Answer.

Background:

Early stages of projects often suffer from a lack of clarity regarding business goals and architectural decisions, so the systems analyst faces the challenge of defining the optimal level of detail for requirements. A wrong choice leads either to excessive elaboration (overengineering) or to vagueness in tasks and misunderstandings within the team.

Problem:

Some stakeholders require details "upfront," while others fear that excessive detailing leads to a loss of flexibility. Transitioning between stages (from conception to design, then to implementation) requires timely updates of requirements and involvement of all participants.

Solution:

The systems analyst applies an iterative approach. In the early phases, only the main business needs and large blocks (epics) are recorded, and then the levels of detail increase as the project moves toward development:

At the presale stage — Vision and high-level requirements;
When preparing specifications — decomposition into user stories or feature specifications;
At the design stage and handover to development — elaboration of scenarios, errors, interactions, and layouts down to the level of acceptance criteria.

Key features:

Detail increases as the solution is refined (principle of progressive elaboration).
The analyst uses team synchronization to avoid going into details too early.
The level of detail aligns with the project lifecycle and contractual obligations.

Tricky questions.

Who should determine the necessary level of detail — the analyst, architect, or client?

It is usually mistakenly thought that only the analyst or only the architect does this, but the correct answer is that the level of detail is the responsibility of the entire coordinating group (analyst, architect, product owner, technical leads, and client) as agreed within the project methodology.

Are high-level requirements sufficient for starting the team’s work?

No, high-level requirements are needed to form a common vision. To transition to development, clarified scenarios (user stories, acceptance criteria) are essential; otherwise, there is a great risk of misunderstanding and errors in implementation.

Should all requirements be equally detailed by the release?

No, often the requirements for the MVP are elaborated as deeply as possible, while less prioritized tasks are kept at a draft level to avoid wasting resources prematurely.

Common mistakes and anti-patterns

They continue to increase detail without considering the project phase.
They start detailing all requirements, even the less prioritized ones, losing speed.
They neglect communication with the team regarding the sufficiency of detail — lacking feedback.

Real-life example

Negative case: CRM project in a startup. The business insisted on complete detailing of all modules in advance. The analyst created hundreds of pages of requirements for all future functions, even though the only priorities were sales.

Pros:

Detailed base of requirements for the future.

Cons:

Time and budget costs, delays in launch.
Requirements became outdated by the time the modules were developed and required significant changes.

Positive case: In a similar project, the analyst formed the core requirements for the MVP (lead and deal management) and documented the rest as epics with brief descriptions. Detailing occurred as they approached implementation sprints.