“We need another status field.”
That sounds like a manageable requirement. A new field, a few options to choose from, done.
From a change request to understanding the workflow
Take a simplified example from public transport: staff handling customer enquiries want a clearer view of which cases are still waiting for a response.
The conversation reveals more: some responses come from other organisations. Some cases need someone to cover for an absent colleague. And sometimes it is unclear who needs to act next.
A status field could help. But is it enough to support these situations?
Perhaps the process also needs clear ownership, a follow-up reminder or a well-defined handover. We can only judge which solution fits once we understand the workflow.
Defining requirements we can verify together
That is why, for me, one of the most valuable questions in software development is:
“What happens in this situation today, and what needs to work better in the future?”
The people who work with a process every day know its exceptions. Developers can explain the available options and the implications of implementing them.
Together, they can turn that conversation into a requirement both sides understand and can later verify.
Why errors in requirements can become costly later
Requirements form the foundation for the development that follows. An ambiguity or a mistaken assumption can carry through implementation, testing and delivery. A small error can lead to larger problems. Correcting it later may mean clarifying the requirement, reworking the software and its tests, and delivering the revised version. That costs time and money.
How vibe coding changes the balance of effort
In my view, this connection is easily underestimated in vibe coding. Implementation becomes much faster, while understanding and clarifying business requirements still takes time. As a result, requirements work can become the largest share of the development effort. Careful preparation may then feel as though it is consuming the speed advantage. But cutting it short risks allowing mistaken assumptions to spread through the software faster, with later corrections actually eating into the time saved.
Clarifying requirements is part of development
For me, this work is as much a part of development as the technical implementation. It helps us build the right functionality and explain its value.
What follow-up question has helped your team turn a seemingly small change request into a clearer requirement?