Introduction

In the contemporary landscape of product development, understanding and meeting end-user expectations have become essential for achieving market success. The quality of a product, as perceived by its end-users, is not merely a function of its technical specifications or features but is significantly influenced by how well it aligns with user needs and preferences. Product requirements analysis is the foundational phase in the development process, where these needs and preferences are identified, documented, and translated into actionable design and development plans. The methods employed during this phase play a critical role in shaping the final product and how its quality is perceived by the end-users. This essay examines the relationship between end-user perceived product quality and the methods used in product requirements analysis. The central thesis is that the choice and implementation of requirements analysis methods directly impact the alignment of the final product with user expectations, thereby affecting perceived quality. By exploring various requirements analysis methods and their influence on product outcomes, this essay aims to highlight the importance of method selection in enhancing end-user satisfaction and product success.

Literature Review

Kari Smolander, Ossi Taipale, Jussi Kasurinen, Jari Vanhanen (2012) also compared impact from different stages of a software development process on the final product quality. As a result they figured out that it is essential to discover quality goals at the product-level before the project-level to increase the chance of meeting end-user requirements with reasonable final level of quality [1].

So that product requirements analysis is a critical step in the development lifecycle, bridging the gap between abstract user needs and concrete product specifications. According to Ririn Diar Astanti (2024) traditional requirements gathering methods include interviews, customer reviews, questionnaires, and document analysis, which primarily focus on revealing information from stakeholders and subject matter experts [2]. Wiegers and Beatty (2013) emphasize that these methods, while foundational, may not fully capture the nuanced needs of end-users, particularly in complex or rapidly changing market environments [3].

The evolution of user-centered design (UCD) approaches has shifted the focus towards involving end-users directly in the development process. Schuler and Namioka (1993) discuss participatory design as a means of empowering users to contribute actively to product development, leading to solutions that better fit their needs [4]. Kujala (2003) further supports this by reviewing the benefits of user involvement, including increased user satisfaction and improved product usability [5].

Agile methodologies have introduced iterative development cycles and continuous user feedback mechanisms. Beck et al. (2001) present the Agile Manifesto, which advocates for customer collaboration and responsiveness to change over rigid adherence to plans [6]. Highsmith (2009) elaborates on agile project management, highlighting its effectiveness in dealing with uncertainty and evolving requirements [7].

Despite the recognition of these methods, there remains a gap in understanding how they specifically impact end-user perceived product quality. Mao et al. (2005) note that while UCD practices are beneficial, their adoption varies widely across organizations, and their direct influence on perceived quality is not always clear [8]. Pohl (2010) introduces a framework for requirements engineering but calls for more empirical studies to understand the practical implications of different methods [9]. Coughlan and Macredie (2002) compare various requirements elicitation methodologies and emphasize the importance of effective communication in capturing accurate requirements [10]. Moreover, Davis (1993) discusses the significance of integrating objects, functions, and states in software requirements to improve the alignment with user needs [11]. This essay seeks to address this gap by analyzing how various requirements analysis methods affect the perceived quality of the final product from the end-user's perspective.

Methodology

The research methodology shows a comprehensive approach designed to capture both qualitative and quantitative data:

1. Literature analysis: A systematic review of existing literature was conducted to gather insights on the different requirements analysis methods and their theoretical impact on product quality. Also this step is essential to formalize the subject of the essay and terms used with their definitions.
2. Scientific papers’ results analysis: Previously conducted researches already include a huge bunch of interesting data such as qualitative and quantitative results of interviews with stakeholders, customers and developers, results of structured surveys were administered to end-users of the products from the case studies to measure their perceptions of product quality. The surveys included questions on usability, functionality, satisfaction, and overall experience.
3. Case Studies: Three case studies were selected, each representing a product developed using a distinct requirements analysis method: Traditional Method, User-Centered Method and Agile Method. Further User-Centered and Agile will be also referenced as iterative approaches.

Findings

The analysis yielded several significant findings:

Perceived quality correlates with user involvement: User involvement is clearly positive and has positive effects on both system success and users satisfaction [5]. But it is a complicated task to get qualitative results of the impact of early user involvement on final product quality. Usability and Functionality: Users of the products developed with user-centered and agile methods reported higher satisfaction with usability and functionality. They noted that the products were intuitive and aligned well with their workflows.

Adaptability to Changing Needs: The agile-developed platforms were praised for its responsiveness to user feedback and regular updates that enhanced the user experience. Users appreciated the continuous improvements and felt their input was valued [7].

Communication gaps in traditional methods: Interviews with developers of the software made with traditional methods of product requirements definition revealed that assumptions made during the requirements phase led to features that were underutilized or confusing to users. The lack of direct user feedback contributed to these misalignments [3].

Resource utilization: Projects employing user-centered and agile methods utilized more resources to the requirements analysis phase but experienced fewer issues during later stages of development and post-launch. This investment correlated with higher user satisfaction and reduced costs associated with rework and support [5].

Discussion

The findings affirm the thesis that the methods used in product requirements analysis significantly impact end-user perceived product quality [1].

The higher satisfaction levels associated with user-centered and agile methods can be attributed to several factors:

1. Enhanced understanding of user needs: Direct involvement of end-users allows for a deeper understanding of their needs, preferences, and pain points. This leads to the development of features that are more relevant and valuable to users.
2. Iterative feedback and refinement: Agile methodologies facilitate continuous feedback loops, enabling developers to make adjustments based on user input promptly. This responsiveness enhances the product's alignment with user expectations.
3. User empowerment and ownership: Involving users in the design process fosters a sense of ownership and increases their commitment to the product's success. This can lead to more positive perceptions of the product's quality.

Conversely, traditional methods may fall short due to:

1. Assumptions and misinterpretations: Without direct user input, developers may rely on assumptions that do not accurately reflect user needs, leading to features that are misaligned with expectations.
2. Delayed feedback: Traditional methods often do not provide mechanisms for early and continuous feedback, resulting in issues being identified late in the development cycle when they are more costly to address.
3. Limited adaptability: Rigid adherence to initial requirements without accommodating changes can lead to products that are outdated or irrelevant by the time they reach the market.

The resource investment in user-centered and agile methods, while higher during the initial phases, appears to pay off through improved product quality and reduced long-term costs. Boehm (2000) supports this by highlighting the economic benefits of investing in thorough requirements analysis to avoid expensive rework later [12].

The paragraph above summarizes key conclusions from a literature review, highlighting results from studies comparing different methods of product requirements collection and testing approaches in software development [1][5]. However, my professional experience and examples from global IT products suggest that user-centered design is not always the best option to enhance the final quality of a product. For instance, Steam, a digital platform for gamers worldwide, was launched as a software client in September 2003 to automatically provide game updates for Valve's games. It initially received mixed feedback because no one was accustomed to using additional software just for timely game updates. Nowadays, Steam's approach has become the standard for game distributors, and user behavior has shifted significantly due to the platform's innovative UX solutions. Therefore, relying solely on user feedback when developing an MVP for an innovative product offering radically new solutions may not be the best option.

On the other hand, community and customer involvement helped Steam add features unrelated to the core game marketplace functionality, such as Steam Community—a social network for gamers. Without these features, Steam might not have become the leading game distribution platform, attracting millions of users over a decade. This is a great example of combining different approaches that led to the product's success. A traditional approach was used to define core product functional requirements (automatic game updates via external launcher software), while modern agile methods iteratively added user-requested functionality (Steam Greenlight, Steam Community, Steam Workshop).

Conclusion

The essay concludes that the choice of product requirements analysis methods has a profound impact on end-user perceived product quality. Methods that actively involve end-users, such as user-centered design and agile methodologies, lead to products that better meet user needs and expectations in most cases but it is not a general rule especially for extremely innovative products. Iterative methods or its combination with traditional approaches result in higher satisfaction levels, greater product adoption, and ultimately, market success. Organizations should recognize the value of investing in appropriate requirements analysis methods. While resource constraints may pose challenges, the long-term benefits of enhanced product quality and customer satisfaction justify the initial investment. Strategies such as prioritizing critical user groups, leveraging technology for remote user involvement, and adopting hybrid approaches can help balance resource limitations with the need for effective requirements analysis.

References

1. Smolander, K., Kasurinen, J., Taipale, O. and Vanhanen, J., 2012. Exploring the perceived end-product quality in software-developing organizations. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design, 3, pp.1-32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4018/jismd.2012040101.

2. Sutrilastyo, S. and Astanti, R., 2024. Supervised multilabel classification techniques for categorising customer requirements during the conceptual phase in the new product development. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 16, pp.31-47. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2024-0003.

3. Wiegers, K.E. and Beatty, J., 2013. Software Requirements. Microsoft Press.

4. Schuler, D. and Namioka, A., 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. CRC Press.

5. Kujala, S., 2003. User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22, pp.1-16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290301782.

6. Beck, K. et al., 2001. Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Agile Alliance. Available at: https://agilemanifesto.org.

7. Highsmith, J., 2009. Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products. Pearson Education.

8. Mao, J.-Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P.W. and Carey, T., 2005. The state of user-centered design practice. Communications of the ACM, 48(3), pp.105-109. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/1047671.1047677.

9. Pohl, K., 2010. Requirements Engineering: Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques. Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12578-2.

10. Coughlan, J. and Macredie, R.D., 2002. Effective communication in requirements elicitation: A comparison of methodologies. Requirements Engineering, 7(2), pp.47-60. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s007660200004.

11. Davis, A.M., 1993. Software Requirements: Objects, Functions, and States. Prentice Hall.

12. Boehm, B., 2000. Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice Hall.