The narratives that build innovation in healthcare The initial (co-) and participatory design phases within innovation processes are fundamental moments for defining requirements (requirements engineering) and agreeing and implementing 'user stories' that justify the functionalities and compose the user journey. These user stories are utilised by designers in the implementation process, e.g. personas and functional flows.

The process of eliciting and selecting requirements often enables stakeholders, using more or less structured methodologies, to articulate their mental models of functionalities (functional requirements) and needs and values (non-functional requirements). Nevertheless, this functional process of eliciting requirements for design innovation seeks to minimize disagreement by encouraging stakeholders to agree on the requirements to be implemented. This is often achieved by repeatedly asking people to validate the majority perspective, or to reflect on the feasibility and value of ideas and rank them in open discussion to choose the best commonly agreed and feasible option. While there is certainly value in mediating and equalizing the distances between stakeholders and developers by asking stakeholders to 'meet each other in the middle', I can not stop wondering:

Are we not losing richness and heterogeneity in contextual and individual needs by making functional decisions about requirements, opting for what is reasonably acceptable and feasible? Are we not constantly defending the "status quo" with these approaches? What value is there in understanding disagreement? How can we better collect and utilise the narratives and personal perspectives of stakeholders?

In this talk I will not offer solutions, but I will try to expose and reflect on issues associated with requirements negotiation.