Collecting and Organizing Software Product Requirements #

Summary #

The most effective approach to software requirements in 2024-2025 combines three complementary techniques: lightweight PRDs for high-level context and alignment, INVEST-compliant user stories for actionable development units, and Jobs-to-Be-Done (JTBD) thinking to ensure you're solving real user problems.

The key insight from modern practice is that requirements documents should be living artifacts that evolve with the product—not rigid specifications carved in stone. Over 70% of IT project failures trace back to poorly written requirements, so getting this right has outsized impact on project success.

The modern PRD is fundamentally different from its historical counterpart: shorter, more insightful, data-driven, and designed to excite teams rather than just inform them.

Project Context #

This research was conducted for a Node.js project managed with mise. The recommendations are technology-agnostic and apply to any software development context. The practices below work well with agile methodologies and can be adapted for smaller teams or solo developers.

Detailed Findings #

Approach 1: The Lean PRD (Product Requirements Document) #

What it is: A concise, living document that captures the what and why of a product feature without prescribing the how.

Why consider it: Modern PRDs serve as alignment tools across stakeholders while remaining flexible enough for agile development. They prevent the "telephone game" of requirements getting lost in translation.

How to implement:

Create a single-page document with these four sections:

 1# [Feature Name] PRD
 2
 3## 1. Product Purpose
 4**Goal**: [One sentence describing the business outcome]
 5**Background**: [Why now? What triggered this work?]
 6**Assumptions**: [What must be true for this to succeed?]
 7
 8## 2. Problem Statement
 9**User pain point**: [Specific, concrete description]
10**Evidence**: [Data, user quotes, support tickets backing this up]
11**Current workaround**: [How users cope today]
12
13## 3. Proposed Solution
14**Core concept**: [2-3 sentences max]
15**User stories**:
16- As a [user], I want [action] so that [benefit]
17- [Additional stories as needed]
18
19**Rough mockups**: [Embedded images or links]
20**What we're NOT doing**: [Explicit scope cuts]
21
22## 4. Success Criteria
23**Metrics**: [Specific, measurable outcomes]
24**Release criteria**: [What "done" looks like]
25**Timeline constraint**: [Appetite, not deadline]

Example:

 1# Dark Mode PRD
 2
 3## 1. Product Purpose
 4**Goal**: Reduce eye strain for users who work in low-light environments
 5**Background**: 34% of support tickets mention brightness issues; competitor X launched dark mode last quarter
 6**Assumptions**: Users will opt-in rather than auto-detect system preference
 7
 8## 2. Problem Statement
 9**User pain point**: "The bright white screen hurts my eyes when I'm working late"
10**Evidence**: 847 support tickets in Q3, 4.2/5 feature request on roadmap voting
11**Current workaround**: Users install browser extensions or reduce monitor brightness
12
13## 3. Proposed Solution
14**Core concept**: Add a toggle in settings that switches all UI components to a dark color palette. Changes persist across sessions.
15
16**User stories**:
17- As a night-shift worker, I want to toggle dark mode so that I can use the app without eye strain
18- As a user, I want my preference remembered so that I don't have to re-enable it
19
20**What we're NOT doing**: Auto-detection, scheduled switching, custom color themes
21
22## 4. Success Criteria
23**Metrics**: 40% adoption within 30 days, 50% reduction in brightness-related tickets
24**Release criteria**: All pages support both themes, no accessibility regressions
25**Timeline constraint**: 2-week appetite

Trade-offs:

Pro: Quick to write, easy to update, promotes alignment
Pro: Forces prioritization through explicit scope cuts
Con: Requires discipline to keep updated
Con: May feel too lightweight for stakeholders used to detailed specs

Approach 2: INVEST User Stories with Acceptance Criteria #

What it is: A structured format for breaking requirements into independently deliverable units with clear completion criteria.

Why consider it: User stories bridge the gap between business requirements and technical implementation. The INVEST framework ensures each story is properly scoped.

How to implement:

Each user story follows this structure:

 1## Story: [Short descriptive title]
 2
 3**As a** [specific user persona]
 4**I want** [specific action or capability]
 5**So that** [concrete benefit or outcome]
 6
 7### Acceptance Criteria
 8
 9**Scenario 1: [Happy path description]**
10- Given [precondition]
11- When [action]
12- Then [expected result]
13
14**Scenario 2: [Edge case or error handling]**
15- Given [precondition]
16- When [action]
17- Then [expected result]
18
19### Technical Notes
20[Any implementation hints or constraints - keep minimal]
21
22### Out of Scope
23[What this story explicitly doesn't include]

INVEST Checklist - verify each story meets these criteria:

Criterion	Question to Ask
Independent	Can this be built without waiting for other stories?
Negotiable	Is there room for conversation about implementation?
Valuable	Does completing this deliver user value?
Estimable	Can the team estimate effort required?
Small	Can this be completed in one sprint or less?
Testable	Can we verify when it's done?

Example:

 1## Story: Password Reset Email
 2
 3**As a** registered user who forgot my password
 4**I want** to receive a password reset link via email
 5**So that** I can regain access to my account
 6
 7### Acceptance Criteria
 8
 9**Scenario 1: Successful reset request**
10- Given I am on the login page
11- When I click "Forgot password" and enter my registered email
12- Then I receive an email within 2 minutes containing a reset link
13
14**Scenario 2: Unregistered email**
15- Given I enter an email not in our system
16- When I submit the reset request
17- Then I see a generic "If this email exists, you'll receive instructions" message (no information leakage)
18
19**Scenario 3: Link expiration**
20- Given I received a reset link more than 24 hours ago
21- When I click the link
22- Then I see "This link has expired" and am prompted to request a new one
23
24### Out of Scope
25- SMS-based reset
26- Security questions
27- Admin-initiated password resets

Trade-offs:

Pro: Clear definition of done reduces back-and-forth
Pro: Given/When/Then format maps directly to automated tests
Pro: Small scope enables frequent delivery
Con: Can feel bureaucratic for simple changes
Con: Requires practice to split stories effectively

Approach 3: Jobs-to-Be-Done (JTBD) Framework #

What it is: A user research framework that focuses on the underlying job users are trying to accomplish, not the features they request.

Why consider it: Users often ask for solutions ("I want a faster horse") rather than expressing their actual need ("I need to get places quickly"). JTBD uncovers the real requirements.

How to implement:

Step 1: Write Job Statements

Format: When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [expected outcome]

1When I'm working on a client project at night,
2I want to reduce the brightness of my tools,
3so I can work comfortably without straining my eyes or disturbing my sleeping partner.

Step 2: Identify Job Dimensions

Dimension	Question	Example
Functional	What task needs completing?	Reduce screen brightness
Emotional	How do they want to feel?	Comfortable, not frustrated
Social	How do they want to be perceived?	Professional (can work any hour)

Step 3: Map the Job

Break the job into steps users take today:

1. Define the goal → "I need to work late tonight"
2. Locate resources → "Find brightness settings"
3. Prepare → "Adjust monitor, close blinds"
4. Confirm → "Check if it's comfortable"
5. Execute → "Do the actual work"
6. Monitor → "Adjust if eyes get tired"
7. Complete → "Finish the work session"

Step 4: Find Opportunities

For each step, ask:

Where do users struggle?
What workarounds do they use?
What would delight them?

Trade-offs:

Pro: Reveals non-obvious requirements
Pro: Prevents building features nobody needs
Pro: Creates shared understanding of user context
Con: Requires significant user research investment
Con: Can be challenging to translate jobs into features

Approach 4: Shape Up Pitches (for larger initiatives) #

What it is: Basecamp's methodology for scoping work into fixed-time bets with clear boundaries.

Why consider it: When requirements are fuzzy or the scope is unclear, shaping forces you to make explicit trade-offs before committing resources.

How to implement:

A pitch contains five ingredients:

 1# Pitch: [Feature Name]
 2
 3## Problem
 4[Specific story or use case showing why this matters]
 5[Evidence: data, quotes, observations]
 6
 7## Appetite
 8[How much time are we willing to spend?]
 9- Small batch: 1-2 weeks
10- Big batch: 6 weeks
11[This constrains the solution, not the other way around]
12
13## Solution
14[Core elements of the approach]
15[Breadboard sketches or fat marker drawings]
16[Enough detail to "get" the idea, not a spec]
17
18## Rabbit Holes
19[Known complexities to avoid or address]
20- [Technical gotcha #1]
21- [Edge case that could explode scope]
22
23## No-Gos
24[What we're explicitly NOT doing]
25- [Feature X - save for future]
26- [Edge case Y - accept as limitation]

Trade-offs:

Pro: Forces upfront thinking about scope
Pro: Appetite-first approach prevents scope creep
Pro: Explicit no-gos reduce mid-project pivots
Con: Requires senior-level shaping skills
Con: May feel foreign to teams used to traditional planning

Recommendation #

For most projects, combine these approaches in layers:

Start with JTBD thinking during discovery to ensure you're solving real problems
Write a lean PRD to capture context, alignment, and success criteria
Break down into INVEST user stories for sprint-level planning
Use Shape Up pitches for larger, fuzzier initiatives

Practical workflow:

Discovery Phase:
├── User interviews → Job statements
├── Pain point identification → Problem statements
└── Solution ideation → Rough concepts

Planning Phase:
├── Write lean PRD (1 page max)
├── Define success metrics
└── List explicit scope cuts

Development Phase:
├── Break PRD into user stories
├── Add acceptance criteria (Given/When/Then)
└── Maintain stories as living docs

Review Phase:
├── Update PRD with learnings
├── Archive completed stories
└── Feed insights back to discovery

Key principles that apply across all approaches:

Be specific, not vague: "Page loads in under 2 seconds" beats "page loads quickly"
Document what you're NOT doing: Explicit scope cuts prevent creep
Include evidence: Data and user quotes trump assumptions
Keep it living: Requirements evolve; so should your docs
Write for your audience: Developers need different detail than executives
Collaborate on acceptance criteria: The whole team should agree on "done"

When NOT to Use This #

Fixing obvious bugs: If the bug report contains reproduction steps, you don't need a PRD. Just fix it.
Trivial changes: Adding a single field, changing a color, fixing a typo—these don't need formal requirements.
Throwaway prototypes: When exploring feasibility, skip the documentation. If the prototype succeeds, document the requirements then.
Highly technical refactoring: Internal code quality improvements often don't map to user stories. A technical design doc may be more appropriate.
Emergency hotfixes: When production is down, fix first, document later.
Solo projects with no stakeholders: If you're the only one who needs to understand the requirements, keep them in whatever format works for you.
Teams with established conventions: If your team already has a working requirements process, don't change it just because some article said to. Adapt ideas incrementally.
Waterfall environments requiring detailed specs: The lean approaches above assume iterative development. If your organization requires comprehensive upfront specifications for compliance or contractual reasons, you'll need more detailed documentation.

Sources #

#requirements #PRD #user-stories #product-management #agile

last updated: 2025-12-01