Project Requirements Platform

Overview and Product Context

Project Requirements Platform is an enterprise system for requirements management, project documentation, solution evaluation, and project governance.

On the surface, a product like this can look like a requirements registry or specification editor. But the real complexity is broader: requirements need to be connected to projects, teams, customers, potential vendors, a solution catalog, discussions, events, and organizational structure.

As part of the project work, the task was to turn a complex domain into a clear interface system: workspace, projects, requirements repository, detail scenarios, scoring, solution catalog, organizations, communications, and mobile views.

The main task was not to design yet another requirements table, but to make requirements a working decision-making tool.

Why the Product Is Complex

A requirement in this system is not a static text row. It has a source, type, category, description, status, owner, connection to a project, connection to a product or solution, comments, change history, coverage evaluation, and final impact on solution selection.

If the product is limited to basic CRUD logic, it quickly becomes inconvenient: the table grows, context is lost, solution evaluations live separately, discussions move to other tools, and the team stops understanding how requirements influence the project.

That is why the interface had to support several working modes:

• quick overview of requirements in a table;
• grouping and filtering;
• detailed requirement view;
• editing and clarifying wording;
• evaluating how well a product or solution covers a requirement;
• comments and discussions;
• connection to projects, vendors, and organizations;
• mobile scenarios for viewing and evaluation.

Area of Responsibility and Scope of Work

The work was focused on the product’s UX structure, interface architecture, and preparation of materials that could be discussed with the team and handed over for further development.

The work included:

• analysis of the domain and key platform entities;
• design of the product structure: workspace, projects, requirements, solution catalog, organizations, team, events;
• design of dashboards and project working surfaces;
• UX logic of the requirements repository, requirement groups, and detail view;
• scenarios for creating, editing, filtering, and categorizing requirements;
• scenarios for evaluating how well solutions match requirements;
• tables, cards, side panels, modal windows, empty states, and mobile views;
• comments, discussions, and activity scenarios around requirements;
• a concept layer for AI-assisted work with requirement wording;
• preparation of interface materials for further implementation.

Screen Families

The interface was divided into several connected screen families. This helped avoid designing the product as a set of separate pages and kept the overall system coherent.

Workspace Family

Workspace works as the user’s starting area. It helps them quickly return to work: open projects, the requirements repository, the solution catalog, events, recently viewed materials, deadlines, or bookmarks.

It is not a marketing home page, but a working hub. Its task is to reduce the time needed to return to context.

Project Family

A project is the central work container. Requirements, team, customers, potential vendors, meetings, events, business goals, and progress are collected inside it.

For this family, the project list, card and table views, project creation, empty states, project dashboard, and summary blocks were important.

Requirements Family

The requirements repository is the core of the product. This is where the user works with requirements: searches, filters, groups, adds, edits, imports, and opens details.

The balance between density and readability is important. An analyst may work not with one requirement, but with dozens or hundreds, so the table, filters, groups, and quick actions need to work together.

Evaluation / Scoring Family

This layer turns requirements into a tool for choosing solutions. The user evaluates how well a product, vendor, or implementation option covers each requirement.

The interface should support sequential work: requirement → coverage option → implementation approach → reason for non-compliance → move to the next requirement.

Organization / Counterparties Family

Requirements and solutions in enterprise projects are connected to real organizations. That is why the product needs a layer for companies, departments, employees, contacts, vendors, and products / technologies.

This layer should not become a separate CRM detached from requirements. Its task is to support project work: who participates, who is responsible, who the vendor is, and which solutions are connected to the organization.

Communication / Activity Family

Discussions, events, comments, changes, and notifications appear around requirements. This layer helps preserve context: who changed the requirement, what was discussed, which questions remain open, and which events are connected to the project.

Requirements Repository

The requirements repository had to support working with large amounts of data: tables, categories, requirement types, filters, adding, editing, importing, empty states, and moving to a detailed view.

A side panel was used for adding and editing requirements without losing the context of the list. This is important for an enterprise interface: the user remains on the working surface, sees the table, and can quickly close or save the action.

Tables were used where density and comparison were needed. Cards were used where quick overview or dashboard presentation mattered. These modes are not just different visual variants: they support different ways of working.

Requirement Detail and Scoring

The requirement detail screen had to be the focused working unit. At this level, the user sees the description, explanation, attributes, category, status, related solutions, comments, and coverage evaluation options.

The scoring scenario helps capture expert evaluation:

• fully covers the requirement;
• partially covers it;
• does not cover it;
• implemented as standard;
• requires configuration;
• requires extension;
• requires development;
• requires a third-party solution;
• cannot be implemented.

If a solution does not cover a requirement or only partially covers it, the interface should help capture the reason. This turns a subjective expert assessment into a structure that can be analyzed and used when choosing a solution.

AI-assisted Layer

In the concept layer, an AI assistant is planned for working with requirements. Its role is not to make decisions for the team, but to speed up preparation and text cleanup.

Possible tasks:

• check wording for ambiguity;
• suggest a draft;
• find duplicates;
• decompose an overloaded requirement;
• help structure a selected text fragment.

The final decision, coverage evaluation, and acceptance of requirements remain with the human and the project team. AI works here as a supporting layer, not as an automatic decision-maker.

Mobile Adaptation

The main working density of the product is desktop. But some scenarios also had to work on mobile: viewing projects, opening a requirement, choosing an evaluation option, navigating through groups, and quick actions.

The mobile version could not be built as a reduced table. That is why wide desktop surfaces were translated into more compact scenarios:

• cards instead of wide rows;
• chips for evaluation options;
• a separate requirement screen;
• compact progress;
• action menu instead of a full toolbar;
• step-by-step navigation through requirement groups.

In this way, mobile preserves the meaning of the scenario without trying to repeat desktop mechanics one to one.

Interface System

The case is important not only for the page structure, but also for repeatable enterprise patterns.

The system included:

• high-density tables;
• cards;
• side panels;
• modal windows;
• filters;
• empty states;
• status markers;
• comment cards;
• activity feed;
• mobile requirement cards;
• evaluation chips;
• action menus.

These patterns help keep the product from turning chaotic. When new screens appear, they should not have to solve the basic questions from scratch every time: where the table is, where the card is, where the side panel is, where the modal is, where the empty state is, where the comment is, and where the status is.

Public-safe Presentation

The current version of the case is presented as a static public-safe concept. It does not disclose confidential documents, commercial context, real participant names, or internal documentation.

The public version shows product logic, UX architecture, decision-support scenarios, screen families, and an updated visual layer. This is not a Live Demo and not a production claim, but a static case that explains the approach to designing a complex enterprise system.

What This Case Shows

Project Requirements Platform shows experience with an enterprise product where the interface needs to support not only data entry and storage, but also decision-making.

The case is important as an example of how requirements can be turned from a set of text rows into a working system: with projects, teams, vendors, solution evaluation, scoring, discussions, and repeatable interface patterns.