Slashdot Mirror
Getting Accurate Specifications for Software?
spiffcow asks: "I design internal software for users that are largely computer-illiterate, and obtaining accurate specs for these programs has become a huge challenge. In the most recent instance, I asked for detailed specs on what an accounting program should do (i.e. accounting rules, calculation methods, and so forth), and received a Word document mock-up of an input screen, complete with useless stickers. This seems to be the norm around here. When I asked my boss (the head Sales manager) for specs, he responded saying that it was my responsibility to determine what was needed. How do I convey to the users that, in order to develop the software they want, I need detailed, accurate specs?"
Your boss is correct: it is your job to get accurate specs.
In my experience, the best way to get these is *not* asking people what they want or need (because they are usually not capable of putting that into words), but to observe how they do things right now, and determine which features they need (or which features would ease their workload) that way.
Its called Systems Engineering and its a whole other profession. For a large, complex system like the ATC systems I work on syseng could easily account for 30% of your staff. Remember that getting the design right in the first place it the hardest part.
The only way I can think of the convince the "sales" people who apparently run your site is to create a really big stuff up and document it in advance to make them culpable. The problem is that they will probably just get rid of you when they respond.
You could try a kind of passive-agressive approach. Keep misunderstanding them. A bit like a monty python sketch. Don't go so far that they really get angry. Judge it so they come to their senses and start to write down exactly what they want.
Isn't there an old adage: The user got exactly what they asked for but not what they want.
I think you are screwed. Sorry. I have been in that situation before.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I try to get them to tell me how they would do it with a pencil and paper. They won't anwser the question as asked, of course. They'll say "I need some trancaction where I can put..." or "there needs to be some file where..."[1] - at this point you interrupt and ask them, again, how they would do it with pencil and paper. Eventually, you'll get to the answer. Then you, the developer/analyst, should be able to work out how to do it.
This forces them to concentrate on the what, not the how. You'd hope people would have the ability to intellectually grok the difference, without such a trick. You'd be disappointed.
[1] To them, file/screen/transaction/table/program are all synonyms. Never, ever, trust their terminology.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
What you think your job is, and what your actual job is are two quite different things. Traditional software 'methodology' is bunk and doesn't work - this is why you are confused.
.NET has something similar.
You think it works like this:
- User knows what they want
- They write it down
- You...?
- Programmers implement it (probably wrongly)
If you consider your job more like an architect, then you will see the flow is really more like:
- Users think they know what they want (maybe)
- They can tell you what they DONT want
- You interpret their needs/desires in to a design and spec
- Programmers implement it (probably wrongly, but nothing is perfect)
If you think about what architects do for their clients, they figure out roughly what the client wants (house, building, garden, etc) and various parameters specified and unspecified in fuzzy things (building code, safety margins, design principles, aesthetics, etc). They then produce a number of different designs and design ideas to run past the client. Iterate a few times and then once they have sign off, build it.
If you were required to write some 300 page doc about the house you want, you'd be finding a new architect. Likewise, make life easy on your customers. I'm sure they have pre-existing documents and references regarding the accounting rules they need implemented (I assume you are familiar with accounting - if not, why the hell are you building it?!). But as for the UI and other software design features, most people just want something that (a) works (b) well (c) usable (d) does what they need. Meaning, don't ask for label or window placement.
If you have a RAD tool such as interface builder on OS X then you can create semi-functional mocks easily. I'm sure
123. This is a major requirement.
123.1. This is a minor.
123.01A.1. Please refer to 782.5.1¾.1A.
123.5.1.A. This is a MAJOR requirement.
78.a7.A. A history should be kept for all items. Never should any item be permanently deleted.
342.8. Wullywuz must always be permanently deleted.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
* I've received a specification for a new project that accurately tells me what the program should do, and doesn't assume prior knowledge of the entire business;
* I've read the original specification for an existing project that matches the way it's actually been implemented;
* Management have believed me when I've informed them that either of these conditions are occurring and are preventing me from doing my job in a timely, effective fashion;
The lesson to be learned here is that there is no tried-and-true methodology that works across the board in IT, and thus there is no established framework for non IT people devising specifications for IT people. The problem is always going to be that each person in a business is so far down their own specializing holes that they forget how much people in other departments know or don't know. I liken it to teaching someone how to drive a car after you've driven for many years - after a while these things become ingrained in you, to the point you forget that your pupil doesn't know to hit the clutch before changing gears. CRUNCH!
Work smarter, not harder.
I agree with the parent comment. It's too big an intellectual challenge for most people to think about the details of software design. Users just want their software to work.
The correct approach is a very loving one. You try to discover what would make their work easiest, and make the software do everything software can do. Most jobs require that a person turn himself or herself partly into a robot. That's wrong. If a machine can do it, a machine should do it.
Programmers typically say to this, "I just want to be a programmer, not a sociologist." The real world requires every one of us to be a sociologist, or be out of touch with what's happening.
--
Is U.S. government violence a good in the world, or does violence just cause more violence?
We've found that writing User Stories together with the 'client' is the only sensible way to gather requirements. Make sure you develop in short iterations, that way people can change their mind about the software and you don't loose a lot of time.
I am by no mean a professional developer, however I develop a data analysis application that my collegues use in my lab (I hope to release it on Sourceforge soon). I do it not only for *my* data analysis, but also for other kinds of analyses, so I discuss "specs" from my collegues and implement them.
What I found is that when they are in front of the app, after a bit of usage they think "could you add feature X?" "how can I do Y?" and so on. I implement X and Y, and only then they ask "oh, you did Y? So why not Z?" etc. So the spec becomes dynamic, in the sense that only when they see a milestone accomplished new possibilities come to their (and my) mind. It's a climbing process. I don't know if it's the same also for pro developers.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
If you are lucky enough to live and work in an environment that allows this, then it is, IMHO, the absolute best method for developing software. Now unfortunately, in much of the world, and especially at larger companies, very rigid software development practices are followed that make this sort of agile, iterative development difficult or impossible. I am lucky; I work at such a company,and work directly with a group of developers who use a very rigid, unflexible system; we don't see the product until it's been completed based on the spec - any iterative feedback I or my colleagues has is worthless, and would have to be done to fit into the next quarterly release cycle. Luckily, I also do my own development for some internal departments, and am given the freedom to work in a more agile manner.
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
Domain knowledge is what makes you really valuable to a company. As suggested above, go and work with the users to figure it out, and then implement it. If anyone wonders what is taking you so long, be prepared by documenting exactly how you spent your time learning the procedures / formulas. That kind of documentation is useful come review / raise / bonus time. Seriously, it can take years to gain high levels of domain knowledge.
:-)
One example I can bring up from my past is designing industrial test equipment used for calibrating mechanical metering devices. I spent a month where I worked side by side with the people who would be using the equipment, 9 months developing prototypes (including all the hardware and software) and ended up with a product that cuts a 15 minute procedure down to 2. Again, I had to work with the users to see how they used the prototypes, and refine the hardware / software to real-life conditions. I even had to consult with a physics professor at the local university to help with some of the complex flow equations (physics is not my specialty, but I know enough to be dangerous...
Could I have ever expected my users to develop detailed specs? No way - it's not one of their core competencies.