The five biggest Challenges in Creating Statements of Requirements for Engineering Teams

If you work in engineering, you don’t need anyone to explain what a statement of requirements (SoR) is. Every new project, whether it involves a bridge, tunnel, road expansion, or water facility, begins with the same process: collecting all requirements, structuring them, validating them, revising them, and ensuring that no critical requirement is overlooked.

SoRs form the backbone of contracts, provide the baseline for design, and act as the safety net for delivery. Yet the process remains complex and often error-prone. 

Conversations with engineers, requirements specialists, systems engineers, and standards managers reveal a consistent insight: drafting SoRs is not inherently difficult; ensuring that requirements are consistent, complete, and traceable across projects is where the real challenge lies.

Below are the five most significant challenges teams face, and how high-performing engineering teams overcome them. 

1. Requirements are scattered, even when tools are in place

Many engineering firms have adopted requirements management tools, while others still rely on Word and Excel, at least in part. Across both groups, the challenges are similar:

• Inconsistencies between versions of the same requirement.
• Duplicate requirements across projects.
• Different teams reinvent the same requirements.
• Traceability gets lost between systems.

The issue isn’t a lack of tools. The problem is fragmentation: requirements reside in multiple locations, are managed by different teams, and are repeatedly revised. Even the well-equipped organizations struggle to maintain a single source of truth for requirements.

2. Recreating SoRs from scratch is a productivity drain 

Requirements engineers frequently spend 20–25% of their time on rework. Updating old requirements, rewriting, copying and pasting, reformatting, and validating. While many treat this as an inevitable part of the job, it doesn’t have to be.

Across interviews, we heard:

• ‘’We reuse requirements, but it’s copy-paste reuse. That’s not real reuse.’’ 
• ‘’Every project starts from scratch. Even though 70% of requirements are the same.’’

The paradox is evident: teams have the knowledge and access to standard requirements, but lack a reliable mechanism for reuse. This results in wasted effort and slower project delivery.

3. Version and change management are the #1 frustrations

It is challenging to determine which version is correct. Requirements aren’t static; they evolve in response to technical insights, stakeholder feedback, new regulations, client clarifications, and updates to internal standards and guidelines.

Yet most workflows look like this:

• Requirements are being updated within one project
• Other teams are reusing older versions in separate projects
• Standards managers are updating the central library independently
• Limited visibility into which projects should adopt which updates

These conditions often result in conflicting versions circulating simultaneously. Versioning challenges are not more than administrative inconveniences; they pose operational and contractual risks. Many organizations report delays, rework, and even claims arising from outdated or incorrectly interpreted requirements. 

Effective change management and precise version control are therefore essential to ensuring consistency and reducing the likelihood of costly errors.

4. Traceability breaks down when it matters most

Traceability is critical during high-stakes moments such as audits, design reviews, compliance checks, or contractual disputes. It ensures that every requirement can be accounted for, justified, and linked to its source. 

However, traceability is only as strong as the structure that supports it. Teams report:

• ‘We can trace inside one tool, but not across tools.’
• ‘We can trace within a project, but not between projects.
• ‘We can link requirements, but not version changes.’

Without end-to-end traceability:

• It is difficult to prove why a requirement exists
• The origin of a requirement may be unclear
• Confirming that the current version is correct is challenging

This is more than an operational inconvenience; gaps in traceability create risk, leading to errors or rework.

4. Engineers need confidence, not chaos

Beyond the technical and procedural challenges, there’s a human element. Professionals working with requirements want:

• Confidence that no requirement is missing. 
• Assurance that SoRs are complete, consistent, and reliable. 
• Certainty that critical requirements are correctly managed and accessible. 

These needs often matter more than just time savings. Engineers value control, stability, and operational assurance. Tools that increase complexity rather than clarity fail to support these fundamental requirements.

The approach for high-performing engineering firms 

Centralized requirement modeling transforms SoR management by combining structured reuse, version control, and traceability. Requirements become standardized, reusable building blocks, while workflows remain familiar.

Every project draws from the same validated library, ensuring consistency and eliminating duplication. Updates cascade automatically to dependent projects, traceability is built in by design, and change management becomes manageable rather than chaotic.

The benefits are measurable:

1. Efficiency and speed: Teams draft SoRs significantly faster by reusing pre-modeled requirements rather than rewriting from scratch.
2. Quality and consistency: Standardized requirements prevent contradictions, outdated versions, and duplication.
3. Risk reduction: Built-in traceability minimizes the likelihood of disputes, errors, and costly redesigns.
4. Trustworthy deliverables: Stakeholders can rely on SoRs being complete, accurate, and compliant.

By combining structured reuse with reliable versioning and traceability, engineering teams can produce high-quality, auditable SoRs while reducing manual effort and operational risk.

If your SoR process feels slow, chaotic, or error-prone, it is not a reflection of your team; it reflects the system supporting them. The good news is: it can be fixed. Feel free to schedule a demo here.