Why Document Views in Requirements Management Tools Lead to Problems

In many companies, requirements are still managed in document-like views, although modern requirements management tools have long been able to replace this method with specialized, modular structures.

However, the classic document views and the idea of writing requirements in a sequential, textual flow lead to considerable problems. These approaches work against efficiency, transparency and traceability and often create more problems than solutions.

In this article, you can find out why sticking to document-oriented working methods in requirements management tools is problematic and which alternative approaches offer more efficiency and structure.

‍

Documentary requirements: Violation of the principle of atomicity

In traditional documentation, requirements are often described in continuous text without being clearly separated from other requirements.

However, even if each requirement can be identified individually, dependencies arise in the text flow which mean that a requirement can only be understood in the context of the preceding or subsequent requirements. This inevitably leads to problems, as requirements must remain part of an uninterrupted flow of text in order to be understood by users at all.

However, this procedure violates the principle of atomicity. Requirements should always be structured in such a way that they can be understood and processed independently of each other.

In a modular requirements management tool such as ReqSuite® RM, on the other hand, requirements are stored individually and independently of each other, allowing them to be viewed and processed in isolation. This offers the advantage that each requirement remains understandable through its content context and not through its embedding in a certain document location.

‍

Promoting redundancy and ambiguity

Another common problem with document-based management of requirements is redundancy. Requirements that affect different parts of a system are often described multiple times or mentioned in different places within the document. This repetition is not only time-consuming, but also leads to potential inconsistencies. If a requirement needs to be revised, there is a risk that only one place in the document will be adapted, while other places continue to contain the outdated status.

In a modular requirements management tool such as ReqSuite® RM, on the other hand, requirements could be stored centrally and designed in such a way that different components or modules can refer to them without having to rewrite them. This reduces redundancy and ensures that all components always have access to the latest version of the requirement.

‍

Difficult access to specific information

Document-like views often make it difficult to access specific information, especially in large documents. Traceability and the targeted retrieval of individual requirements are made more difficult as it is necessary to search through the document manually. In addition, there is often a lack of clear structures for categorization and filtering that are implemented in modern requirements management tools.

In tools such as ReqSuite® RM, users can categorize and quickly filter requirements according to various attributes, priorities, responsibilities or system components. This enables direct access to specific requirements, regardless of their “order” in the system.

‍

Inefficient collaboration and unclear responsibilities

Traditional documents tend to be unsuitable for collaboration in teams. Changes made to a central document are difficult to track and the assignment of responsibilities often remains unclear.

In modern requirements management tools, on the other hand, requirements can be assigned to individual responsible parties so that changes and the processing status are transparent and traceable.

Tools such as ReqSuite® RM support teams in clearly documenting changes and responsibilities. The system logs who made which changes and at the same time enables a complete version history. This transparency promotes traceability and avoids confusion during collaboration.

‍

Document views: Useful for reading, a hindrance when writing

Some requirements management tools such as IBM DOORS and Polarion still offer document-like views, although they prove to be a hindrance when writing and working in a structured manner.

The only advantage of these document views lies in the output or continuous reading. When writing and effectively editing requirements, on the other hand, document views are less helpful and often lead to the problems described above.

The misunderstanding that a direct switch to a new way of working is too difficult for many people can be a real reason for sticking to documents.

However, practice shows that teams that switch to modular and structural tools find it much easier and more efficient to handle and understand the requirements. The initial concern about conversion difficulties is therefore rarely confirmed in practice.

‍

Conclusion

Document-like views in requirements management tools not only create unnecessary complexity, but also impair the efficiency and accuracy of requirements capture. The violation of the atomicity principle, the promotion of redundancy, the complication of information access and the unclear responsibility structure all lead to inefficient requirements management.

Modern tools such as ReqSuite® RM offer a structured, modular alternative that better meets the requirements of today's agile way of working. The clear separation and reusability of requirements, transparent assignment of responsibilities and an intuitive user interface with which requirements can be easily found, filtered and edited are just some of the benefits that can help to make requirements management processes more efficient.

For companies looking for a sustainable and structured solution, the introduction of a modern requirements management tool such as ReqSuite® RM is the first step towards successfully counteracting the challenges of classic document views.