As a member of the software industry, I want user stories to focus more on the problem definition, so that we can make better choices around how to implement a solution.
Or should I say:
As a member of the software industry, it’s easy to decide on a solution or implementation details too quickly, without a good understanding of the problem we are trying to solve. This leads to suboptimal software for the end user, technical debt, and rework that could have been avoided. I propose that we change the user story format to focus more on the problem definition, and less on a single solution.
A common user story format goes like this:
As a $ROLE, I want $SOLUTION, so that $BENEFIT.
- It focuses on one particular solution, ignoring alternatives.
- It focuses on implementation details, not the reasoning behind the change.
- It persuades the reader with benefits, but neglects to mention any costs or trade-offs.
It’s a recipe for jumping the gun.
This template for user stories can be used in a way that avoids these problems. So blah blah disclaimer, something something not doing it properly, it comes with experience, et cetera. But I think it’s fair to say that it causes real-world costs, and could be improved.
I would prefer to see a format something like this:
As a $ROLE, I have $PROBLEM_OR_OPPORTUNITY. This leads to $CONSEQUENCES. I propose that we $SOLUTION.
This focuses more on the reasoning behind the change, which helps the team make better decisions around design and implementation details.
It still proposes a single solution. I think it’s usually better to propose a solution than to just describe the problem and lob it over the wall to developers. But clearly describing the problem facilitates the discovery of better alternatives. You can’t know if something is better or worse unless you have enough context. There could also be multiple proposed solutions, allowing the implementer to choose whichever is most appropriate.
It still doesn’t mention costs, but it also doesn’t mention benefits. Hopefully that results in a more balanced consideration of trade-offs.