Answer.

Background:

With the increasing complexity of IT projects and the number of involved specialists, a problem arose: business stakeholders require clear descriptions, while the technical team needs detailed and technically accurate information. There is no universal standard, and historically the systems analyst has become a "translator" between worlds, adapting the level of formalization of requirements to the target audience.

Problem:

Business stakeholders have difficulty reading diagrams and specifications and are not familiar with UML/BPMN terms. Developers, on the other hand, find user stories and a general overview insufficient—they need clear criteria, diagrams, API schemas, and data formats. If the analyst chooses the wrong format for the requirements, there are risks of misunderstandings, functional inconsistencies, and missed deadlines.

Solution:

Identify key roles/personas among stakeholders and conduct a series of interviews or surveys to learn about their experiences, expectations, and needs.
For the business client—use scenarios (user stories), BPMN diagrams, glossaries of terms, interactive mockups, and wireframes. Maximize avoiding excessive detail.
For development—prepare structured technical specifications (SRS, class diagrams, ER diagrams, API descriptions, Acceptance Criteria), ensuring unambiguous interpretation.
For implementers and testers—separate checklists, acceptance criteria, test cases, and interaction diagrams.

Key: Use the same set of requirements formalized in a convenient format for each target audience, avoiding discrepancies.

Key Features:

Adaptation of the requirements format to the competencies and expectations of the audience
Use of several mutually agreed representations for the same requirements
Finding a "golden mean" between completeness and excessive detail

Trick Questions.

Is it acceptable to take an SRS (Software Requirements Specification) template and distribute it to all project participants without changes?

No. The same document is ineffective for different roles—the business client will find the SRS unclear, while the implementation team may lack necessary details. Requirements should be adapted for each target audience.

It is often heard: "BPMN and UML diagrams completely replace written requirements—Is this true?"

No. Diagrams are a powerful visual supplement, but they should always be accompanied by explanations, as many stakeholders (especially business) are not familiar with the notations. Without a descriptive block, many nuances remain misunderstood.

Can business and technical requirements be mixed in one section?

Not recommended. This complicates the search and understanding of information for different roles and leads to errors during implementation. Documentation must be clearly structured, distinguishing business requirements, technical specifications, non-functional expectations, and acceptance criteria.

Common Mistakes and Anti-Patterns

Using only one requirements format for all roles
Excessive detail where it is not needed ("tons of diagrams" for business)
Overuse of professional jargon
Lack of a glossary of terms, leading to misunderstandings

Real-Life Example

Negative Case

An analyst prepared a huge multi-page SRS document in English containing complex UML diagrams. Business stakeholders didn’t even open it, and the implementation team made assumptions, resulting in defects at the integration points.

Pros:

Formally, all documentation was present

Cons:

The business did not understand the functions
Numerous returns and revisions
Developers ignored part of the requirements

Positive Case

For the business, an interactive prototype presentation with key business terms was created, and for the technical team—a separate technical specification and API pipeline. Documentation was maintained in Confluence with the status of discussions.