Whether it is in the project-based delivery process or in the product-based iteration process, demand change is an unavoidable problem.
Frequent requirements changes will email list not only cause schedule risks and cost risks, but also cause "public opinion risks", which will have uncontrollable negative effects on both internal and external personnel.
Although it is unavoidable, we can still try to avoid it through our own growth and skills, or control the negative consequences caused by changes to an acceptable range. Today, I summarize the problems involved in changing requirements in my work, hoping to be helpful to everyone. If there is any imperfection, please leave a message to correct it.
There are many reasons for requirements to change, but in summary, it is nothing more than the problem of the requirements/product personnel themselves:
In the stages of demand analysis, design, and review, the scenarios and solutions are not considered comprehensively, and the policy and market research is inaccurate. Or some functions are missing, or the business logic is not closed; there are also some details that were not thought of in advance, which led to the discovery of the later implementation.
It is also possible that some related parties need to cooperate with the content of the transformation without clear research, and later found that the other party could not cooperate with the promotion; or the evaluation of the scope of the related function transformation in the system was inaccurate, and it was found later that this kind of plan would hurt muscles and bones, and it was developed during the implementation process. The team found that the implementation was too difficult, and the cycle or cost were uncontrollable.
Especially in the review process, the R&D team, related parties, customers and other roles did not listen carefully and think carefully. It was only when we really needed everyone's cooperation that we found out that there was a problem.
The degree of completion in the requirements analysis process listed above is not enough, and can account for most of the factors in later changes.
Of course there are other reasons: such as policy or market changes. There is no problem with the plan in the design stage, but in the process of implementation, the policy has changed, the market trend has changed, and the pain points to be solved by users have been upgraded. In the end, the demand has changed.
There are also very metaphysical reasons, such as the leadership's thinking has changed (whether Party A or Party B).