Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XP] New article: "Ideas," not "Requirements"

Expand Messages
  • Willem Bogaerts
    When I look at the software as a tool, the word use (as a noun) comes to mind. For instance, the uses of a welding torch are welding, cutting, heat
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      When I look at the software as a tool, the word "use" (as a noun) comes
      to mind.
      For instance, the uses of a welding torch are welding, cutting, heat
      treatment, etc.
      However, these uses are generally not fine-grained. The use of a word
      processor might be to layout a text, but few people would say that
      saving a document is a use of a word processor.

      Best regards,
      Willem Bogaerts

      Dominic Williams wrote:
      > Hi Jim,
      >
      > I agree that using the word "requirements" is
      > inappropriate in an XP context. "User story" is a vast
      > improvement, but I really like your suggestion to use
      > the word "idea", because it is less definitive than
      > user story, and as you say in the article, anyone can
      > have an idea.
      >
      > One problem is see with it is that one can also have
      > "ideas" about the code, about the process... just like
      > a story can be about anything, which may be why Kent (I
      > presume) prepended the word "user".
      >
      > I still find myself using the word "feature" when I need
      > to make it clear I'm talking about what the software
      > does.
      >
      > Ideally, I'd like a word that merged all the qualities
      > of idea, user story and feature... In the meantime,
      > I'll definitely try "idea" in some circumstances.
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > Dominic Williams
      > http://www.dominicwilliams.net
      >
      > ----
      >
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
      >
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
      >
      > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Jeff Grigg
      ... I ve been challenging the word requirements too. How can you say that this thing is a *REQUIREMENT*, when the business is doing just fine right now
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Jim Shore <jshore@t...> wrote:
        > "I've been working with a customer to help them define a
        > custom agile process. One of the first things I've been
        > doing is looking at where software requirements come from
        > and how they're prioritized."
        >
        > Find my new article at
        > http://www.jamesshore.com/Blog/Ideas_Not_Requirements.html.

        I've been challenging the word "requirements" too. "How can you say
        that this thing is a *REQUIREMENT*, when the business is doing just
        fine right now without it? In what sense is is objectively
        required???"

        "Ideas." Now there's a nice idea. ;-> One possible shortcoming,
        however: I'm looking for ideas that people are willing to *pay*
        for. "Hey, I have an idea!" I say, "We could paint the house
        pink." However, nobody really wants the house to be pink. So
        something's missing there.

        I think that the things masquerading as "requirements" today aren't
        really requirements. They are (hopefully) things that people want
        enough to pay for them. If I'm implementing things that no one
        wants enough to be willing to pay for them, then I think that
        someone is misusing someone else's money. :-[
      • Jim Standley
        We frequently have a requirement that is one of five equally acceptable solutions to a business problem. If we find that one of the others would be much
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          We frequently have a "requirement" that is one of five equally
          acceptable solutions to a business problem. If we find that one of the
          others would be much cheaper to build, it takes an act of Congress to
          change the fool thing. I'd rather see the "requirement" as solving the
          problem with more leeway in implementing it. I sent the article about
          "ideas" to the whole team.

          Jeff Grigg wrote:
          > --- Jim Shore <jshore@t...> wrote:
          >
          >>"I've been working with a customer to help them define a
          >>custom agile process. One of the first things I've been
          >>doing is looking at where software requirements come from
          >>and how they're prioritized."
          >>
          >>Find my new article at
          >>http://www.jamesshore.com/Blog/Ideas_Not_Requirements.html.
          >
          >
          > I've been challenging the word "requirements" too. "How can you say
          > that this thing is a *REQUIREMENT*, when the business is doing just
          > fine right now without it? In what sense is is objectively
          > required???"
          >
          > "Ideas." Now there's a nice idea. ;-> One possible shortcoming,
          > however: I'm looking for ideas that people are willing to *pay*
          > for. "Hey, I have an idea!" I say, "We could paint the house
          > pink." However, nobody really wants the house to be pink. So
          > something's missing there.
          >
          > I think that the things masquerading as "requirements" today aren't
          > really requirements. They are (hopefully) things that people want
          > enough to pay for them. If I'm implementing things that no one
          > wants enough to be willing to pay for them, then I think that
          > someone is misusing someone else's money. :-[
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
          >
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
          >
          > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • aacockburn
          I prefer Kent Beck s word: wishes . see http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RequirementsVsWishes
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I prefer Kent Beck's word: "wishes".
            see http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RequirementsVsWishes
            <<Requirement: n. that which is required; a thing demanded or
            obligatory.

            This is exactly the wrong word for this thing. In my projects, I
            often deliver a quarter of the original "things demanded or
            obligatory", and I still get paid. Either I do a terrible job of
            writing down these things, or they aren't actually "demanded or
            obligatory". If the latter, we should use a different word to denote
            them.

            I nominate wishes, as in "What are the wishes for the project so
            far?" "How have the wishes changed in the last week?" This puts us in
            the (perhaps uncomfortable) position of wish fulfillment, a
            ProgramFairy?. -- KentBeck
            >>

            I recently found it handy to refer to the use cases we had just
            collected as "the users' wishes" -- this worked well even to the
            users and stakeholders as well as the programming team. I couldn't
            have gotten as much mileage saying "the users' ideas".

            Alistair





            --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Jim Standley
            <jimstandley@a...> wrote:
            > We frequently have a "requirement" that is one of five equally
            > acceptable solutions to a business problem. If we find that one of
            the
            > others would be much cheaper to build, it takes an act of Congress
            to
            > change the fool thing. I'd rather see the "requirement" as solving
            the
            > problem with more leeway in implementing it. I sent the article
            about
            > "ideas" to the whole team.
            >
            > Jeff Grigg wrote:
            > > --- Jim Shore <jshore@t...> wrote:
            > >
            > >>"I've been working with a customer to help them define a
            > >>custom agile process. One of the first things I've been
            > >>doing is looking at where software requirements come from
            > >>and how they're prioritized."
            > >>
            > >>Find my new article at
            > >>http://www.jamesshore.com/Blog/Ideas_Not_Requirements.html.
            > >
            > >
            > > I've been challenging the word "requirements" too. "How can you
            say
            > > that this thing is a *REQUIREMENT*, when the business is doing
            just
            > > fine right now without it? In what sense is is objectively
            > > required???"
            > >
            > > "Ideas." Now there's a nice idea. ;-> One possible
            shortcoming,
            > > however: I'm looking for ideas that people are willing to *pay*
            > > for. "Hey, I have an idea!" I say, "We could paint the house
            > > pink." However, nobody really wants the house to be pink. So
            > > something's missing there.
            > >
            > > I think that the things masquerading as "requirements" today
            aren't
            > > really requirements. They are (hopefully) things that people
            want
            > > enough to pay for them. If I'm implementing things that no one
            > > wants enough to be willing to pay for them, then I think that
            > > someone is misusing someone else's money. :-[
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@e...
            > >
            > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-
            unsubscribe@e...
            > >
            > > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
          • David Hecksel
            I think getting away from the word requirement completely is problematic. There are requirements, optional requirements, desired features/functionality, and
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 17, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I think getting away from the word "requirement" completely is
              problematic. There are requirements, optional requirements,
              desired features/functionality, and future requirements.

              Strict requirements can come from:

              - government mandates / law changes that must be done and
              supported by an exact timeframe (with substantive penalities or
              revenue loss if not done)
              * both functional and reporting requirements
              - competitive pressures ( changes from competition )
              The business says if we don't match or improve what the
              competitor has we will lose 30% of our revenue in 6 months.
              That's pretty much a "requirement" ( or a decision to go out
              of business )
              - Mandate from corporate. Ie, we are introducing this product
              on MM/DD/YYYY with this new pricing/ordering scheme (assumes
              there is a new pricing mechanism. Our order management
              systems must support this new product / marketing
              promotion / recommendation engine / ... because it is
              tied to a holiday promotion, national advertising campaign , ... -
              something with an inflexible date and driven by another
              activity (and directly linked to that activity). Another
              example is supporting a new partner / partner sales program.
              If publicly announced to customers that it will be available
              on MM/DD/YYYY, supporting orders from and/or shipments to that
              partner is more than an idea

              I think substituting "ideas" for future requirements, potential
              requirements or items on an existing optional requirements list
              is a better way to use the term "Idea". The Business group can
              have real requirements that are more than ideas. I find the
              best ideas originating outside the business group coming from
              the hands on architect or a very good technical writer (someone who
              is software saavy and also has usability knowledge).

              The use of "idea" I like, and I encourage further thinking along
              that line. But I caution a "one glove fits all" approach to
              eliminating the word "Requirement" and changing it to "Idea".

              Regards,

              David Hecksel
              http://davidhecksel.com/about.html

              --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Grigg"
              <jeffgrigg@c...> wrote:
              > --- Jim Shore <jshore@t...> wrote:
              > > "I've been working with a customer to help them define a
              > > custom agile process. One of the first things I've been
              > > doing is looking at where software requirements come from
              > > and how they're prioritized."
              > >
              > > Find my new article at
              > > http://www.jamesshore.com/Blog/Ideas_Not_Requirements.html.
              >
              > I've been challenging the word "requirements" too. "How can you say
              > that this thing is a *REQUIREMENT*, when the business is doing just
              > fine right now without it? In what sense is is objectively
              > required???"
              >
              > "Ideas." Now there's a nice idea. ;-> One possible shortcoming,
              > however: I'm looking for ideas that people are willing to *pay*
              > for. "Hey, I have an idea!" I say, "We could paint the house
              > pink." However, nobody really wants the house to be pink. So
              > something's missing there.
              >
              > I think that the things masquerading as "requirements" today aren't
              > really requirements. They are (hopefully) things that people want
              > enough to pay for them. If I'm implementing things that no one
              > wants enough to be willing to pay for them, then I think that
              > someone is misusing someone else's money. :-[
            • Brad Appleton
              Interesting response David. I tend to call them all requests , and to me the difference is one of granularity: a requirement is the smallest possible testable
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 18, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Interesting response David. I tend to call them all "requests", and to
                me the difference is one of granularity: a requirement is the smallest
                possible testable unit of behavior. A "request" may encompass one or
                more requirements, which together from a complete concept/idea from the
                perspective of the requestor.

                So from your perspective, are "Requirements" and "Ideas" simply
                different "states" of a request?

                I know of some shops that use a formal gated progression of incoming
                requests.:
                * They are initially called "ideas", and
                * if the basic idea is "accepted" it gets elaborated a bit more and
                becomes a "concept"
                * if the concept is accepted, as business case is developed, and if that
                is accepted, it becomes a "proposal"
                * if the "proposal" is accepted, it gets elaborated even more, and
                depending on the scope/scale of the request, it might become a
                "portfolio", or a "capability" or a "feature" or a "project" or an
                "enhancement"

                I like Dave Astel's idea of calling these requirements thingies
                "behaviors". A behavior would be the smallest possible testable unit of
                functionality. A behavior might have an attribute or priority associated
                withg it noting its criticality and how mandatory-vs-optional it is.

                David Hecksel wrote:
                > I think substituting "ideas" for future requirements, potential
                > requirements or items on an existing optional requirements list
                > is a better way to use the term "Idea". The Business group can
                > have real requirements that are more than ideas. I find the
                > best ideas originating outside the business group coming from
                > the hands on architect or a very good technical writer (someone who
                > is software saavy and also has usability knowledge).
                >
                > The use of "idea" I like, and I encourage further thinking along
                > that line. But I caution a "one glove fits all" approach to
                > eliminating the word "Requirement" and changing it to "Idea".
                >

                --
                Brad Appleton <brad@...> www.bradapp.net
                Software CM Patterns (www.scmpatterns.com)
                Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration
                "And miles to go before I sleep" --Robert Frost
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.