Why 'we just need requirements' is a red flag in tech delivery

A requirements-first approach often fails in practice. (Image: BCMG)

---

Teams say it all the time: “We just need requirements.”

It sounds practical. It signals urgency. It feels like progress.

But in technology delivery, that phrase often does quiet damage. It turns analysis into administration. It replaces decision-making with documentation, creating a false sense of certainty before the team has earned it.

You can produce immaculate user stories, functional requirements and acceptance criteria and still ship the wrong outcome. Not because the requirements were “bad”, but because the context and the outcome they were intended to support remained unclear.

When someone says: “We just need requirements,” they’re usually trying to solve three pressures at once:

• Speed: Get moving, reduce debate.
• Something concrete: A backlog item or document people can point to.
• Control: A sense that the work is now bounded and predictable.

Those are reasonable needs in a high-pressure environment. The problem is the shortcut: teams assume that because something is written down, it is understood and therefore correct.

Documentation captures what was said. It doesn’t automatically confirm that the team agrees on what matters, what success looks like or what trade-offs are acceptable.

A requirements-first approach often creates false precision. The detail looks like certainty, even when the underlying problem remains fuzzy.

Teams jump into solution mode before clarifying:

• The outcome being targeted
• The decision being made
• The constraints that will shape the choice

Those gaps don’t stay empty. They’re filled by assumptions about users, policy, data quality, organisational readiness, processes, incentives and risk appetite. Once those assumptions are embedded in scope and timelines, changing course becomes costly.

The result is a familiar pattern:

• Early “alignment”
• Mid-project confusion
• Late-stage change requests
• Rising tension between business and technology

When it happens, teams often blame “changing requirements”. In reality, it’s usually unchallenged assumptions finally surfacing.

Consider a CRM upgrade, a data platform rollout or a customer portal rebuild.

A team can gather detailed requirements for fields, screens, workflows, integrations and reports. Delivery begins. Progress looks promising.

Then the project hits a wall:

• Sales leadership isn’t aligned on what “good pipeline hygiene” means.
• The operating model varies across regions.
• Data is messy and ownership is unclear.
• Users resist because the “new way” adds friction without a visible benefit.
• Compliance constraints appear late and force a redesign.

From the outside, it looks like scope creep. Within the work, it’s usually this: the requirements described a solution, but the team never clarified the outcome and the decision the solution was intended to support.

Requirements are non-negotiable. They’re the backbone of build, test, governance and safe change. The risk arises when teams treat requirements as both the starting point and the finish line, capturing detail before agreeing on the outcome, decisions and trade-offs.

At its best, business analysis is decision support: helping people make clear choices before work becomes costly. In practice, that means someone in the room consistently ensures the team can answer:

• What outcome are we aiming for?
• What decision are we trying to make?
• What constraints shape this choice?
• What options exist and what are the trade-offs?

If those aren’t clear, the backlog becomes a record of assumptions rather than shared intent.

There’s a simple shift that improves outcomes without adding bureaucracy:

Outcome → decision → options → trade-offs → then requirements

When a team understands the outcome and decision, requirements get sharper:

• Trade-offs become visible
• Constraints are acknowledged early
• Expectations align
• Documentation reflects intent, not guesswork

This is often faster overall because it reduces churn later.

Someone will eventually say: “We don’t have time. Just capture the requirements.”

You don’t need to be confrontational. Keep it practical:

“I’ll document this clearly. Before I do, can we confirm the outcome we’re aiming for and the decision these requirements support? That’ll reduce the chance we have to revisit this later.”

It positions clarification as protection rather than obstruction.

Requirements matter, and they’re strongest when they’re the output of clear analysis, not a substitute for it. The biggest cost isn’t a messy document. It’s what teams lose when analysis becomes scribe work:

• Early testing of assumptions
• Visibility of trade-offs
• Alignment on outcomes
• Structured challenge before money is spent

Protect space for business analysis early on. Give business analysts the mandate and airtime to clarify outcomes and decisions, test assumptions and surface trade-offs. Then you’ll capture requirements the business can stand behind, which won’t unravel mid-delivery.

For a more detailed, practical version (including everyday behaviours and POPIT), read the BCA article here:

https://businesschange.academy/beyond-documentation-everyday-ways-to-be-more-strategic-as-a-ba

Author bio:

Joe Newbert is the founder of Business Change Academy, where he trains and coaches business analysts and delivery teams in practical analysis that improves change outcomes.