Lesson 2.4 — Functional vs. Technical Requirements
Functional vs. Technical Requirements
Watch the embedded video above, then use this page to connect the examples in the video with a practical method for writing innovation-friendly requirements.
Lesson content
Jan Zahalka explains the difference between defining what a solution must achieve and prescribing how it must work. The lesson combines practical examples with MoSCoW prioritisation, Minimum Viable Requirements and methods for validating a specification.
What you will learn
- Distinguish functional outcomes from technical prescriptions
- Explain why functional specifications support competition and innovation
- Separate must-have requirements from value-adding features
- Translate functions into measurable performance criteria
- Validate requirements with users, evidence and the market
Functional or technical?
Key terms
| Functional specification | Requirements expressed as functions, outcomes or performance levels. |
|---|---|
| Technical specification | Requirements prescribing a design, technology, material, platform or method. |
| MVR | Minimum Viable Requirement: the lowest acceptable performance needed for success. |
| MoSCoW | A prioritisation method: Must Have, Should Have, Could Have and Won’t Have. |
From need to requirement
Understand users → Define the required function → Set measurable performance → Separate must-have from value-add → Validate with users and the market.
Before you continue
Reflection: Which detail in one of your current specifications describes a preferred solution rather than the required outcome?
Lesson resource: download “S2-L4 — Functional vs. Technical Requirements” and use the examples as a classification exercise.
