Lms functional requirements
- Must-have coverage, percent
- 83
- Must-haves this vendor does not meet
- 4
- Should-have coverage, percent
- 61
- Coverage across the whole list, percent
- 74
Every figure on this page is computed from the inputs entered, by the method stated below it. Mustvo publishes no vendor ranking, no template library, no benchmark price and no opinion about which product is better in general: the requirements, the weights, the scores and the costs are yours, and the defaults are a worked example to replace with your own.
The figures above start from a worked example (83). Change any input and the answer updates as you type.
Download the Lms functional requirements worked example (CSV)
LMS functional requirements, and functional requirements generally, split into the ones a system must do and the ones it should. Coverage is usually reported as a single percentage across the whole list, which hides the only distinction that matters: a vendor meeting every should and missing four musts is worse than the reverse, and one number cannot say so. This sheet keeps them apart. Enter your must-have and should-have counts, how many of each the vendor meets, and what an unmet must-have costs you in workaround hours a year. On the worked example, 20 of 24 musts is 83% must-have coverage with four gaps, 11 of 18 shoulds is 61%, and the whole list reads 74%. The four gaps at 40 hours each are 160 hours a year, which is 4.3 working weeks, every year, for as long as you keep the system.
Musts and shoulds are not the same currency
Report them separately and insist that others do too. A blended coverage figure lets a vendor make up a missing must with three easy shoulds, which is exactly the trade you said you would not make when you wrote the list.
Price the gaps in hours, not adjectives
An unmet must-have becomes a workaround, and a workaround is somebody's time, repeatedly. Putting an hours figure on it makes the gap comparable with the licence fee, which is the comparison the decision actually needs.
Four weeks a year compounds
4.3 working weeks a year on the worked example is not a one-off implementation cost; it recurs for the life of the system. Over five years it is more than half a person-year, which frequently exceeds the price difference between the vendors.
Lms functional requirements: common questions
What counts as a must-have?
Something you would walk away from a vendor over. If you would not, it is a should. Applying that test honestly usually shortens the must list considerably, which makes the coverage figure mean something.
How do I estimate workaround hours?
Ask the person who would do the workaround, and take a rough annual figure rather than a precise one. An approximate number that exists beats a precise number that does not.
What if a vendor promises a gap on the roadmap?
Score it as unmet and note the promise. The sheet works what the system does today, which is what you are buying; a roadmap is a reason to revisit, not a reason to score.