Tender vs. Requirements vs. Solution Design
- by Tom Tom
Conventionally, which of the above documents is deemed to hold the most weight when it comes to system acceptance?
I recently had a conversation along these lines:
It was argued that the initial requirements / tender documentation should be used to determine system acceptance. It was said that the solution design only serves to describe the way in which the system will solve the problem, not the problem it will solve. Furthermore, it was argued that if requirements are missed during solution design, the requirements should be referenced during system acceptance and that if any requirements were missed then the original tender should be referenced.
Conversely, I suggested that - while requirements may be based on the original tender - they supersede it once agreed with the stakeholders. Furthermore, during solution design, analysis is performed to address and refine these initial requirements, translating them into a system capable of meeting the actual requirements. Once signed off by the relevant users, this solution design should absolutely represent the requirements (by virtue of the fact that it's designed upon them) but actually supersedes them as the basis for system acceptance.
Is one of the above arguments more valid than the other?
