Tag Archive for: requirements management

Today, we’re re-running this post from January to help spread the word about our upcoming webinar that dives deep into the Engineering.com report. Register here.

A new research report from Engineering.com reveals how design and engineering professionals are approaching the increasing complexity of both their products and requirements management processes.

For the report, Design Teams: Requirements Management & Product Complexity, Engineering.com surveyed nearly 250 design and engineering professionals about the growing complexity of their company’s products and how requirements are managed amidst this changing landscape.

For a full breakdown of the Engineering.com report with guidance on how to correct some of the issues raised, register for our webinar, “The Great Cost of Poor Requirements Management.”

Register now. 

While Jama Software sponsored the report, the research and its subsequent editorial readout were conducted entirely independently by Engineering.com. And the results are extremely illuminating.

Product Development Increasing in Complexity

One of the biggest takeaways, especially for requirements enthusiasts like ourselves, was that even though more than 90% of respondents reported that their products had increased in complexity over the last five years, a mere 15% relied on a dedicated requirements management platform.

Driving this increase in product complexity are many factors, including how development teams have been:

  • Integrating more electronic components, embedded software and microprocessors
  • Increasing the intricacy of mechanical designs
  • Using different materials
  • Reducing weight and shrinking size
  • Building connected products (IoT)
  • Incorporating AI or machine learning

Given the rapid increase in product complexity, product design teams need a structured information system to handle requirements throughout each stage of product development.

Without a dedicated solution, teams are stuck with ineffective requirements management, resulting in things like product outcome failures (83% of respondents) and reprimands by regulatory agencies (62% of respondents).

The Impact of Investing in Requirements Management

Despite a high percentage of teams encountering regulatory and product outcome failures, most product teams (81% of those interviewed, in fact) believe their requirements management process to be effective.

And yet how can these requirements management processes be considered effective when the majority of teams are experiencing product outcome failures and getting penalized by regulatory agencies?

The reason for this contradiction in perception, according to Engineering.com, might be that “few teams employ a formal requirements management system. Having not purchased a system, they are dismissive and forgiving of failures while offering middling praise for the unsophisticated solutions they rely on.”

In other words, most companies don’t know what they don’t know.

Requirements Management Platforms Can Help Reduce Regulatory Reprimands

It shouldn’t be a surprise that development teams in industries that were highly regulated (66%) were more likely to use a purpose-built requirements management solution.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the analysis also showed that organizations using dedicated requirements management platforms in regulated industries not only received fewer instances of warnings, recalls, fines and production stoppages than those that didn’t, but nearly half reported experiencing none of those problems at all.

Plus, across all industries, requirements management platforms were rated highest in effectiveness overall versus any other method.

As the Engineering.com report concludes: “It is clear from the data that the products most design teams are creating are becoming more complex. Yet, they have not thought of investing in the tools available that would help them manage the requirements this complexity demands.”

Here are some other takeaways from the report:

  • Product teams must manage multiple types of requirements. On average, product teams cited 4.5 different requirement types critical to their products.
  • Product feature requirements are critical to 79% of respondents (the other 21% were working on less-complex products with fewer feature requirements).
  • More than 4 out of 5 teams have experienced product outcome failures, including exceeding cost requirements (46%), lost time to market (38%), product shipped without meeting all requirements (36%), and excessive time spent tracing requirements (36%).
  • The more sophisticated the requirements management system, the more effective it was found to be.

To dive deeper into the data about the challenges requirements management systems can solve, head over to Engineering.com and download the report, “Design Teams: Requirements Management & Product Complexity.”

Requirements Management helps in the Product Development Process

Although requirements management is just one part of the product development process, many organizations fail to realize its importance in the successful delivery of a finished product.

In fact, The Standish Group indicates that three of the biggest contributors to projects that fail or are “challenged” are:

  • Lack of user input
  • Incomplete requirements and specifications
  • Changing requirements and specifications

Another recent study showed that of all failed projects investigated, more than 40% concluded that failure was because of bad requirements or being unable to understand the stakeholder’s true needs in the first place.

In addition to avoiding negative business outcomes, better requirements management and investing in modern requirements management tools provides numerous benefits. One analysis of the potential return on investment from better requirements suggested that requirement errors can consume between 70% and 85% of all project rework costs.

Here are just a few ways that investing in better requirements management — and more modern requirements management tools — can help your team improve its product development process and cut down on costs.

Better Requirements Management Helps When Selecting Projects

The connection between good requirements and positive business outcomes is clear: Good preliminary requirements enable senior managers to make effective business decisions as organizations decide which, among a set of potential projects, to move forward on.

Better requirements management allows a more accurate projection of business returns. Once a project is funded, better requirements allow project managers to more sensibly partition tasks among their teams and individual team members.

Requirements Help Teams Prioritize Work in the Product Development Process

Documented requirements allow teams to prioritize remaining work. Most projects need to make compromises to ensure that they implement the most critical and timely functionality. A prioritized requirements baseline helps the team incorporate those changes that will deliver the maximum customer value. One study revealed that just 54% of the originally defined features were delivered in an average project. If you can’t implement all the requested functionality, make sure the team implements the right portion.

Requirements Management is Key to Developing Designs

Requirements are the foundation for design. Therefore, well-understood and well-communicated requirements help developers devise the most appropriate solution to the problem. High-quality requirements also ensure that the development team works on the right problem in the product development process.

Many developers have experienced the frustration of implementing functionality that someone swore they needed, only to find that no one ever used it. One survey by The Standish Group indicated that fully 45% of the delivered software product features were never used. Wasting less time implementing the wrong functionality accelerates the project and maximizes its business return.

Improved Requirements Management Can Accelerate the Product Development Process

Believe it or not, investing more effort in developing requirements can accelerate software development. This seems counterintuitive, but it’s true. Defining business requirements — the expected business outcomes the product will provide — aligns the stakeholders with shared vision, goals, and expectations. Effective user involvement in establishing the requirements reduces the chance that users will reject the new system upon delivery.

Accurate requirements ensure that the functionality built will let users perform their essential business tasks. The requirements also establish achievable quality expectations. This lets the team implement both the capabilities and the product characteristics — the nonfunctional requirements — that will make users happy.

Additionally, emphasizing requirements development is less expensive than relying on beta testing to find requirements problems. Fixing problems that late in the game is far costlier than correcting them earlier.

Learn more by downloading our eBook, “Jama Software’s Guide to Requirements and Requirements Management.”

Global research and consulting firm Frost & Sullivan recently released a report on the product development landscape and the challenges that those in heavily regulated industries face. And while the findings were not at all surprising, they were illuminating.

The report, titled “Safeguarding Regulated Products Amidst Growing Complexity,” found that those developing products in regulated industries — such as automotive, aerospace, medical devices, industrial technologies, and semiconductors — faced many challenges to efficiency, including stringent regulatory compliance, an influx of competitors, and significant and increasing product complexity.

The Tension Between Compliance and Innovation

The report states that many organizations continue to struggle with the tension between adhering to strict regulatory compliance standards and innovating. And while innovation and compliance aren’t mutually exclusive, without a process to help balance the two, many organizations feel forced to choose.

So, what’s holding these organizations back?

According to the Frost & Sullivan report, it’s the outdated systems and processes organizations have invested in that aren’t equipped to keep up with the speed of innovation.

“These antiquated systems are often static and spreadsheet- or even paper-based,” writes Frost & Sullivan. “And while they may offer a (possibly false) sense of reassurance against the costs and risks associated with a live digital system, they end up creating more costs and causing more harm.”

Learn how Alight Solutions transformed requirements management for its clients by downloading the case study.

The Consequences of Outdated Systems for Those in Regulated Industries

In addition to throttling innovation, the report found that these legacy systems can also lead to increasing compliance costs due to the inability to stay up to speed with changing regulations. The report also details issues with version control, errors, silos, and inhibited collaboration as outcomes of using outdated, document-based requirements management solutions.

The report was clear in its solution to this issue. Teams in highly regulated industries must use a modern, platform-based solution to manage requirements, risk, and testing in product development. And in addition to risk management and accelerating innovation, the report says, the benefits of switching to a modern requirements management solution are plentiful. More efficient and smarter systems allow for cross-organizational collaboration, the ability for key stakeholders to review and weigh in, and end-to-end traceability to easily prove compliance.

Download this recent report by Engineering.com to learn more about the gap between the increasing complexity of products and requirements management.

The report not only strongly suggests that organizations in heavily regulated industries make the switch to a modern requirements management platform, but also names Jama Connect™ as a top solution. And they provide proof.

The report outlines two case studies which highlight the power of upgrading from an outdated, legacy requirements management solution to Jama Connect.

Here’s a recap of one of the case studies.

Semiconductor Company Removes Errors While Speeding Product Development

One of the oldest semiconductor companies in the world found that to remain competitive, it was increasingly building more complex solutions that integrated software and hardware. Products and projects were getting bigger and more complex, as were the teams designing and building them. Along with more complex solutions, the company also needed to be fast to market to remain ahead in an increasingly competitive space. Hence, parallel product development was also critical, though difficult, as the company had various functions spread across global geographies.

The company used Jama Connect to create a system that enabled these teams and disciplines to work concurrently, with living documents that kept the large volumes of data needed for product development constantly up to date and manageable. As noted earlier, eliminating errors is a fundamental driver for both time to market and regulatory compliance, and Jama Connect meets that need as well.

To see the second case study and access the full Frost & Sullivan report, “Safeguarding Regulated Products Amidst Growing Complexity,” download it now.

Ever wish you could jump right into a software development project without first creating a product requirements document?

OK, let’s get real here: have you ever not only wished it, but actually done it?

If so, you know the results, and they probably weren’t great. In fact, your project was likely a disaster in terms of time spent, budget wasted, and the overall quality (or lack thereof) of the finished product.

So, skipping the product requirements document really isn’t a viable approach. How, then, can you create a good product requirements document with minimal hassle?

Simply follow these eight steps.

1. Brainstorm Software Requirements

Your first step in writing a software development product requirements document doesn’t even involve writing. Well, it does, but not in the way you might think. You’ll need to call together all your project stakeholders and solicit their input, taking copious notes all the while.

Remember that in the true spirit of a brainstorm, there are no right or wrong answers. Encourage the whole team to contribute generously and focus on recording their ideas. Sure, you’ll get some real outlier ideas, and the team may even go off on tangents. But you’ll get everyone’s needs out in the open, which will ultimately make it easier for you to deliver a product that meets them.

Only after the fact will you begin to separate the wheat from the chaff — and then give structure to the wheat. Which brings us to our next step.

2. Create a Product Requirements Document Outline

Remember back in high school when your English teacher made you write — and submit — an outline for your term paper before you started the actual writing? Turns out she wasn’t crazy. If you can’t summarize your thoughts in an outline, it’ll be a lot tougher to write a coherent final product requirements document.

Taking the input you received during the brainstorming session, you’re now going to create the framework of your software development product requirements document. You don’t have to worry about sounding perfect in an outline — use just enough words to get your point across. But do make sure that each point flows logically to the next.

If you come across a point that doesn’t fit the flow of your document, don’t just assume you’ll fix it when you get to the writing phase; instead, ask yourself if it should be moved to a different part of the document, or if it should be cut entirely.

Learn how better requirements can impact your business by downloading our whitepaper, “The Bottom Line: Better Requirements Add Business Value.”

3. Make Sure that All Software Requirements Are Specific and Testable

A vague product requirements document is little better than none at all. If you give your developers lots of wiggle room by using imprecise language, there’s no telling what you’ll get back in the end.

So, once you’ve completed your outline, take a close look at what it actually specifies about the finished product. The product shouldn’t provide “a number of ways” for the user to complete a task; it should provide, say, two specific ways. The home screen shouldn’t load up “instantly;” it should load within six milliseconds.

Of course, creating exact specifications for your product won’t do much good if you can’t test for these specifications. Ask your QA and testing organization how they can enhance the product development process, what kinds of testing technology they can deploy and even what pitfalls they think you may face during development.

4. Write a Draft of Your Software Requirements

Hate writing? Don’t worry. Most of the hard work has already been done in the outlining phase. Now that you know exactly what you want your document to say, you just have to say it.

Take your lean and logical outline and turn it into sentence form. As you work, remember that simple, clear language is better than all those vocabulary words you were supposed to learn for the SAT. Your readers will appreciate you getting to the point and stating in plain English what it is that the software should do.

Sometimes, the best writing isn’t writing at all — it’s a picture. Don’t hesitate to use a diagram or graphic to replace a long, tedious paragraph. Again, your readers will appreciate being able to understand your point at a glance rather than spending valuable time reading.

5. Proofread, Edit, and Logic-Check

Sometimes good writing is simply good editing. A software development product requirements document that’s riddled with typos and grammatical errors is far less likely to be taken seriously. But even more significantly, a document that lacks a logical flow and is missing key considerations could bring development grinding to a halt.

Once you have a first draft, get vicious with what you’ve written. Go over it with a highly critical eye. Try to cut out needless sentences, and trim unnecessary clauses and phrases out of overly long sentences. One useful old trick is to read the document out loud. If you hear yourself droning on and on without really saying anything, that’s generally a sign you need to pare down your text.

Learn from the experts on how to conquer the five biggest challenges of requirements by reading our white paper.

6. Conduct Peer Reviews

In your haste to produce a product requirements document, don’t cut corners. You’ll be surprised at what errors extra sets of eyes can find, what perspectives they bring and what potential disasters they prevent.

That’s why you want the most honest and open feedback from stakeholders to strengthen your software requirements. And you also want to give them enough time so they can be thoughtful about what you’ve presented, while still being mindful of the fact you’re under a time crunch.

Hopefully you’re not emailing around versioned documents, and soliciting feedback from stakeholders that way, because that takes forever and invariably someone’s thoughts get missed in the process. And the opinion you lose might just be the one that introduces a tidal wave of risk.

Modern requirements solutions can cut your review times in half, while capturing everyone’s feedback in real time. Not only will you hit your deadline, you won’t need to sit through lengthy stakeholder meetings as they pore through each detail.

7. Rewrite Your Product Requirements Document

Take the feedback you received on your first draft and give your document a thorough reworking. If the changes were significant, consider running your product requirements document past your stakeholders a second time to get their signoff before making it official.

8. Use Your Finished Product Requirements Document as a Template for Next Time

Whew, you made it! But if this process was a success, then it should become your model for all future projects. So, be sure to save your product requirements document as a template that you can use on your next project. Rather than starting from scratch, you’ll be able to go through the different sections of the document and fill in the blanks.

There’s no failsafe plan for coming up with the perfect software development requirements document. But we think these steps will keep you on the right track — which is exactly what your finished document will do for your developers.

Download our white paper, “Writing High Quality Requirements,” to learn more about the ins and outs of creating a quality product requirements document.

Business analysts and managers sometimes ask me how long it will take to “do requirements” on their next project.

As with so many issues in software and product development, the correct answer to this question is “it depends.”

Multiple variables contribute to this issue. Various industry averages have been published to suggest what percentage of a typical project’s effort should be devoted to requirements development, which includes activities such as requirements gathering (also known as requirements elicitation).

Data from different benchmarks don’t agree very well, though, and whether these “typical” projects are similar to your own is questionable. In this article, adapted from my book, “More about Software Requirements,” I’ll offer some suggestions about how you can determine an appropriate amount of time and effort to invest in things like requirements gathering.

Industry Benchmarks

Here’s an illustration of how benchmarks may or may not be helpful. Table 1 (below) presents some industry benchmark data for the average percentage of total effort and the average schedule time that projects in several different categories devote to requirements elicitation and prototyping (data from Capers Jones’ “Software Assessments, Benchmarks, and Best Practices”). These benchmarks are for very large projects of 10,000 function points in size (approximately one million lines of code). How similar are your projects to these benchmarks?

Table 1. Benchmarks for Requirements Work on Large Projects

There’s another problem with using industry benchmarks such as these. The data doesn’t indicate how successful those projects were or define what “success” means for each project. Nor does this data indicate whether the more successful project teams devoted more of their effort to requirements elicitation activities than the less successful teams — they’re just averages of actual performance.

Whereas typical project teams devote perhaps 10% or less of their effort on things like requirements gathering, investing more has a big payoff, provided the team doesn’t get trapped in analysis paralysis. Contrary to what many people believe, spending more effort in improving your requirements development process can actually accelerate development.

A recent study by Engineering.com found that development teams without strong requirements management platforms reported more production outcome failures and reprimands by regulatory agencies.

Read it now.

While working on small projects when I was employed at Kodak, my team would typically devote 15%-to-18% of our total effort on requirements activities. We found this investment reduced the amount of post-delivery rework. It’s difficult to link causes and effects with certainty, but I believe the greatest contributing factor to our low maintenance level was the extensive user participation we cultivated.

I can’t tell you how long you should expect to spend on requirements gathering for your next project. However, Figure 1 identifies some of the conditions that can accelerate your requirements process and several other factors that lengthen the time needed for developing effective requirements.

Figure 1. Factors that influence the time needed for requirements development.

Your Own Experience

For starters, your best bet is to collect some data on how much of your own project effort is spent on requirements gathering. That’ll help you judge how well that has worked for you in the past. Use this historical data when estimating the requirements effort needed for future projects. Adjust your initial estimate by using the considerations in Figure 1 to compensate for differences between your next project and the benchmark projects. Consider any additional factors that would influence your own project. You might weight each of the factors shown in Figure 1 on a scale of 0 (no effect) to 5 (major impact). This analysis can help you spot risk factors that could prolong your requirements development work.

Another factor to consider is the development life cycle that the project is following. Not all the requirements elicitation effort should be allocated to the early stages of the project, as is the case in the sequential or waterfall life cycle (dotted line in Figure 2). Don’t think in terms of a discrete “requirements phase,” but rather about a set of requirements-related activities that span the project’s life cycle. In particular, requirements management will be performed on an ongoing basis once a set of requirements baselines emerge for the System Requirements Specification (SRS) and change requests begin to appear.

Figure 2. The distribution of requirements effort over time varies for projects that follow different development life cycles.


avoid product recall with functional safety and risk management

While a positive brand reputation takes years to nurture and build, irrevocable damage to a brand — and a business — can happen in only moments.

As innovative companies are asked to move faster than ever to bring products to market, it’s worth taking a moment to step back and look at the cost — financial and otherwise — of a misstep that could lead to product recall or failure. In addition to fines, regulatory reprimands, and decreased market share, a product recall inevitably impacts your brand and can have a major impact on your bottom line.

Brand erosion, for instance, is one consequence of a major product recall. As the name suggests, brand erosion is the gradual destruction or diminution of your organization’s reputation when your products are deemed unsafe, unfit for the marketplace, or simply don’t perform as marketed.

If you’re working in an industry where functional safety is a top priority, like automotive or aerospace, guarding against these types of scenarios means getting crystal clear on the standards and regulations that help protect your product. That also means ensuring proper risk management techniques like Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) and failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) are being performed correctly.

Often times, penalties come as a result of companies not properly performing these functions, and instead rushing to deliver products that haven’t met benchmarks for quality, compliance, and — in the case of many industries — functional safety. Other times, companies simply fudge the data. Let’s look at a few famous examples:

Ford Motors’ 1980 Failure to Park Product Recall

While product recalls can happen in any industry, some of the most notorious and detrimental have happened to automotive companies. Such was the case for Ford Motors which, in 1980, was determined by the Department of Transportation to have more than 23 million cars and light trucks in circulation that contained a functional safety defect that permitted the vehicle to accidentally slip from park into reverse, although to the driver the placing of the shift lever appeared to be in park.

And while the company would have faced financial ruin if all 23 million automobiles had been recalled, regulatory authorities ruled that instead of recalling all vehicles involved, Ford could make amends by sending out a sticker for drivers to place on their dashboard warning that “unexpected and possibly sudden vehicle movement may occur” if the car was not properly parked.

The failed safety catch was found to have led to 6,000 accidents, 1,700 injuries, and 98 deaths, and Ford was tied up in litigation for years, costing the company tens of millions of dollars. The “failure to park” issues continued even after the sticker warning was issued.

While the cost of this functional safety error included lost revenue and expensive lawsuits, the safety malfunction may have additionally cost Ford the trust of their consumers. Especially in industries that are highly regulated — and thus highly trusted — recalls related to safety and reliability can cause devastating harm to the foundation of the organization.

Learn how how a Fortune 100 semiconductor company is meeting the challenges of developing automotive-related technology by downloading our case study.

Volkswagen’s “Defeat Device” Scandal

 While some product failures and recalls are the result of honest mistakes, such as the example above, others can be attributed to downright dishonesty. Such was the case for Volkswagen in September of 2015, when the company admitted that they had installed software in 550,000 automobiles that could figure out when the cars’ emissions were being tested and modify their performance to meet mandated standards.

Initially, Volkswagen spokespeople claimed that a “few software engineers” were struggling to meet stringent U.S. emissions standards while also producing a diesel engine that would perform well. That, the spokesperson said, was the reason those individuals decided to design a “defeat device,” a system to switch on emissions controls when the cars were being tested and turn them off when the automobile was driving normally. What we now know is that knowledge of this system went much higher, and some believe awareness could have been as high as the CEO, who resigned and was later indicted.

The scandal cost the company over $29 billion dollars in recalled automobiles, but the damages didn’t stop there. After losing the trust of the public, the company posted their first quarterly loss in 15 years, showing that consumers weren’t likely to invest their money in an organization that had deceived them.

A recent study by Edelman shows that consumers are more interested than ever in purchasing from organizations that they believe are “doing the right thing.” The study revealed that 64% of consumers around the world — up 13% from 2017 — now buy on belief, meaning that they will choose, switch, avoid, or outright boycott a brand based on where the organization stands on issues they care about.

The same study showed that consumer trust dropped 10% (from 58% to 48%) in the last year, and that nearly half of consumers don’t trust businesses to “do what is right.” And organizations whose products are recalled due to deceiving functionality are certainly not going to earn a reputation for doing what’s right for their customers.

An additional 8 million cars were sold in the E.U. with the same “defeat device,” but because emissions standards are much lower there than in the U.S., Volkswagen legally committed no crime in the E.U.

NASA’s Costly Math Mistake

On December 11th, 1998, NASA launched a robotic space probe called the Mars Climate Orbiter into space with the hope of studying the Martian climate, atmosphere, and surface changes. Nearly 10 months later, in September 1999, the $125 million probe burst into flames and fell to pieces in outer space. While this was certainly not the first, or last, failed space expedition, what sets this one apart is that the reason for failure comes down to a simple math error.

 The navigation team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) used the metric system of millimeters and meters in its calculations, while the team that designed and built the spacecraft, Lockheed Martin Astronautics in Denver, provided crucial acceleration data in the English system of inches, feet, and pounds.

The result was that the software controlling the orbiter’s thrusters was faulty. The software calculated the force that the thrusters needed to exert in pounds of force, while a second piece of code that read this data assumed it was in the metric unit— newtons per square meter. And while fortunately no lives were lost, this simple mistake pushed the orbiter dangerously close to the planet’s atmosphere, destroying the spaceship and killing the mission.

Despite NASA’s next Mars mission also resulting in a lost spaceship, the organization did bounce back from the ordeal. They recovered over the following years by returning to the basics, rebuilding the Mars program based on conservative strategies and concepts that had already been tried and tested.

In the case of NASA’s space mishap, detriment took the form of missed opportunity and lost ground in their research efforts. Because of the immense time, money, and resources it takes to launch a space mission, failures and missteps can result in years of setback. What was supposed to be the first weather observer in another world became a $125 million mistake.

Learn more about Jama’s Avionics Services by downloading our whitepaper. 

How Better Requirements and Risk Management Can Help You Avoid Product Recalls and Failure

Developing complex systems and products requires teams to have the ability to effectively define and track requirements, adhere to safety-critical regulations, collaborate and communicate effectively across teams and functions, and evaluate and mitigate potential risks. Failure to do so may result in product recalls or failure, and in the case of safety-critical products, injury or worse.

According to the CHAOS Reports from The Standish Group, three of the biggest contributors to projects that fail are lack of user input, incomplete requirements and specifications, and changing requirements and specifications.

Unfortunately, too many organizations struggle with requirements and risk management and the effects, some outlined above, can be devastating.

In the case of the Mars Climate Orbiter, the simple miscommunication between JPL and Lockheed Martin not only shows how small mistakes can lead to mission failure, but also highlights the need for teams — especially those in different physical locations — to work collaboratively instead of in silos, and for organizations to invest in solutions that help teams achieve this.

With the Jama Connect Risk Management Center, development teams can participate in risk management techniques including PHA and FMEA in accordance with industry-specific standards like ISO 14971 and IEC 60812. By working with live data, teams can efficiently identify and mitigate risks early in the development process, ensuring quality and safety in complex product development.

To learn more about how Jama helps organizations thrive in critical product markets by reducing risk and providing a single source of truth, download Frost & Sullivan’s recent executive brief,“Safeguarding Regulated Products Amidst Growing Complexity.”

There are three main aspects of a project that tend to be in regular tension with one another: quality, schedule, cost. Typically, project management is about managing the tension that arises as focus and prioritization shift between these three elements.

Many times, organizations are forced to decide between pushing schedules, reducing costs, spending more on resources, and maintaining quality throughout the life of a product’s development. As a part of a product development lifecycle, requirements play a very important role in attempting to reduce or at least mitigate the tension between these areas.

Know What You’re Developing, and Why

Quality is, of course, a highly significant aspect of any product development effort. For many organizations, quality is paramount — especially in the case of highly-regulated industries like medical devices or automobiles, where quality concerns essentially amount to safety risks.

To ensure quality, you need to know what you are developing and why. And then, what are the requirements that meet those needs? In other words, a product should be defined to a meaningful degree before development begins. The distinction and order of “why” and “how” before “what” is a key element of requirements management.

This certainly does not mean that the product must be fully defined and agreed upon before any development happens. However, there should be enough definition to demonstrate that stakeholders agree on the needs and the high-level requirements meeting those needs, including acceptance criteria.

This is where a single source system becomes crucial, allowing cross-functional visibility to facilitate feedback and reviews to reduce the time and work between definition and development.

Requirements and Quality Assurance

Requirements are used to define the qualities of a system, features, or subsystem that meet actual user needs. A dedicated requirements management platform, like Jama Connect, helps ensure that development activities trace to actual needs and builds confidence that those needs are being addressed through gap analysis.

A gap in coverage happens when a need has been identified, but the engineering response to that need has not been provided. We often see this when higher level requirements don’t relate to anything, such as when an epic might be lacking stories.

Another aspect of improving quality is getting the right people involved at the right time. More eyes can sometimes be a hindrance to speed, but having people show up late to a discussion is usually worse. It’s important to make sure that not only the correct people are involved, but that the process for collaboration and reviews is clearly defined and well supported with a purpose-built solution, like Jama Connect.

Lastly, a discussion about quality would be incomplete without verification and validation (V&V). When writing requirements, it’s important to remember that the ability for a requirement to be verified is a key quality of a good requirement.

Typically, verification will happen against each requirement and is established by acceptance criteria determined while defining requirements. Validation, on the other hand, is concerned with whether or not you built the right product.

Through verification, you may determine that the product or feature works, but validation is focused on answering whether you actually met the need you set out to fulfill.

When considering the decisions and trade-offs made around quality, especially in relation to cost and schedule, having verification and validation activities closely tied into requirements definition can bring quality discussions closer to the front-end of an effort and avoid impacts of finding issues late in the lifecycle. Having a live and actionable trace matrix is essential in supporting this, especially where a product’s quality is non-negotiable.

Staying on Schedule Requires Visibility and Tracking

Schedules are mostly concerned with timelines and meeting time-based delivery of the product or its features.

In order to manage a project, the approach needs to be determined and then the infrastructure put in place to support that approach. From a product definition standpoint, the requirements may need to be organized in a way that makes sense for decomposition and capturing the granularity needed to properly define and align the product and teams. From there, development teams will collect those requirements into backlogs of work and manage the development of activities using a preferred methodology.

A quick way to build efficiency into this process, regardless of the methodologies implemented, is to manage at the level of discrete, individual items and move away from documents.

In terms of releasing pressure on the schedule, the idea is that instead of gating development and work based on large documents, manage the state of individual requirements, moving them independently through definition, acceptance and into development. Of course, logical groupings of requirements will necessitate some structure, but just identifying that appropriate organization will minimize the collection size and improve speed.

An obvious detriment to the schedule is people working on the wrong things. This can happen when teams do not have visibility into how what they are working on connects to the larger product definition.

To avoid this, consider the trace to a defined need as part of the approval and criteria for adding requirements into the backlog. Working on requirements lacking this trace runs the risk of working on the wrong thing. Of course, as you get into development cycles, new work may be discovered that helps facilitate and enable development, but this should be considered as potential scope creep.

Lastly, when it comes to schedule, it’s important that teams are tracking their work. You’ll likely be asking different questions at different phases of the effort. The important thing is that you clearly identify what you need to track to ensure progress and minimize issues that might fall through the cracks.

Once you know what you need to track, then you need to capture that data. In Jama Connect, as an example, you can track the state of requirements across the workflow, from draft through approval, which helps determine progress and find roadblocks. At a minimum, you’ll want to consider tracking the status of testing as well. That information is not the only key to the schedule but is also very important when assessing quality.

Avoid Rework by Defining, Agreeing, and then Developing

From a project management standpoint, the key metric related to cost is typically actuals again budget, where we’d take a baseline of the estimated cost and compare it to the actual cost to date. However, the cost is about more than money spent against the budget. It is also concerned with the cost of missed opportunities or lost market share.

One of the most expensive occurrences in product development is rework. Rework happens when teams get through some development activities only to find that they didn’t build the right thing or that the user needs are not actually fulfilled by what was developed.

To avoid or at least reduce rework, teams must define, agree, and then develop. The more teams can align around what it is you’re actually building and just how that thing will be verified, the better-aligned development activities will be. Additionally, as requirements are generated, verification should be defined at each level of abstraction.

Another way that teams can avoid cost and potentially positively impact their schedule is to reduce the time that teams are waiting to begin activities. This tends to happen when visibility across a development lifecycle is low and access to information is limited.

Using a single source system, like Jama Connect, and providing individual requirement status allows teams to start acting on information as it’s available and ready. As an example, if requirements are accessible and their status is visible, quality teams who handle V&V activities can begin their planning and verification activities much earlier than if they were waiting for documents to be released.

Change is another aspect of cost that’s often overlooked. Change is inevitable as we learn new information and get feedback throughout the product lifecycle. However, the cost of change can be mitigated by identifying and evaluating the impact of that change across the product. Change to a single requirement could impact definition and verification across multiple degrees of separation. Using trace, costs can be avoided by identifying and communicating these impacts early, even before applying the change.

Inform and Justify Decisions to Understand Impacts

In order to balance the three elements of project management discussed here, consider decisions that are being made and the tradeoffs determined during the lifecycle of your product development effort. In most cases, the decisions are working to balance quality, schedule, and cost.

The key to project management is being able to inform decision-making, justify these decisions, and understand the impacts. Properly managing your requirements can inform these decisions by being able to track requirements by their individual state, assess the trace for impacts and gaps, and ensure visibility and communication across teams.

Want to learn more about successfully managing every project? Check out our eBook “Project Management Best Practicesfor 21 tips on taking the pain out of project management.  

If you’re responsible for the requirements traceability of your complex product, do any of these scenarios sound familiar?

Scenario One: You just heard that a critical business requirement needs to change and be accounted for in the upcoming release. You need to know how this change will impact work downstream and how the system specification your engineers are working with will change. Immediately.

Scenario Two: Your QA team just found a critical bug in your most anticipated new feature and you’re two weeks away from launch. Do you ship with the known bug and hope to patch it later, or delay the launch? Will this impact your upcoming audit? You need to know who is working on this feature, who else needs to be notified and weigh in on the decision and know what other aspects of the product may be impacted. Immediately.

These scenarios, and countless others like them, affect engineering teams every day. And as software, embedded systems and external sensors contribute to product complexity (not to mention the complications that arise when you’re trying to unify multiple teams that contribute to a product) there is no chance that manual processes and static documentation can scale to support accurate impact analysis and quick decision-making. Requirements may be recorded, but if they’re not in a system of action, in situations like those above, you cannot effectively manage.

Gartner highlights one of the main reasons why companies struggle to achieve the benefits of traceability:

“The most widely adopted tools for requirements continue to be general document software such as Microsoft Office or Google Docs (40% to 50% of the market) due to cost, availability and familiarity. Yet these often lead to poorly managed requirements, thus eliminating and exceeding any cost benefit the tools themselves have. Requirements end up captured in a variety of documents and spreadsheets supplemented by post-it notes in unmanaged versions with no traceability or reuse. This creates a more costly user acceptance testing cycle, both in the time to execute as well as remediation of issues found late in the process, where they are far more costly to address.”

Read more about the Gartner Market Guide for Software Requirements Definition and Management Solutions.

Software and hardware teams must work together in tight collaboration throughout the development process to define market requirements, functional requirements, test cases and other artifacts that define the scope of what you’re building are related in some fashion, either directly or indirectly. This becomes difficult when the teams use different tools and terminology, and work in different cadences with difference methodologies.

Adopting these four best practices around modern requirements management and requirements traceability will help your team ensure product quality, decrease time-to-market, and achieve regulatory compliance.

Four Best Practices for Requirements Traceability

 

1. Connect stakeholders and contributors to the requirements they care about to ensure the right people can weigh in on important decisions at the right time.

Traceable relationships are as much about connecting the people as they are about connecting the requirements themselves. Each requirement in the system has members of the team associated with it — analysts, architects, development, verification and quality assurance among them — and stakeholders and customers who care about its status. With connected relationships built into your project you can quickly get interested parties involved in decision making.

2. Automate bi-directional requirements traceability to minimize risk and ensure quality.

Manually updating an old-style traceability matrix is not only cumbersome and time consuming, it leaves open the risk for human error. In the development of safety-critical products like medical devices and airplanes, this risk isn’t acceptable. And it’s difficult to prove to an auditor that you got it right.

Key to managing requirements traceability is the ability to view source requirements and their related items downstream to lower-level requirements and then back to the source, and know the status of those items at each step of the product development process. Because this data may be stored in multiple systems, it’s key to be able to connect tools via open APIs and automatically pull data into a single actionable system with visualized coverage of these trace relationships.

Learn more about the limitations of a document-based requirements management approach, and how to get the most out of your requirements management by downloading our whitepaper.

3. Connect data, conversations, and decisions in a single system in the product development process.

Being able to visualize coverage of trace relationships is imperative. But what happens when you find a gap, or a test is failing? The ability to confer and collaborate with the people connected to the requirement right in the system allows you to capture decisions and actions and keep that information associated with the requirement. Down the road, if you need to revisit decisions, all data is stored and easy to find.

With this information managers can, for example, verify that their requirements are connected to downstream test cases and see what percentage of those tests have passed. In a system of action, every test case has a comment and activity stream accessible to all users. Testers and contributors can capture decisions, answer questions, and resolve issues transparently and responsively.

4. Conduct formal reviews in compliance with internal controls or industry regulations with built-in reporting.

In the case of proving compliance with a set of rules and regulations, you need to show your requirements, their traceable connections to test plans, and verification that all test have passed. Using a requirements management solution that has built-in formal reviews and reporting for auditors makes this process less cumbersome and more reliable.

Teams facing increasing complexity and pressure to comply with industry regulations must be able to search, track, and connect interdependent requirements. Achieving a faster time to market demands that teams collaborate quickly and effectively while they work on traceable requirements.

To learn more about traceability best practices, download our whitepaper, “Better Product Development: 5 Tips for Traceability”

Recently, we explored the results of a Forrester Research report that concluded that highly regulated industries can benefit from an Agile approach to requirements management. In today’s post, we’ll dig deeper into how customers in all industries can benefit from a collaborative platform that helps them manage requirements throughout complex development cycles.

According to a recent report from Engineering.com, in spite of growing product complexity and intense regulations, the majority of design teams don’t have a dedicated requirements management (RM) solution in place. About half use a tool that’s not purpose-built for requirements management, while almost a third have no system in place at all, relying instead on email and shared documents.

Only 15% of teams surveyed by Engineering.com had invested in a dedicated RM solution — but that number should be (and will be) much higher, as more organizations come to understand the long-term value of successful requirements management.

Here are three reasons why your organization needs a RM solution.

Poor requirements management leads to product failures.

Engineering.com reports that more than four out of five design teams have experienced product failure due to substandard requirements management. Failures included exceeding cost requirements and losing time to market, but most teams experienced more than one failed outcome, like a product that was late to market and cost more than expected to build.

The report also showed that organizations using dedicated requirements management platforms in regulated industries not only received fewer instances of warnings, recalls, fines and production stoppages than those that didn’t, but nearly half reported experiencing none of those problems at all.

Teams without the right requirements management tool will ship products that haven’t met requirements.

As product complexity increases, teams without comprehensive RM solutions report shipping products that don’t meet all requirements. There are several reasons why teams report that their products were shipped with missing requirements, many of which can be linked to increased product complexity, including more frequent use of microprocessors, the need to adopt different materials, and demand for embedded software.

Shipping a product that doesn’t meet requirements can lead to reprimands from regulatory agencies or even product recalls, which can permanently damage your brand reputation and position in the market.

Products and systems are only getting more complex, driving the need for the right requirements solution.

More complexity means more time spent tracking requirements. To quote from the Engineering.com report, “Many of the respondents who increased the complexity of their products acknowledged spending excessive time tracking requirements due to poor requirements management. Those needing to connect products (IoT) and add more microprocessors suffered the most, quickly followed by those needing to embed software and reduce product size.”

Image courtesy of Engineering.com

Products are getting smarter, and development teams need intuitive, powerful RM solutions to manage that rising complexity. As the Engineering.com report concludes: “It is clear from the data that the products most design teams are creating are becoming more complex. Yet, they have not thought of investing in the tools available that would help them manage the requirements this complexity demands.”

To dive deeper into the relationship between rising product complexity and effective requirements management, download the full report: Design Teams: Requirements Management & Product Complexity.”

 

When our customers move from managing requirements in isolated documents to using a collaborative requirements management solution, they’re better-equipped to conduct impact analysis and ensure full test coverage and traceability throughout the development process.

Managing complex requirements necessitates that information be visible and accessible to all team members at all times. You also have to make sure that all this information is connected in a way that is relevant and comprehensible to your teams. This helps ensure that you’re building what you set out to build, that it fulfills your customers’ expectations, and that it’s safe and compliant.

In order to get a full picture of what’s been built and if it’s on track, it’s crucial to build connections between data, as well as to map the conversations and decisions associated with each requirement.

In this post, we’ll explore how some of our customers have realized these results using Jama Connect™.

Traceability is Essential to Requirements Management

With everything you’re managing day-to-day, the last thing you need is a tool that takes just as much time and effort to learn and use as writing and managing the requirements themselves. A requirements management solution should make your life easier, and it should be easy to roll out to your team. Moreover, the solution should help you step back and look at your entire product or system as it’s being built, see all of the connections, and easily identify where work is needed.

Our Jama Professional Services consultants often hear from customers facing the inherent challenges of complex systems that establishing and managing traceability in Jama Connect is much easier than in any other solution they’ve tried.

Here are five ways to create relationships, account for full test coverage, and manage traceability throughout the development process in Jama Connect

1. Build a framework for properly linking artifacts with relationship rules

Creating meaningful connections between artifacts is vital to having that all-important big picture view. With relationship rules, you specify the proper relationships and how to implement them, while also freeing up your team’s time to focus on building and managing requirements.

2. Find out who is connected to an item and easily communicate with connected users in the Collaboration Stream

Let’s say you notice that something is wrong with the way a requirement is written, and it needs to be adjusted. Jama makes it easy to identify not only everyone who is involved with that requirement, but also everyone involved with impacted requirements. Using the Collaboration Stream, you can quickly post the issue for these connected users, who then receive a notification and can respond quickly —without anyone needing to book a conference room.

3. Determine gaps in your test coverage quickly and easily with Trace View

A critical piece of assuring quality is being able to see where gaps lie in your test coverage. Jama Connect’s Trace View identifies those gaps by leveraging the relationships your team has created to give you a holistic view of where work is still needed.

4. Identify high-level impact across your project using suspect links

If a system-level requirement changes, it could dramatically impact the quality of your product. By using the suspect links feature in Jama Connect, you can see at a glance what other items are impacted by changes and quickly assess whether additional changes need to be made downstream.

5. Understand how product features are connected or share IP using Reuse and Sync

Complex systems make for complicated connections between individual systems and products. Jama Connect allows you to share crucial pieces of information across product lines, compare these connections at a glance, and align them with the click of a button using the Reuse and Sync feature.

Managing traceability in complex product and systems development is challenging, but it’s essential for ensuring product quality, on-time and on-budget delivery, and alignment between customer expectations and the final deliverable. That’s why you need the right product development platform to help you achieve traceability and reap the benefits.

For more strategies for establishing traceability in product development, download the whitepaper “Better Product Development: 5 Tips for Traceability.”