product that truly resonates with the intended purpose and user needs.

In my experience, you should validate the achievement of your requirements by grouping them to stand alone units, with a break down of the required tasks for each unit, and by defining a definition of done for each task, that the developers will have the indication for when their work is acceptable and can be reviewed,

Requirements are not static; they can evolve over the course of a project. A change management process should be in place to handle changes to requirements. Each change should be assessed for its impact on the project's scope, schedule, and resources. Effective communication is essential for ensuring that all stakeholders understand and agree on the requirements. Regular meetings, presentations, and status updates can help maintain alignment between stakeholders and the development team.

I agree that managing the requirements must be done throughout the software development lifecycle. They can be traced by the testers when doing adhoc, measured through performance tests with different loads of the system, and verified in user acceptance tests. Another unsaid part with managing the requirements is in the maintenance part of the application's life where the requirements change.

Additional Considerations: User Experience (UX): At the heart of every software product lies its users. We place paramount importance on crafting intuitive, seamless, and delightful user experiences. Scalability: As businesses grow, so do their digital needs. Our solutions are built with a foresight for growth, ensuring that scalability is never an afterthought. Security: In the era of cyber threats, security isn't optional. Every product we build undergoes stringent security checks, ensuring data integrity and user trust. Feedback Loops: Continuous improvement is a cornerstone of our ethos. We establish robust feedback mechanisms, ensuring that the product evolves based on user feedback and changing requirements.

When we collect software requirements one has to first understand if it’s for a project or a product they are collecting requirements for. An example for a project could be setting up a digital marketing solution where the workflows are clear and business stakeholders have clarity on how the flow should look like. An example for a product could be building an web-shop. Where the business stakeholders communicate the guard rail like budget, business and financial goals to meet and the product team( the knowledge workers) have to come up with ideas and hypotheses to test and meet the goals. Depending on which scenario one works the whole process could look different.

I think one of the most critical standards that facilitates the translation of client requirements to software components is using the ubiquitous language (as per domain driven design) It makes it so clear to make the UML, sequence and even flow chart diagrams that every engineer in the team can easily follow. So, making system design and implementing it becomes so clear with this DDD principle. Unfortunately, in real life, not all clients are available to interact with software engineers to achieve this smooth transition from requirements to software implementation.

Provide improvements. Defining solution is not enough. also making succestions for improvement points will be better for a new solution

Remember to validate the implementation of non functional requirements such as security, accessibility and performance in the finished product. These are often forgotten about and come back to bite you.