In the video the parent could have answered the question a whole lot more simply has she just asked taken a moment to try to understand what the real question was, and not taken the question at face value. (I'm being purposely vague at this point in case anyone wants to watch the video.)
Most of us have been on projects where much effort has been spent in an attempt to solve a customer's stated problem, only to discover that that either:
- The program didn't actually solve any of the customer's real problems.
- The team didn't solve the problem that the customer wanted solved.
- There was a much simpler solution.
I'm not suggesting that exhaustive requirements capture is the answer. Nor am I suggesting that you should not start building software until you have complete understanding of a problem. The reason that agile methods work well is that they acknowledge uncertainty, and provide a simple path to refining understanding: evaluating working software.
Acknowledging uncertainty does not mean ignoring information. In some cases customers might not really understand what they need, and the best way for a team to progress is to take a guess based on the information they have, and iterate on a working system. In many cases a customer will know the reason they want to do something, but may not be able to step back enough to express it. In these cases, but not trying to ask "why?" your team is ignoring information that can help them do their work. In more cases than not, a customer can fill in the pieces of the user story template:
As a (ROLE) I want to (DO SOMETHING) so that (REASON)
and provide insight into the problem that she wants to solve. This will save time, effort, and help the team deliver a better system.
If your team takes customer requirements statements at face value without exploring the reasons why a customer wants a piece of functionality, they aren't holding up their end of the collaboration part of agile software development.
Had the parent in the video though to ask why the child asked the question that she did, the process of answering might have been simpler.