Thanks for another great essay.

As usual I agree with much of what you have to say. And enjoy the way you say it.

However I do have a few rogue thoughts.

1. MOSCOW

The Moscow categorisation is lame. It’s got nothing more than a catchy acronym.

For a start ALL reirements end up as MUST HAVE, and the poor analyst has to make up a few to fill the other categories.

Far better as an analyst to have your stakehodler RANK the BUSINESS requirements.

And if ou are a product owner/manager thereare much better models around – such as KANO.

1. TRACEABILITY

A light approach to traceablity makes sense. Tracking a bucnh of cross dependencies always struck me as a sign of an overly complex requirements set.

What you really want to be tracking is how far down the developemnt process a requirement gets, and if it doesn’t make the finish line, why.

And if your project is complex or risky enough to require a highly structured appraoch to requirements management then you also have the criteria for running an RTM, don’t you.

See you next time.

Craig