> Engineers only do exactly what was written in requirements
It's a balance question.
Because on the other side of that coin, are requirements that are nebulous enough to be interpreted as a technical document describing everything between a calendar app to a rocket engine, a cooking recipe, or the prayer mantra of a futurologist cult.
Sure, engineers can "work" with that, which means they have to implement AND design the product as they go. Which usually ends in a mess for all parties involved.
So yes, engineers are within their rights to demand actually useful specs, that clearly outline what the goal of the work is. That doesn't mean they want every step of the way described in minute detail. As I said, writing good specs is a balancing act.
Of course employers are also welcome to instead take a broken spec and try to outsource it to somewhere. Only, they should be aware beforehand that the cost of hiring freelancers to fix the outcome of such experiments, often exceeds the rate of inhouse guys by quite a significant margin.
"Sure, engineers can "work" with that, which means they have to implement AND design the product as they go. Which usually ends in a mess for all parties involved."
IMO that can work as long as engineers are experienced enough, and expectations are set on both sides.
PMs will have to accept an iterative process where people gotta keep refining to get to an ideal state. And Developers will have to accept that "iterative" means you'll constantly have to re-do work or throw away stuff.
But if either side can't accept that, you'll end up with a mess alright.
It's a balance question.
Because on the other side of that coin, are requirements that are nebulous enough to be interpreted as a technical document describing everything between a calendar app to a rocket engine, a cooking recipe, or the prayer mantra of a futurologist cult.
Sure, engineers can "work" with that, which means they have to implement AND design the product as they go. Which usually ends in a mess for all parties involved.
So yes, engineers are within their rights to demand actually useful specs, that clearly outline what the goal of the work is. That doesn't mean they want every step of the way described in minute detail. As I said, writing good specs is a balancing act.
Of course employers are also welcome to instead take a broken spec and try to outsource it to somewhere. Only, they should be aware beforehand that the cost of hiring freelancers to fix the outcome of such experiments, often exceeds the rate of inhouse guys by quite a significant margin.