overspecifying

Overspecifying is the practice of specifying more requirements, constraints, or details than are necessary or feasible for a given goal. It occurs in fields such as requirements engineering, product development, software design, and engineering specifications. Overspecification can restrict flexibility, increase cost, and complicate implementation.

Often arises from risk aversion, miscommunication, or attempts to ensure interoperability, but it tends to backfire when it excludes feasible solutions or binds designers to unacceptable paths. It can emerge when stakeholders confuse process constraints with design goals or when teams over-quantify uncertain outcomes.

Consequences include reduced competition, vendor lock-in, brittle architectures, longer development cycles, and higher maintenance. Overly prescriptive requirements can make testing and validation harder because the criteria are too tight or tied to an assumed implementation rather than intended behavior.

Examples include specifying an exact hardware platform or processor, an exact operating system version, or a particular library or framework, instead of describing the needed capabilities, performance, security, or interoperability. Requiring a single data format when standards allow alternatives can also constitute overspecification.

Best practice is to specify outcomes and constraints at an appropriate level of abstraction, focusing on what the system must achieve rather than how it must be built. Use iterative development, separate essential and optional requirements, and prefer open standards and modular, testable interfaces.