A tale of bad requirements


Published on

I wrote this paper for my Technical Writing for the Professions class. I conducted more than 30 interviews with a group of requirements analysts, software testers, and software developers to discover the effectiveness of the requirements documentation developed within one organization. This paper discusses the findings of that research and recommends several actions for organizations facing similar issues.

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

A tale of bad requirements

  1. 1. TheTesters’Chronicle: A Tale of Bad Requirementsand the Chaos of Change • Does Agile fit your project? • Involving testers in the requirements discussion. • The requirements keep changing! • What are good requirements and why does it matter?
  2. 2. “Massive chaos!” uncomfortable) (Derfler, 2001). The tester then places more emphasis on scenarios that are“Scrambled eggs!” critical to the customer and develops test scenarios that more closely resemble actual“Miserable!” customer usage. Extra testing on high priority and high risk areas tends to find important“Test would be lost!” defects.What sort of doomsday do these But, when the testers are not included in thecomments reflect? These are the requirements sessions, they must try to get thisresponses of software testers at Company kind of perspective by other means. For example, they read the Vision document which defines theZ when asked, “What would happen if we project scope. In it they find statements aboutdidn’t document requirements?” the business opportunities and the problems “We couldn’t write tests. All the tests are that the new system must address, along with abased on the requirements. If the requirements list of stakeholder needs and features.analysts didn’t document them, I’d have to do it Unfortunately, these requirements are oftenmyself.” Clearly, testing at this company is rather sketchy. Several of the testers expressed a wish for not only more detail in theseheavily dependent upon requirementsdocumentation. In many ways, it is an descriptions, but also diagrams and pictures tounfortunate dependency. The quality of the help explain the bigger context about what isrequirements and their constant change make needed and why.testing unnecessarily inefficient at Company Z. Whether or not they get a clear picture of the project scope from the Vision document, theTest depends on requirements. The test next recourse for the testers is the Solutiondevelopment process demonstrates the testers’ Requirements Specification (SRS) which shoulddependency on the requirements. Ideally, contain the detailed requirements. Occasionally,analysts at Company Z include the testers in the this document provides just the kind of detailedrequirements gathering sessions with the requirements needed. More often, this is wherebusiness customer so they can understand what the real trouble begins. Typical problems are:the customer needs and why. Kurt Derflerconfirms the benefit of including the testers and • The requirements are not detailed enough.adds that testers will also identify riskyrequirements during these sessions (those that • The requirements are vague.they observe to make the developers
  3. 3. • The requirements are not testable. Even in that utopia, there is one more hazard to tester joy: Change management.• The requirements inappropriately dictate design details. While change management problems are not inherent to the waterfall life cycle model which is If the SRS fails them, the testers have one used at Company Z, longer development cyclesmore hope: the use cases. They may happily find certainly provide more opportunity for glitchesthat the use cases are so wonderfully detailed (Goodpasture, 2011). During the months or yearsthat they can actually write the test scripts between writing the requirements and releasingdirectly from them. More commonly, if they even the product, the requirements inevitably changeget use cases, testers find that the pre-conditions a lot. On those projects that follow Company Z’sand post-conditions are too sketchy to be useful, defined change management process, the testersthe steps in the use case are too high level, and are informed of every change to thethe expected results are not clearly defined. requirements and the changes are clearly marked in the requirements documents. While Another common problem is the lack of this may mean a lot of test maintenance, at leastrequirements tracing. The testers plan their test the tests match the plan of record. But . . . for allscenarios around the features and use cases. To the other projects, reality looks more like this:ensure that each test scenario covers all thedetailed requirements that are related to a • The tester is informed that somethingfeature or a use case, they must know what changed in the requirements, but cannotthose relationships are. Company Z suggests a easily identify the change. There is noTraceability Matrix to show these relationships. revision history. There is no change tracking.Unfortunately, analysts complete it for only The tester must resort to line-by-lineabout 30% of the projects, by one estimate. Even comparisons which is made more difficultwhen analysts do create a Traceability Matrix, when the SRS is presented as a spreadsheetthey often leave it incomplete and out of date. with row grouping.Without such documentation, the testers have toguess about these requirements relationships. • Or, the tester may not be informed of the change. Sometimes this happens because theThe chaos of change. But suppose that a requirements analyst didn’t know about ittester is so lucky as to get a requirements analyst either. Sometimes it happens because thewho engages him in requirements sessions, analyst forgot to tell the tester. Either way,writes a thorough Vision document, writes great the first notice the tester receives may be adetailed requirements and excellent use cases, “working as designed” response to a defectand provides a complete Traceability Matrix. report for a failing test.
  4. 4. Can agile help? This litany of problems is just systems are large and complex and critical to theone of the reasons that Company Z has begun to operation of the company. And many membersinvestigate making a transition to an iterative or of the technical teams have minimal experienceagile development model where shorter cycles with these systems.will reduce the impact of changing requirements.While they need the agility and speed that Or is iterative better? While agileshorter cycles enable, the company recognizes development may not be the perfect fit for all ofthat the change will not be easy. the projects at Company Z, most could benefit from at least adopting a more iterative approach According to the criteria suggested by Jennitta to development. They could develop theAndrea for determining whether an organization products in a series of short iterations. Theyis ready for an agile development model, could document the requirements one or twoCompany Z is iterations indefinitely an advance. And“ugly stepsister” Team they could freeze Experience(Andrea, 2005). LOW the requirementsThe agile “glass for the current System HIG LOW SMEslipper” does not H iteration while Criticality Experiencefit. Applying the developers LOW HIG Ideal H HIGAndrea’s project LOW 10H and testers Company Zfactors map, the CO-LOCATED complete that Domain HIG 100radar diagram Complexity H Team Size iteration. Thisfor Company Z is would eliminatenot promising. DISTRIBUTED Team most of the Proximity requirements The subject changematter experts management issues. But what(SMEs) at Company Z are Figure 1 Radar diagram for Company Z about the problems with thegenerally inexperienced at requirements themselves?specifying softwarerequirements and certainly have no experience Requirements analysts to the rescue. Theexpressing them in the form of functional tests. requirements analysts at Company Z couldIts teams, which do not include the SMEs, tend relieve most of the angst that plagues theirto be large and they are located in several states testers by consistently applying the company’sacross the U.S. as well as abroad. Its software current requirements standards.
  5. 5. 1. Include the testers in the requirements 1. Include a section which shows the business gathering sessions. context of the use case. 2. Include the detailed requirements and2. Write thorough business opportunity and present them in a nested structure that problem statements in the Vision document. shows the stakeholder needs and features they relate to. This would eliminate the need3. Include plenty of information about the for a separate Traceability Matrix. For “why” when documenting stakeholder needs, example: features, and detailed requirements. Stakeholder Need #1714. Provide enough detail so that there is no Feature #85 ambiguity. This might include a description of Detailed Requirement #150 what the requirement means to the Detailed Requirement #151 customer, screen shots or report layouts, Changing the software development life cycle validation rules, security rules, audit rules, and improving the requirements are probably and success criteria (Miller, 2009). not changes that Company Z would make just to5. Make sure the requirements are testable. To benefit its testers. Most large companies don’t be sure, try to imagine a test for the change until it hurts…bad enough. But market requirement—or ask a tester! If you can’t pressures and a tough economy have made this figure out how to test it, rewrite it. corporation realize that it must change in order to produce the systems it needs to survive. An6. Write thorough use cases, making sure that iterative life cycle and improved requirements the preconditions, post-conditions, and all documentation are necessary to enable rapid the steps are testable. and flexible development. Luckily for the testers, these changes are just what they need as well.7. And finally, document the tracing relationships between the requirements. Besides having the requirements analystsfollow its existing requirements standards,Company Z could reduce its testing costs bymaking a few improvements to these standards.In particular, several of the testers encouragedtwo changes to the Use Case Specificationstandard:
  6. 6. AUTHOR BIO: Fran McKain is a senior requirementsanalyst at Company Z. Her previous 20 years of softwaretest experience make her very aware of the things thatmake life difficult for testers. Eight years as a projectmanager gave her an appetite for solving such problems.ReferencesAndrea, J. ( 2005). If the shoe doesn’t fit: Agile requirements for stepsister projects. Retrieved January 30, 2011 from www.stickyminds.comDerfler, K. (2001). Should testing be involved in the requirements elicitation process? Retrieved January 31, 2011 from www.stickyminds.comGoodpasture, J. C. (2011). Enterprise agile and the business analyst. Retrieved January 30, 2011 from www.stickyminds.comMiller, S. (2009). Reducing costs with good requirements and code reviews. Retrieved January 31, 2011 from www.stickyminds.com