Modern defense systems are no longer “just hardware” or “just software.” They are complex, connected products that blend sensors, communication, data processing, AI, and human operators — often across multiple organizations and countries. In that environment, a vague product idea is dangerous.
You can’t afford to discover, halfway through execution, that stakeholders meant different things when they said “real-time,” “secure,” or “integrated.”That’s why high-quality product definition is not a formality in the defense industry. It’s the foundation for safe execution, predictable delivery, and systems that actually work in the field. In my work, I treat product definition as a structured, practical process — not a slide deck. Below is how that looks in reality, using a simplified but realistic example.
Why Product Definition in Defense Is Different
In a typical SaaS product, a weak product definition leads to delays, rework, and unhappy customers. In defense, a weak product definition can lead to:
- Systems that fail in critical moments
- Operators bypassing the system because it doesn’t fit their reality
- Integration failures between platforms and units
- Compliance and certification issues discovered too late
- Cost overruns that kill the program
The defense environment adds several constraints:
- Multiple stakeholders: military users, procurement, integrators, security authorities, sometimes international partners.
- Strict regulations and standards: safety, security, interoperability.
- Long life cycles: products must be maintainable and upgradable for years.
- Operational reality: harsh environments, limited connectivity, high-stress use.
Good product definition has to respect all of that while still being clear and buildable.
A Practical Example: Tactical Situational Awareness System
Let’s use a concrete example:
A defense organization wants a tactical situational awareness system for units in the field. The initial “brief” might sound like this:
“We need a system that gives commanders and units a real-time view of friendly and enemy positions, integrates with existing radios, and works in low-connectivity environments.”
This is a good starting point, but it’s not a product definition.
If you start building from this sentence, you’ll end up with misaligned expectations and endless change requests. Here’s how I would structure the product definition process.
Step 1: Clarify Mission Outcomes, Not Just Features
Before any diagrams or backlogs, I focus on mission outcomes:
- What specific decisions should this system enable?
- In what situations will it be used (patrol, convoy, base defense, joint operations)?
- What failure are we trying to prevent (fratricide, delayed response, loss of situational awareness)?
- What does “success” look like in the field?
For our tactical system example, we might refine the mission outcomes to:
- Reduce time to understand the situation when entering a new area.
- Reduce risk of friendly fire.
- Improve coordination between units and command during dynamic operations.
This becomes the anchor for everything else.
If a feature doesn’t support these outcomes, it’s either secondary or out of scope.
Step 2: Map Operational Scenarios and Users
Next, I define who uses the system and in what scenarios.
In defense, this is more important than in almost any other domain. For the tactical system, we might define:
- Users:
- Platoon leader in the field
- Company commander at a command post
- Operations officer at HQ
- Support units (artillery, air support liaison)
- Scenarios:
- Patrol entering a new area with limited intelligence.
- Coordinated movement of multiple units in a contested area.
- Rapid response to an unexpected contact or threat.
- Joint operation with allied forces using different systems.
For each scenario, we write short, concrete narratives:
“A platoon leader is moving through an urban area with intermittent radio coverage. She needs to see the last known positions of friendly units, known threats, and restricted zones, even if connectivity drops for several minutes.”
These narratives are not “fluff.” They directly inform what the system must do under real constraints.
Step 3: Translate Scenarios into Structured Product Requirements
Now we can start turning scenarios into structured requirements. For example, from the patrol scenario:
- Functional requirement:
The system must display the last known positions of friendly units on a map, with timestamps, even when temporarily offline. - Non-functional requirement:
Position updates must be resilient to intermittent connectivity and prioritize critical data over less important updates. - Operational requirement:
The user must be able to understand, within 10 seconds, whether the area ahead is clear, contested, or restricted.
We repeat this for each scenario and user type, building a requirements set that is:
- Tied to real use
- Testable
- Understandable by both military stakeholders and engineers
This is where defense product definition often fails: requirements are written as generic “system shall” statements without clear links to real operations.
Step 4: Use Methods That Bring Structure Without Overcomplicating
You don’t need exotic frameworks to define a defense product well.
You need a few methods used consistently. Here are some I use in practice:
- Use Case and Scenario Modeling
- Short, structured descriptions of how users interact with the system.
- Each scenario is linked to specific requirements.
- Context Diagrams
- One diagram showing the system, external systems (radios, existing C2, sensors), and data flows.
- In defense, this is crucial for understanding integration and security boundaries.
- Operational Viewpoints (OVs)
- Simple views that show who talks to whom, with what information, and under what constraints.
- You don’t need full formal frameworks to get value from this — even simplified OVs help.
- Quality Attribute Scenarios
- For non-functional requirements (like reliability, latency, security), we define concrete scenarios:
“When connectivity drops for up to 5 minutes, the system must still allow the user to see the last known positions and log new observations locally.”
- For non-functional requirements (like reliability, latency, security), we define concrete scenarios:
These methods turn abstract wishes into something that can be designed, implemented, and tested.
Step 5: Align Product Definition with Execution and Procurement
A product definition in defense is not just for engineers. It has to support:
- Procurement and contracting
- Vendor selection and evaluation
- Certification and security review
- Long-term support and upgrades
In the tactical system example, a good product definition will:
- Clearly state what parts are core and must be under strict control (e.g., security-critical components).
- Identify what can be provided by vendors as modules or services.
- Define integration points and standards (e.g., specific radio protocols, data formats, interoperability requirements).
This allows you to:
- Compare vendor proposals against the same clear baseline
- Avoid “black box” solutions that don’t fit your architecture
- Plan upgrades without rewriting the entire system
Step 6: Keep Product Definition Alive During Execution
In defense projects, execution can take months or years.
If product definition is treated as a one-time document, it will quickly become outdated. In my engagements, I keep product definition:
- Versioned: changes are tracked, with clear reasons.
- Linked to architecture and backlog: every major feature or component can be traced back to a requirement and scenario.
- Reviewed with stakeholders: especially when new threats, technologies, or constraints appear.
For the tactical system, this might mean:
- Updating requirements when new communication equipment is introduced.
- Adjusting scenarios when doctrine or tactics change.
- Revisiting non-functional requirements when field tests show different realities than expected.
This avoids the classic trap where the system delivered at the end no longer matches how units actually operate.
Why This Matters for Defense Leaders
For defense leaders, high-quality product definition is not about documentation for its own sake. It’s about:
- Reducing the risk of failed or delayed programs
- Ensuring systems truly support doctrine and operations
- Making better use of budgets by avoiding rework and misaligned solutions
- Keeping control over critical capabilities instead of being locked into vendor-specific interpretations
When you treat product definition as a serious, structured discipline — not an afterthought — you give your teams and partners a clear target to build towards.
How I Help Defense Teams with Product Definition
In defense and mission-critical environments, my role is to sit between leadership, operators, and engineering teams and:
- Clarify mission outcomes and operational scenarios
- Turn them into structured, testable product requirements
- Map integrations and constraints across software, hardware, and communications
- Keep product definition aligned with architecture and execution over time
If you’re working on a complex defense product and feel that the “idea” is strong but the definition is still fuzzy, that’s exactly the moment to bring structure in — before the project becomes expensive to correct. If you want to explore how to bring this level of clarity to your own defense product or program, use the contact form on The Mr. CTO website, and we can walk through your current definition, gaps, and next steps.
