By Christopher Piccolo, HEXstream utilities industry specialist  

In the electric utility world, we’re accustomed to managing risk, from storm response to system upgrades. But one of the most underestimated risks isn’t in the field or in the control room; it’s at the very start of a project, in the requirements. The temptation to start fast and figure it out later can be strong. Utilities are under constant pressure to modernize grid systems, improve reliability, integrate renewables, and deliver customer-facing innovation while managing budgets and regulatory scrutiny. Yet vague or incomplete requirements often do more harm than any field delay ever could. 

When requirements lack precision, teams launch projects with differing interpretations of what “done” looks like. Engineers envision one outcome, IT architects another, and business stakeholders something entirely different. This misalignment sets the stage for scope creep, as new “must-have” features emerge midstream. It also causes rework and redesign when data, integrations or workflows aren’t clearly defined. Developers lose time waiting for decisions or clarification, and budgets swell as changes ripple across dependent systems.  

In outage-management or analytics-modernization projects, these issues can multiply quickly. A single misinterpreted data field in an OMS-to-GIS integration, for example, can derail months of work once downstream systems fail to align. The result is costly delays in visibility, reporting and, ultimately, customer restoration. 

Unlike other industries, utilities operate within intricate technical and regulatory ecosystems. Every modernization initiative—from deploying an ADMS to building outage-analytics dashboards to introducing AI-driven forecasting—touches mission-critical systems and decades of operational knowledge. A requirement in this world isn’t just a sentence in a document; it’s a contract between IT, operations, engineering and external partners. It defines how data flows, how crews respond, and how customers experience reliability. Clarity at this level prevents costly missteps later, especially as projects bridge OMS, SCADA, AMI and customer systems that were never designed to talk to each other. 

Strong requirements don’t emerge from a single workshop; they are built through collaboration. The most successful utilities invest time up front to engage cross-functional teams, including field, control room, and IT users. Successful utilities document with precision, using real-world examples, data-field mappings, and business rules. They validate requirements through scenario walkthroughs that simulate storm events, switching plans, or outage-restoration workflows to confirm logic. They define success metrics so that project completion equals measurable operational value.  

This clarity transforms requirements from static documents into living blueprints that guide technical design, testing and long-term governance. 

Time spent writing explicit requirements is not administrative overhead; it is an investment. Clear definitions reduce the need for change orders, prevent duplication of effort, and give stakeholders confidence in what is being delivered. Projects that begin with alignment end with adoption, not post-go-live firefighting. Every hour spent clarifying a requirement at the start can save dozens later. For utilities managing multimillion-dollar modernization efforts, that discipline can mean the difference between a success story and a cautionary tale. 

In a world where technology is evolving faster than the grid itself, clarity is the new currency. Utilities that prioritize precise, explicit requirements will not only control costs but also build the operational agility and trust needed to thrive in the next generation of energy management.