• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Open with the reason this software should exist, not a feature list. Who will use this, net cloud development how often, and how is the job done today? A vendor who understands the goal can propose an alternative that costs less; a team that receives only a list of screens prices the list as written.

Describe the scope as concrete flows: what the user does and what the system does in response. Equally important, list what is out of scope. A written out-of-scope list saves more friction during acceptance than almost anything else in the document. Also mark which items are decided and which may still change — estimators price uncertainty, and concealing the open questions only hurts you.

List the constraints. These include existing systems the software has to talk to, existing databases and their quality, compliance requirements, custom development vs saas user volumes, target platforms and stacks you cannot change. If there is a hard date, say what depends on it: a team will often resequence the work to protect it, but only if they know it exists.

Define what completion means for each item. Acceptance criteria do not require any formal notation: a short list stating the expected behaviour will do. This one section compresses the review at the end by a surprising margin and closes off most late-stage disagreement.

To close, say what you expect back. Request a task-level breakdown, the assumptions used, the main risks and a range rather than a single figure. Read a wide range as useful information rather than evasion: it tells you where your description is thin. At that point tighten that section and ask for a new estimate — the next version is much more reliable.