Dear Jeff Sutherland, you wrote about Enabling Specifications in 2012, a form of agile software requirements.
They were no more than 5 pages for a major global feature, could be elaborated into a backlog of stories, were flexible enough to accommodate โconversationsโ, and perhaps most interestingly, were recognised by US patent law.
Enabling Specifications sound amazing, and you wrote about them fondly, and yet they never made it into ๐ณ๐๐พ ๐ฒ๐ผ๐๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ฝ๐พ, nor have become commonplace since. Iโm not entirely sure why.
Would you care to elaborate?
If I had to guess, I would suspect the agile movement at the time backed the ‘placeholders for a conversation’ approach instead.
Fast forward 13 years, and apart from some far-flung corners of the software development industry, I see a distinct absence of conversations; instead, many, many teams are struggling with the entire idea of โagile software requirementsโ.
Should we be returning to Enabling Specifications, Jeff Sutherland?