Status = First draft for comment
In software design there is an essential step often performed by business (or requirements) analysts; translating stakeholders expressed requirements into functional requirements.
At it’s most profound, this privileged role involves interviewing and learning about existing and proposed, material and conceptual processes and then defining the functional requirements. These are often realised within a new framework which responds to all the requirements in a way which normally involves new ways of working for the client. Ideally the new framework is more intuitive, faster, more relevant and provides more power as well as underlying quality checks.
The clients and stakeholders may provide concrete and specific criticisms and examples of improvements in their existing systems and processes that are addressed in a completely different way in the new design. And they might or might not express more general needs for a simpler, faster, less anachronistic process.
In my personal life, there is a similar interplay of general aspirations, and concrete (but occasionally counterproductive or misconceived) preferences when I try to define my own wishes/requirements to e.g. a political representative.
I feel I have a right and duty (like everyone else) to contribute in areas of public policy about which I have an opinion but little expert knowledge. For instance, regarding third world development aid, national security, progressive taxation, public vs private service provision, investment vs consumption, Genetic manipulation, nuclear power, taxing the abuse of public goods (Carbon tax, Pollution, fish stocks, Ozone/UV radiation, Agrichemicals, etc. etc.).
Almost by definition as a social animal in a large globally integrated society, I am aware of, but not expert or even competent in most areas of human endeavour.
Surely there is a parallel dynamic here, similar to that of the Business analyst and their client…
I can think of two ways to communicate my ‘(mis)understandings’….
I can attempt to give concrete examples of initiatives that embody my wishes, but I could be wrong about e.g, a big project (like the Severn and Mersey Tidal Lagoons). In third world aid it might be the way the work is done (the relationships, the social implications, the feelings) rather than the final result that matters most.
Alternatively, I might describe my values (Equality, Justice, “Resource Efficiency”,”Representation in proportion to Impact’’) and ask that (a) policy be designed to realise my values, and (b) that any plans be returned to the public domain for scrutiny, discussion and testing against a balanced basket of my (and the affected stakeholders) value criteria…
So who is translating our expressed societal and personal values into functional requirements for the governement? How are they communicated, and is there a process where we can feedback and guide their implementation?
Which expressed requirement does Value Prospecting re-imagine?
The PV initiative responds to a level of requirement beneath the level of the everyday public agenda. A multi level approach to requirements has similarities with the 5 Why approach to safety failures and their ‘root causes’…
The ‘5 whys’ approach to root cause analysis (of e.g. safety incidents in industry) nearly always responds to the failures of executive management to design out causes of failure (such as ‘user error’) by the wholistic and systematic evaluation and mitigation of risks at all levels.
Of course, management processes are one part of a multifactorial picture. ‘User errors’ happen for more than one reason…Other levels of failure could be (1) the selection of operators, (2) training, (3) verification of competence and performance, (4) Inappropriate system controls / i.e. Not using ‘human centred’ control process design..
So the PV initiative is a business analysts response to the (un-expressed) requirement that social groups take care of the present and future. It addresses the implicit requirement for an efficient resource allocation system that accommodates subjective experience and the role of expectations, habits, cultures and behaviours in maximising human value outcomes (and minimising negative impacts).
These systems are possible now because it has become affordable to curate a register of subjective experience and provide a platform for and to optionally notify people when conversations and decisions are taking place about the things they hold most dear.
Appendix A
ChatGPT provided the framework below, comparing and contrasting Functional and Expressed requirements
In the context of defining new software or other projects, functional requirements and expressed requirements are related concepts but address different aspects of the project specifications. Here’s a comparison and contrast between the two:
Functional Requirements:
- Definition:
- Functional requirements specify what the system or software should do in terms of specific functions, features, or capabilities.
- Scope:
- These requirements focus on the system’s functionality, outlining the specific actions or operations that the system must perform.
- Example:
- For a web-based application, a functional requirement could be: “The system must allow users to log in with a unique username and password.”
- Purpose:
- Functional requirements serve as the basis for system development, design, and testing. They guide the development team in building features that meet user needs.
Expressed Requirements:
- Definition:
- Expressed requirements are the needs and desires of the end-users or stakeholders articulated in their own terms, often without specific technical details.
- Scope:
- These requirements may encompass both narrow and broad perspectives including detailed criticism
- Example:
- Expressed requirements could be: (1) “We need to be able to enter value N in the right place. At the moment we go to screen H to enter value N then go back to screen F to continue”. (2) “The system is hard to use, time consuming and doesn’t fit our roles and responsibilities”.
- Purpose:
- All the expressed requirements, user stories and use cases, taken together with new standards and technical capabilities (often related to ease of communications and better information management) contribute to defining the overall requirements and shaping the final form of the solution.
Comparison and Contrast:
- Overlap:
- Both functional and expressed requirements contribute to the overall project specifications. Functional requirements translate expressed requirements into specific functionalities. Expressed requirements however may give also give rise to Non Functional requirements. That is not defining specific behaviours or features but characteristics like usability, security, and other qualities.
- User Involvement:
- Expressed requirements are typically expressed by end-users or stakeholders, while functional requirements are often defined by business analysts or system designers translating those user needs into technical specifications.
- Documentation:
- Functional requirements are typically documented in detailed specifications, whereas expressed requirements may be captured in user stories, use cases, or other forms of requirement documents.
Appendix A Summary
The expressed requirements of the users are often couched in terms of the outgoing system, mixing together particular historical features and sometimes implicit overall goals.
The functional requirements analyse and seek to tease out unspoken and underlying requirements. Breaking these down into specific features and functionalities that can be implemented in the software or project.
The collaboration between end-users and business analysts is crucial to ensuring that expressed, unexpressed requirements are reimagined as functional requirements and are well understood and agreed upon before being incorporated into the project’s development process.