The requirement has no clear problem behind it
Phrases such as “the option must be there”, “we may need it” or “competitors have it” describe possibilities, not demonstrated needs. Ask who would use the option, at what moment and what happens without it. If the answer remains abstract, the requirement can enter a list of hypotheses rather than the implementation plan.
A rare exception changes the experience for everyone
Products must handle unusual cases, but not all of them deserve the same place in the primary interface. If a rare situation adds fields, explanations and decisions for every user, the collective cost may exceed the benefit. Sometimes the exception can be handled through support, in a separate flow or only when it becomes relevant.
- Does the case occur often enough to justify a permanent option?
- Can it be detected and shown only to relevant people?
- What happens if it is handled manually at first?
- Does it add explanation or choices for users who never encounter it?
- Are there legal obligations or risks that nevertheless make it necessary?
The requirement copies an internal process without questioning it
Digitisation can turn a paper form into an equally cumbersome online form. Historical fields, approvals and categories are accepted as truth even though some data may no longer be used. Before reproducing the process, follow where each piece of information goes, who uses it and which decision it supports. Removing a step is often more valuable than redesigning it.
Everything becomes configurable, but nobody configures it
Flexibility feels safe: dynamic fields, custom rules and variants for every scenario. Yet every option needs an interface, permissions, validation, documentation and support. Ask who owns the configuration, how often it changes and what happens when a setting is wrong. If the answer is “almost never”, an explicit rule may be healthier.
Data is collected without an associated decision
An extra field looks inexpensive, but it asks for user effort, storage, protection, purpose explanation and updating. For every requested piece of information, name the decision or action it enables. If the data is merely “nice to have”, postponing collection can simplify the experience and reduce the organisation's responsibility.
Complexity does not disappear after launch. It becomes a tax paid during every change, test and support conversation.
The solution is more specific than the problem
A requirement may fix the control, position and technology from the start without describing the desired outcome. This limits alternatives and may conflict with the rest of the product. Rewrite the requirement as a need and acceptance criterion. The team can then compare options, including one without new functionality.
Create a safe process for challenging requirements
A team cannot simplify if questions are interpreted as opposition. Ask every requirement to have an owner, problem, audience, evidence and consequence of delay. For uncertain ideas, use prototypes, experiments or limited manual operation. Record the decision and review point so that “not now” is not confused with “never”.
- Which problem and user justify the requirement?
- What is the simplest version that addresses the need?
- What complexity does it add to use, operations and maintenance?
- How can we test the need before full implementation?
- Which signal would make us remove or expand the solution?