User requirements center on the needs of stakeholders in software projects

Understanding user requirements is like finding the north star for a project. If you know who needs what, you can steer toward outcomes that really matter. That’s a core idea in the IREB Foundation Level material, and it’s the kind of clarity that saves a lot of rework later on. Let me unpack it by looking at a common multiple-choice question you might encounter, and then broadening the lens so you can see how this fits into real-world requirements work.

What are user requirements, really?

Here’s the simplest way to think about it: user requirements describe the needs of a particular stakeholder or a set of stakeholders. In other words, they answer the question: what do people who will use the system actually need to accomplish? It’s not about how the system will look, or how fast it must run, or what reports it should generate—though those things will come later. Those details are important, sure, but they’re more about design choices or technical constraints. The user requirements live one layer up: they capture the goals and expectations of the people who will interact with the system.

If you’re studying for the Foundation Level, you’ll hear this distinction a lot. The requirements engineering process starts with identifying who needs what, then moves toward more concrete statements like functions, interfaces, and quality attributes. The emphasis is on understanding, not guessing. And that easily translates into better decisions, fewer changes in later stages, and a product that actually solves the right problems.

Why option C is the standout statement

Let’s consider four statements you might see in a quiz or discussion, and why one of them is right:

• A: User requirements describe the user interface.

• B: User requirements define the performance and load metrics the system must meet.

• C: User requirements describe the needs of a particular stakeholder or a set of stakeholders.

• D: User requirements describe the reporting interface of a system.

If you pause and think about what “requirements” are supposed to capture, A and D feel tempting because they point to concrete parts of a system. But they’re too narrow. The user interface and the reporting interface are specific design or technical details. They’re important, but they don’t define the essential goals from the users’ perspective. Likewise, B speaks to performance and load, which are non-functional constraints or system-level criteria. They matter, but they’re not the core of user needs.

C, though, gets to the heart of requirements engineering: who are we building for, and what do they need to accomplish with the system? It’s about perspective and purpose—the needs and expectations of users or stakeholders. That framing helps teams prioritize features, reject distractions, and focus on outcomes rather than just shapes or sizes of components.

A quick way to keep this straight

• Stakeholders: Identify who will use the system or be affected by it.

• Needs: Capture what these people want to achieve, not just how something looks.

• Translation: Turn those needs into actionable requirements later on (functional and non-functional, with tests or acceptance criteria).

If you memorize that sequence—stakeholders, needs, translation—you’ll have a reliable compass during early elicitation workshops, interviews, or surveys. It also helps you explain decisions to non-technical stakeholders, because you’re anchored in purpose rather than in jargon.

A practical frame to apply in the field

Imagine you’re helping a small team pick a new tool for project tracking. The cafeteria manager wants a system that makes it easy to see who is responsible for a task, what the deadline is, and how work is progressing. The receptionist wants a simple login for the team to access a single dashboard. The sales lead wants reports that show throughput and bottlenecks.

Now, when you map these needs to requirements, you’re not starting with “design a dashboard” or “build a login page.” You start with: who needs what, and why. The people involved have different goals, and those goals shape what features truly matter. That’s the heart of user requirements. Later on, you’ll refine those into precise items like user stories, acceptance criteria, and traceability matrices. But the starting point is clear: the needs of the people who will use the system.

How this fits into IREB Foundation Level concepts

The Foundation Level materials emphasize stakeholder analysis, elicitation techniques, and the quality of requirements. Here’s how the idea translates:

• Stakeholder orientation: Requirements aren’t an island. They belong to a set of people with diverse roles. Recognizing that helps you avoid “one-size-fits-all” solutions.

• Elicitation and collaboration: You gather needs through interviews, workshops, observation, and probing questions. Each technique aims to surface what users truly want to achieve, not just what they think is possible.

• Functional vs non-functional boundaries: Functional requirements describe what the system should do, while non-functional ones describe how it should behave. Even so, both types begin with user needs; the difference comes in how you articulate and verify them.

• Quality attributes: For the Foundation Level, you’ll explore attributes like clarity, testability, and traceability. When you document user needs accurately, they become easier to translate into tests and acceptance criteria later on.

A quick triage cheat sheet

When you’re faced with a list of potential statements or requirements, use this mental checklist to separate user needs from other details:

• Who is the user or stakeholder? If you can name a person or role, you’re in the right track.

• What problem are they trying to solve? If the core goal isn’t visible, reframe it in terms of outcomes.

• Why does this matter to them? If there’s no clear value or impact, you’re probably looking at a design detail rather than a user need.

• Is this about a capability, not a widget? If it reads like a feature, you’re edging into design territory. User needs are broader and more outcome-focused.

• Can this be tested? If you can attach an acceptance criterion or a simple test, you’ve got a bridge to later stages.

A small digression that helps it stick

Think about planning a weekend trip. Your goals aren’t “own a car with leather seats” or “book the cheapest hotel” in themselves. They’re “spend time with friends,” “get good rest,” and “keep the budget sensible.” The trip becomes a success when those needs are met. In a software project, the same logic applies. The system exists to help people achieve their work goals, not just to fulfill a checklist of features. When you keep that mindset, you start asking better questions in stakeholder conversations and you’re less likely to chase shiny objects that don’t move the needle.

Bringing it back to the big picture

You don’t need to memorize a stack of definitions to be effective. What matters is clarity about who benefits, what they aim to achieve, and why it matters. That perspective anchors the initial phase of requirements work and informs every later decision—from design choices to testing strategies. In the context of IREB Foundation Level content, this is one of those durable, transferable ideas you can carry from one project to the next.

Putting a little structure around it helps too. Consider this compact, practical approach you can apply on any assignment:

• Start with stakeholders: who will use the system, who will be affected, who can veto changes.

• Capture needs: what do they want to accomplish, what outcomes do they expect.

• Distill to needs-based statements: express goals in terms of outcomes, not interfaces.

• Translate later: map needs to functional and non-functional requirements, with acceptance criteria and traceability links.

• Validate and refine: check with actual users or representatives of each stakeholder group, adjust as needed.

A few final thoughts

If you’re exploring Foundation Level material, you’ll notice the emphasis on user-centered thinking. It’s a skill that pays off in real life, not just on exams or checklists. When you can articulate user needs clearly, you build a foundation for better collaboration, more accurate estimates, and a product that actually helps people do their work.

Now and then you’ll run into statements that tempt you to fixate on a single detail—the UI, the performance target, or the reporting layout. It’s natural to feel drawn to those concrete elements. But remember the bigger question: whose needs are you trying to satisfy, and what outcome are you enabling for them? Answer that well, and you’ll have a sturdy compass for the rest of the journey.

If you’d like, I can walk you through more examples from the Foundation Level materials, or help you test your understanding with a few additional scenarios. The goal is to keep the focus on real-world relevance while keeping the explanation accessible, friendly, and grounded in solid requirements thinking. And yes, the moment you anchor your thinking in the users’ needs, other pieces of the puzzle start to fall into place with much less effort.