Open with the business problem, not your preferred technology. Who will use it day to day, with what frequency, and offshore vs nearshore outsourcing what happens today? A vendor who grasps the purpose will suggest an alternative that costs less; a team that receives only the requirements as given can only price the list as written.
Define what is included as short scenarios: who does what, and what happens next. Just as important, state explicitly what is out of scope. A written out-of-scope list saves more disagreement later than the rest of the brief combined. Indicate as well which decisions are settled and which may still change — honest teams price those differently, and pretending everything is fixed helps no one.
Write down the hard constraints. These include existing systems the software development process has to talk to, existing databases and their quality, security and compliance rules, expected load, which devices matter and stacks you cannot change. If there is a hard date, explain what drives it: a team is usually able to cut the right scope to protect it, provided they hear about it early.
Say what the word done means feature by feature. Clear acceptance criteria do not require any formal notation: a plain-language note setting out the expected behaviour is sufficient. That one addition reduces the sign-off process by a surprising margin and removes the most common source of disputes.
One last thing, state what you want in the response. Ask for an itemised estimate, the assumptions behind each number, the main risks and an optimistic and a pessimistic figure. Read a wide range as useful information rather than evasion: it normally identifies the part of the brief that needs work. Then rewrite that part and request a revised number — the second estimate will be the one worth planning around.
Recent Comments