The original post is here:
http://requirements.seilevel.com/blo...documents.html
Narendra said...
I think the emphasis of requirements should move from process driven, template based collection to requirement analysis based on strategic priorities. Executives collect lot of data, often fail to prioritize them with strategic goals & context at lifecycle stage. Some details are given at http://productstrategy.wordpress.com/
6/26/2007 1:25 AM
sounds like there is room for both the artifact templates and the "analysis of Executive requirements." In fact, I'd argue that they are in no way mutually exclusive and that the best run/most successful projects that I have been involved in have had both.
Unfortunately, more often than not the analysis you suggest Narendra is missed entirely, for speculated reasons that are probably worthy of another thread and/or blog post.
I was struck by parallels between the "Product Evolution Stages" (in the link) and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I would argue, though, that most innovations should be considered primarily as performance improvements.Originally Posted by achen
As the example cited of the mobile phone shows, it is perfectly legitimate to trade off different aspects of performance. The mobile phone was originally far more expensive than traditional fixed phones, with poorer performance in almost every respect. To gain the unique performance advantage of "mobility", customers were prepared to accept the poorer performance and the additional cost. Improving the other performance aspects led to less of a trade-off, and hence greater take-up.
This is more unusual in applications software, where it is almost universally assumed that existing performance provides a worst-case benchmark for future performance. That is: new systems shall be at least as good as existing systems in all respects (and significantly better in at least one respect). Even here, though, we often see slower response times, for example, being accepted in return for improvements to other characteristics such as "usability" (whatever that is taken to mean). Less often and less intentionally, I would contend, than could usefully be the case. MS Word Lite (tm) anyone?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote