Part 2 of 2: Understanding What Users Actually Need
You’ve gathered requirements that truly reflect user needs rather than surface-level feature requests. Now comes the harder challenge: transforming those insights into working software that actually solves the problems you’ve identified. This is where many projects stumble—not because the requirements were wrong, but because the translation from needs to implementation went astray.
From User Problems to Technical Solutions
The gap between “users need to find information quickly” and “implement Elasticsearch with faceted search and auto-complete” is enormous. Bridging that gap successfully requires systematic thinking about how user needs translate to system capabilities.
The Requirements Translation Process
Effective translation happens in layers, not in one giant leap. Start with user scenarios that describe how people will interact with your system to achieve their goals. These scenarios become the foundation for technical specifications.
User Need: “Field technicians need to access customer history while on-site”
User Scenario: “While standing in a customer’s server room, technician opens mobile app, searches for customer by name or equipment ID, views service history and open tickets, updates ticket status, and adds notes about current visit”
Technical Requirements: Mobile-responsive interface, offline capability for basic functions, search API with partial matching, real-time sync when connectivity returns, role-based access controls
The Architecture Decision Framework
Every requirement implies architectural decisions, but those implications aren’t always obvious upfront. Build a framework for making these decisions consistently and documenting the reasoning behind them.
When a requirement demands “real-time updates,” ask: Real-time for whom? What’s the cost of being 100ms late? 1 second late? 10 seconds late? The answers determine whether you need WebSockets, simple polling, or just faster API responses.
Managing Requirements Change
Requirements will change. The teams that handle this well don’t prevent change—they build systems and processes that make change manageable and predictable.
The Requirements Triage System
Not all requirement changes are created equal. Some are corrections based on better understanding of user needs. Others are genuine shifts in business priorities. Still others are nice-to-have additions that don’t address core problems.
Create a triage system that evaluates changes based on: impact on core user goals, effort required for implementation, effect on existing functionality, and alignment with business objectives. This prevents scope creep while ensuring legitimate requirement evolution gets proper attention.
Version Control for Requirements
Track requirement changes with the same rigor you apply to code changes. Document what changed, why it changed, who requested the change, and what the impact assessment revealed.
This isn’t just bureaucratic overhead—it’s essential for maintaining stakeholder trust and making informed decisions about future changes. When someone asks why the system works a certain way, you can point to the specific requirement and the reasoning behind it.
Implementation Strategies That Preserve Intent
The biggest risk during implementation isn’t technical failure—it’s building something that technically meets the requirements but fails to solve the underlying user problem.
Iterative Validation
Don’t wait until the system is “complete” to validate that it meets user needs. Build core workflows first, get them in front of users early, and use that feedback to guide the development of additional features.
A login system that takes 30 seconds to authenticate will frustrate users no matter how many features you build on top of it. Validate the foundational user experience before adding complexity.
The Minimum Viable Solution
For each requirement, ask: “What’s the simplest implementation that would solve 80% of the user’s
