What are common misunderstandings that lead to conflict in software development?

Requirements typically focus on WHAT & HOW. Before them it’s important that business case is clarified. Business case establishes the WHY of the problem , the purpose & strategy. Once established and embedded it brings the connect and empathy, which is always so vital to deal and surpass other disconnects. Not just Functional Requirements but also Non Functional requirements (NFRs) - many a time project processes & engagement only focus on functional requirements but not enough on operational/process, usability, technical PASSME NFRs- which causes misunderstandings and disconnects. And then it’s always better to extract / provide the requirements in the form of wireframes/prototypes/process or flow diagrams than only long wall of text.

Requirement ambiguity remains part of software development project, despite of having techniques and tools to overcome this problem. One reason being, the tools and techniques (flow charts, Models as requirements, requirement management tools) are designed mainly for functional requirements. Challenge comes from non-functional requirements. As part of requirements engineering, have specific focus on non-functional requirements as well (maintainability, industrialisation, architectural, scalability etc) and capture them explicitly. One effective way to handle this is to go for incremental development approach. This gives non-functional requirements more time to evolve, while initial increments focus more on functional requirements.

Test-driven development (TDD) and collective grooming significantly help to align product owners, architects, developers, and testers. However, if the requirements themselves are ambiguous, it necessitates multiple iterations of communication and revision with customers or product managers to achieve a reasonable quality level and prevent further degradation of the expected output.

The root cause of requirement ambiguity stems from not communicating clearly, which prevents a shared understanding from being attained, and from not allowing individuals with the most information and context to make decisions, which will hinders the creation of executable plans. While other issues might come into play, addressing the need for shared understanding and empowering individuals or teams with the most context to decide what the requirements should be are mandatory in almost every case.

I was recently asked by a young product manager, "How much scope creep is acceptable?" My answer: "None." Why? Only Siths deal in absolutes! The reason it's None is because the accountability doesn't end with "simple" scope creep. It spreads across the project, affecting timelines, resources, management, deliverables, and more. Even small changes should be tracked and signed-off. DON'T MAKE DECISIONS IN A SILO! But what about "simple" things like text changes? If the text has been signed-off, then yes, you still need to change-control. The silo thinking prevents you from seeing the hidden extras, like localization, time off, and more. Expect quick turnaround, but don't ignore the responsibility that comes with scope change.

The danger of scope creep is implied in its name. I’ve seen a developer accommodate a simple request of moving an image just 2px over … the unintended consequence was a website came down. Too many times such simple scope creep cascades into major issues. Document the changes and push it into the next iteration. Anything less can be catastrophic.

In Agile projects, we try to prioritise it such that the highest value features are released first. Say the minimal viable product (MVP). This will enable our customers to get the benefits of our work earlier. Then through an iterative approach, we can release the rest of the features - again based on value for our customers. This can help to minimise scope creep as the highest value functionality are released first followed by the rest. The product backlog needs to be kept up-to-date if we are to do this so that the team knows what is coming up next.

Scope creep arises from the ever-changing world, which is unavoidable. Should this occur, taking a step back and focusing on why scope creep happens can be effective in ensuring that as little work as possible is done while still achieving most, but not all, of the desired outcomes

In our experience with fixed bid projects, scope creep is a common challenge, often leading to budget overruns and strained client relationships. Recognizing this, we've shifted towards a model that combines a defined scope with a flexible block of hours. This approach allows us to accommodate inevitable changes and new features without compromising the project's financial or timeline integrity. It fosters a more collaborative and transparent relationship with clients, as they can see the direct impact of scope changes on the project and make informed decisions. This strategy has not only reduced the stress associated with scope creep but also improved client satisfaction and project outcomes.

Effective communication management is crucial for project success. The RACI model can be a valuable tool to ensure everyone understands their roles, responsibilities, and communication channels.

One of the major conflict triggers are hidden assumptions. The solution seems to be straightforward - put any assumption upfront, even if it looks trivial and obvious. It is always surprising how things that look trivial to someone are not so obvious for someone else.

Effective communication is the key to project's success as well as making iterative improvements. Especially between engineering and product. Clear articulation of the trade offs, implications of tactical decisions versus strategic direction are critical. Effective tools play a crucial role here to smash the communication barriers. When in doubt, over communicate.

If you’re a manager or product manager — your communication fails when you don’t to bring in important context (like the “what” and the “why” of a feature) If you’re on the team building software, getting to know your team mates and knowing their values and boundaries helps with healthy communication

Communication is always important. Please keep the communication from start to the end up within the development team and also to stakeholders if needed.

With the ever changing technology and improved tools in the market, Technical debt is inevitable over a period of time but designing your solution or building it without sufficient understanding or knowledge can be dangerous. Always identify, document and acknowledge the technical debt in your solution, so the appropriate actions can be taken to mitigate it in future releases.

Technical debt is usually left unnoticed and not given priority, considering the long list of features that awaits on the product roadmap. I strongly encourage my clients to go through the laundry list every quarter and at least spend 2 sprits dedicated to clearing the debt. Failing to do so would show impacts right away, the more we grow as a product, the more it’s difficult to get back on track with maintaining it

Desde mi perspectiva, una de las mayores limitantes para poder atacar la deuda técnica en una organización, radica en la creencia de que el usuario final necesita tener más y más funcionalidades dentro del sitio y/o las aplicaciones móviles, cuando lo primordial, sería garantizar que las actuales, son cuando menos, estables y eficientes. Creo que la empresa busca dar mas opciones al usuario, pero me parece que un cliente que utiliza funciones bien implementadas, libres de errores y rápidas, valorará más la experiencia aún cuando no tenga tanta funcionalidad. Al final, la parte más compleja será, acordar con producto, intervalos de tiempo para seguir brindando nuevas funcionalidades pero a la vez, ir solventado esta deuda. ?Tú qué opinas?

Technical debt is often misunderstood as intentional negligence, but it stems from time pressure, limited resources, incomplete knowledge, legacy systems, changing requirements, lack of documentation, and skill variations. Recognizing these factors helps teams manage technical debt as a natural part of development, prioritizing long-term software quality

Misunderstanding in software development are usually due to conflicts, which are usually inter and intra personnel in nature, the unclear definition of responsibility in matrixed organisation with multiple team working on separate modules in silos is the root cause in majority of cases. There is a solution to this though, which is RAM(Responsibility Assignment Matrix) or RACI Matrix. It clearly defines the the who's who and what one has to do is clear, also when it is clubbed with a detailed Communication Plan(who in SDLC has to be informed/consulted at every stage) and a clear Conflict Management Plan(in case of conflict steps to be taken) right at the inception of a project then you are full proof from any failure due to conflicts.

I have found that clear expectations (or lack thereof) of team roles can make a huge impact on whether requirements are clear and have buy-in, or get re-written halfway through development. Some examples of (a few) past problem areas: who creates the epics, the stories/tasks, the various parts of the PRD, the test cases, the timeline, the project status? Who decides the architecture, the technical design and where are they documented? These responsibilities are deceptively trivial, yet I have spent time on almost every team squaring these away. My best experiences occurred when the roles were clarified and documented, updated in a timely fashion, and these definitions were maintained in a standard place.

I have seen this happen at times when the team members are unsure about their role responsibilities within the team. In my opinion, everyone on the team needs to feel a sense of ownership of the product. If something doesn't seem right, anyone on the team should be able to speak up. At times, without clear leadership and decision-making authority, teams can struggle with decision paralysis or conflicts over direction. The leadership should take it as their responsibility to ensure that everyone is aware of their roles within the team. They should also foster open conversations where anyone can speak up. This works well in creating autonomous teams.

In my experience current project, I have seen that there are problems in the interview process. The management is not able to find the right candidate for the role.

To address role confusion, I develop a clear communication network that outlines roles and levels of communication. I often use RACI charts to define responsibilities and promote daily small group check-ins and weekly group leader meetings to ensure everyone is informed and focused on their tasks.

It is crucial to classify stakeholders based on their roles, such as decision-makers, those who need to be informed about the process, and those actively involved in the process. Tailoring communication to each group accordingly is a best practice.

Having the culture of pulling in stakeholders early in the process to collaborate on the solution ameliorates many issues. Culture provides the context. If you see security or compliance as the "in the way" then there tends to be more resentment. On the other hand if you see those stakeholders are providing a valuable function in an area you do not understand, you are more apt to value their feedback... and include them earlier in the process.

Avant de parler d'exigence, en développement de logiciels métier, il est important d'évoquer l'expression du besoin qui découle sur un cahier des charges. évoquer des exigences sous tant que la demande n'a pas a être challengée et donc doit être développer tel quel. Cette approche empêche la créativité autour des besoins métiers.et fait développer des systèmes qui peuvent pas utilisables, générer de.l'insatisfaction bien que conforment aux exigences.

In iterative design workflows, continuously check stakeholder alignment. Begin by prioritizing the user as the central stakeholder, emphasizing their experience with the product. When commercializing new concepts, concentrate on creating a minimum viable product (MVP), but also compile a comprehensive list of features requested by users. Subsequently, engage in discussions with other key stakeholders, including project sponsors, to gain insights into the expected timelines for deliverables and the business rationale behind specific requirements. This approach ensures that the user experience is not only focused on immediate usability but also aligns with the overarching business objectives, securing the necessary support and sponsorship.

This is a problem if stakeholders are not aligned. However it really depends on company culture on how to go about resolving this. In some situation it may be impossible to get an alignment.

Cultural differences in distributed teams Technology stack disagreements Process vs flexibility balance Knowledge sharing challenges Career growth expectations Key practice: Implement a "team health check" system that regularly assesses these aspects and addresses issues early.

Assumptions Though all the involved stakeholders had communicated about overall requirements, there are times for certain key aspects either of the parties assume that we do not need to call this out. By the time they realize implementation has gaps, tension arises and blame game starts. When in doubt ask questions and if not everything is covered everyone should accept the fact and move on.

Any requirements in any projects cannot be completely given by the customer. The development team has to analyze and derive internal requirements that can support them to provide the technical solution required for the product to be developed. In such an attempt there can be several assumptions, constraints and considerations made, which have to be sufficiently documented, monitored and tracked. Some of these could also become managed by raising risks sufficiently. And it’s always good to communicate these to the customer and stay on the same page.

We can tackle these by combining: Clear Goals + Safe Environment + Communication. With clear and doable goals, teams can take better decisions for achieving that. Safe Environment for everyone express their POV, fears and share risks. Communication to make all this work together and keep everyone aligned. There are multiples ways for implementing this approach, depending on the way the team are built, what is the project context, who are the team, but the idea essence should be the same.

Most important one is Inadequate Leadership: Poor leadership, including a lack of direction, support, or conflict resolution skills can exacerbate conflicts within the team. Effective leadership is essential for positive work environment & resolving conflicts in a timely manner.