A technical specification is a document that describes what software should be built and how it should behave. As a non-technical stakeholder, you will receive specifications to review, and you will be expected to approve them. Approving a spec you do not understand is how scope disputes and budget overruns start. Here is how to read one effectively.
What a specification document should contain
A complete technical specification includes:
Overview and context. What is being built and why. Who the users are and what problem this solves for them.
Feature list with detail. Each feature described in enough detail to build and test. Not "user dashboard" but what the dashboard shows, where the data comes from, how it refreshes, and what actions a user can take.
User flows. Step-by-step descriptions of how users move through the product. User A logs in, sees the main screen, creates a new project by clicking [button], fills in the form fields [field 1, field 2, field 3], submits, and sees the confirmation screen.
Data model. What information the system stores and how it is organized. Users have email, name, account type, and a list of projects. Projects have a name, description, start date, and a list of tasks.
Error states. What happens when something goes wrong. When a payment fails, the user sees [message] and [action is taken]. When the external service is unavailable, the user sees [message].
Acceptance criteria. For each feature, the specific conditions that define when it is done. "User can log in with email and password" is not sufficient. "User enters valid credentials and is redirected to the dashboard within 2 seconds. Invalid credentials show an error message without revealing whether the email exists. Three failed attempts lock the account for 30 minutes."
What to look for when reviewing
Ambiguities. Anything you can interpret two different ways, the developer will interpret differently from you. Find every sentence that has more than one reasonable interpretation and ask for clarification.
Missing edge cases. What happens when a user tries to do something at the boundary of what the system allows? What happens when required data is missing? What happens when the user is offline? If the spec does not address these cases, the developer will make their own decision about them.
States that are not covered. Most applications have multiple states: empty state (before any data is entered), loading state (while data is being fetched), error state (when something goes wrong), and success state. If a feature does not describe all of these, it is incomplete.
The happy path only. Developers sometimes write specs that only describe what happens when everything goes correctly. A complete spec describes what happens when things go wrong, including: user errors, system errors, and third-party service failures.
Missing user types. If your application has multiple user types with different permissions (admin users, regular users, read-only viewers), the spec should describe what each user type can and cannot do for each feature. If it only describes one user type, ask about the others.
How to give useful feedback on a spec
Specific feedback is useful. Vague feedback is not.
Useful: "In the checkout flow, the spec describes what happens when payment succeeds. It does not describe what happens when payment is declined. Can you add acceptance criteria for the declined payment case?"
Not useful: "The spec feels incomplete."
For each section of the spec you review, ask: if a developer built this feature exactly as described and nothing more, would the result be what I intended? If the answer is no, the spec needs more detail.
Common red flags in specifications
No acceptance criteria. A list of features without acceptance criteria is a wish list, not a specification. There is no way to objectively evaluate whether a feature is complete without acceptance criteria.
Technical language without explanation. Some technical language in a spec is expected. Unexplained acronyms and jargon in the client-facing sections of a spec suggest the author did not consider the audience.
No error states. A spec that only describes successful flows is incomplete by definition.
Scope that is too broad for the timeline. A 10-week engagement cannot deliver 200 features. If the feature count feels disproportionate to the timeline and budget, that is worth questioning explicitly.
Undefined integrations. "Integrates with the CRM" is not a specification. Which CRM, which data, in which direction, with what frequency, and what happens when the integration fails are all questions the spec should answer.
When to approve and when to push back
Approve a spec when you have read it, can describe to someone else what the system will do based on it, and you are satisfied that the acceptance criteria would produce what you intend.
Push back when there are significant ambiguities, missing edge cases, or error states that have real consequences for users if they go wrong.
The approval of a specification is a significant moment. You are confirming that the described system is what you want built. Work outside the spec becomes change orders. Time spent clarifying the spec before approval is time saved in disputes after development.
Get in touch to discuss how we run the specification process for our development engagements, and how we involve clients in reviewing and approving specifications before development begins.