Defining Your Technical Requirements: A Practical Guide

Gabe Arce
CEO, Talavera Solutions
After years of leading technology transformations across industries, I've noticed a pattern: the projects that succeed aren't necessarily those with the biggest budgets or the most talented developers—they're the ones with the clearest, most thoughtfully defined requirements.

In my previous article, I discussed how approaching technology as a strategic investment rather than a cost center leads to superior business outcomes. Today, I want to focus on a critical component of that approach: properly defining technical requirements for complex initiatives.

The Requirements Paradox

Here's the paradox many business leaders face: defining requirements is simultaneously the most important and most overlooked aspect of technology projects. When requirements are vague, incomplete, or disconnected from business outcomes, even the most skilled development team will deliver disappointing results.

I was once called in to salvage a $2 million CRM implementation that had failed spectacularly—not because of technical issues, but because the requirements focused on system capabilities rather than the business processes they needed to transform. The development team had delivered exactly what was specified, but what was specified wasn't what the business actually needed. My team had to conduct a complete requirements reset before we could help the organization get value from their substantial investment.

The Cost of Poor Requirements

Inadequate requirements definition creates a cascade of problems:
For large initiatives spanning multiple sprints or involving system integrations, the cost of poor requirements definition multiplies exponentially.

A Framework for Defining What You Actually Need

Over the years, I've developed a requirements definition framework that has proven effective for projects of all sizes. This approach is especially critical for smaller enterprises where budget constraints leave little margin for error.
This framework scales perfectly to match your project size and organizational needs. For smaller businesses, it prevents costly requirement-related failures that could become existential threats. For larger enterprises, it ensures alignment across complex stakeholder ecosystems.

The Discovery Document: A Tool for Success

For initiatives that extend beyond a few sprints, involve multiple systems, or have various stakeholders, a comprehensive discovery document becomes invaluable.
This isn't just paperwork—it's the blueprint that aligns everyone around what matters and dramatically increases your chances of success.

The Discovery Document: A Tool for Success

Let me share two examples from my experience that illustrate the power of proper requirements definition at different scales.

Enterprise Example: Financial Services Transformation

A large financial services client wanted to implement a new customer onboarding system to reduce the time from application to account opening. Their initial requirements document focused primarily on technical specifications—API endpoints, database schema modifications, and UI components.

We paused the process and took a step back to focus on business outcomes. Through facilitated sessions with stakeholders from operations, compliance, customer service, and technology, we redefined the requirements around clear business goals.
The business impact far exceeded expectations precisely because the requirements focused on outcomes rather than features.

Small Business Example: E-commerce Inventory Management

A small e-commerce business with just 12 employees was struggling with inventory management. They initially approached the problem by asking for "a better inventory system," with vague requirements like "faster updating" and "better reporting."

Using the same framework but scaled appropriately, we helped them define clear business outcomes and evaluate potential solutions.
The same approach that works for enterprise clients was equally effective for this small business—the framework simply scaled to fit their context and needs.

One Framework, Any Scale

While these examples represent organizations of vastly different sizes, the core approach to requirements remained consistent. What changed was how we applied and scaled the framework.
These examples demonstrate that regardless of your organization's size or the scope of your project, focusing on business outcomes and using a structured approach to requirements definition leads to superior results and higher return on investment.

Making the Framework Work for You

The framework scaling comparison illustrates how this approach adapts to projects of different sizes while maintaining the same core principles. The process becomes particularly valuable when:
To successfully implement this approach in your organization:
Even for small projects, a focused requirements process prevents the costly waste that comes from misaligned expectations—delivering better outcomes regardless of your project's scale.

Conclusion: Protecting Your Technology Investment

Think of proper requirements definition as essential insurance for your technology investment. The upfront time spent clarifying what you actually need dramatically reduces the risk of building the wrong solution—a risk that organizations of all sizes, but especially smaller businesses, cannot afford.
Organizations that invest in thoughtful requirements definition consistently achieve:
This is particularly critical for resource-constrained organizations where failed technology investments can pose existential risks.

The next time you're planning a technology initiative, resist the urge to rush into development. Instead, invest in clearly defining what you actually need and aligning stakeholders around common outcomes. Your technology team, your budget, and ultimately your business results will prove the value of getting requirements right from the start.
Want to discuss how to develop or refine your technology roadmap? Reach out to me at gabe@talaverasolutions.com, to accelerate your business through strategic technology investment.
Next: Technology Roadmap: Connecting Strategy to Execution