Elizabeth_Larson_Head_Shot_CroppedElizabeth Larson, PMP, CBAP, CEO of Watermark Learning (www.watermarklearning.com). With over 25 years of project management and business analysis experience, she has presented workshops, seminars, and training classes on 4 continents. Elizabeth is the content lead for Scope Management for the PMBOK® Guide 5th edition, was one of the lead contributors to the PMBOK® Guide 4th edition (Collect Requirements), and was the lead author for the Planning and Monitoring chapter of IIBA's BABOK® Guide v. 2.0. Elizabeth is co-author of the Practitioner's Guide to Requirements Management: Requirements Planning and the CBAP Certification Study Guide 2.0. She can be reached at elizabeth.larson@watermarklearning.com.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Who Should Define the Business Need?

Ask a business analyst (BA) who should define the business need and you might hear that it is the BA's role to do so. After all, the business need defines the business problem or opportunity, which BAs have to understand in order to recommend appropriate solutions. BAs know that all requirements should link to the business need, so it is important to spend the necessary time to truly understand it.

 Ask a project manager (PM) the same question and chances are they will say the same thing--that they are the ones who should determine the business problem or opportunity. They know that their project will not succeed if it does not help support organizational goals and if it does not solve real business problems. The business need becomes the project's foundation. Just as requirements link to the business need, so does each project objective and deliverable. Since PMs are accountable for meeting the project's objectives, many PMs want a part in defining the business need.

Who's right? Who should define the business need? Does it really matter? I think it does matter, because the person who articulates the business need usually ends up owning the project. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the organization for either the BA or the PM to take ownership of the project. That is, they both need to be accountable for delivery of the end solution and for ensuring that that solution meets the business need, but not for the need itself.

Before we look at who should define the business need, let's describe what a business need really is and its interrelationship with the project and the requirements. In order to meet its goals, an organization usually undertakes many projects, and the projects that have the greatest chance for success are those that help the organization reach its vision, strategic direction, and business objectives. Ideally projects are prioritized based on business need (problem/ opportunity) and the business case (costs vs. benefits), because the need describes the pain and the benefits describe the relief.  So before a project can really begin, the business need and business case are defined, either formally or informally.

Defining the business need occurs before the project is sanctioned by the project charter, that important document is ideally written by the sponsor, often with the help of a PM. The information in the project charter, including a high-level description of the end product or solution, is input into the requirements processes, which in turn produce the requirements that are input into the definition of scope at a level of detail sufficient for the planning processes. Of course, the requirements get further elaborated during the one or many phases of business analysis work, but each needs to help solve the original business problem or contribute to the business opportunity.

So who should define the business need? The PMs, because they have to meet the project objectives? The BAs because they have to define the solution requirements? I'm going to suggest that the person or group requesting the project should define the business need, and that person or group needs to be high enough in the organization to sell the idea, to get the organization enthusiastic enough about the endeavor to fund and prioritize it, and to rally the necessary business resources. I believe this responsibility is best handled by a sponsor, steering committee, regulatory or compliance body, or a fairly high-level Subject Matter Expert (SME). Project managers and business analysts are most effective when they are neutral facilitators, not owners. Both roles need to make recommendations and can certainly recommend which projects to undertake, but they are not the ultimate decision-makers.  They work with and advise decision-makers. However, when PMs and BAs move away from advising and into decision-making, facilitating and advising become far more difficult.

Although it's the requesting organization (to use PMBOK speak) that defines the business need, I believe that the BA is in the best position to work with that person or group to help them articulate the real need and the extent of the need. BAs can help describe how bad the pain is or how great the opportunity. I think there is a vital difference between defining the need and helping the requestor define the need. That difference is one of advising versus deciding. And the PM? Although the PM can advise the sponsor on the writing of the Project Charter, the bulk of the project management work begins once the project has been approved and sanctioned and authority given to the PM.

Don't forget to leave your comments below

Comments (4)Add Comment
...
written by Cathy Brunsting, April 21, 2010
I absolutely agree with you Elizabeth. I believe that the business should always "own" the definition of the business need and also own the project. The person/group that pays for the project must define the value that they want from the solution. The project team needs to provide options for the solution to the defined business problem.

The key is then to ensure that everyone - all of the business stakeholders and all of the project team - have a common understanding of the business need and of how the solution is going to deliver business value to resolve the business need. By providing faciliation and advising support to the business, the PM and BA working together can enable the project to be defined by how it delivers business value to solve the business need, and leave ownership for the project in the hands of the business.

Too often project fail because the business sponsor gives a short statement of what they want and expect the project team to define and deliver a solution. Without a clear definition of the business need and of what success means to the business, the project team can deliver on-time, high quality solutions, but still miss the mark of what the business really needed and wanted. Then the blame game starts and no one "wins".

Cathy
...
written by Eric Rischer, April 21, 2010
I liked this article. I appreciate how it illuminates differences between the BA role and the PM role - an active topic at BATimes. Also, as a BA I think I am more successful as a nuetral advisor and can leave the ownership to the business (as Cathy said above).
...
written by Countman Knight, April 27, 2010
Excellent article, but there are two points of confusion:

First: "They know that their project will not succeed if it does not help support organizational goals and if it does not solve real business problems. "

This is not true. A project can succeed and the business can fail, kind of like the old surgical joke "the operation was a success but the patient died". If you deliver the agreed scope on time and within budget, that is project success. This is a constant source of friction between BAs and PMs, particularly where BAs are part of the client organization.

Second point of confusion: You are assuming that the BA is part of the project organization not part of the client organization. Senior, enterprise-oriented BAs who are part of the client's organization should be contributing to developing the "problem statement" section of the charter, not PMs. Just because PMs know how to run projects does not make them qualified to do enterprise analysis. For that matter, nor can every BA.

SME's are often not suitable, because their subject knowledge is deep but their enterprise analysis skills often do not match this, except perhaps at a very senior level, i.e., they have to be managers with some knowledge of the management domain. If they are managers, they tend to be busy managing, and have little time for the analytical role.

The PM still has to participate in the chartering process from the perspective of ensuring feasibility of what is proposed in the charter.

PMs and BAs need to be active partners, with the BA mapping the terrain and PM marshalling the forces. My experience shows this can work very well if you have the right kind of BA and an open-minded PM. On the other hand I have seen projects that have not been very successful for their client organization, where the PM acts as lead BA, and the BA(s) play a subordinate role.
...
written by Alex, May 26, 2010
The article and questions are good, however, they refer to 'the
perfect world'. In the real world, the steering committee or a sponsor
can outline a 'goal' relevant to the business need but not the need
itself. The need will be discovered and put in writing by a BA. A PM
will use these findings to draft project related documents, including
a Business Case. The Business Case will be supported by the Solution
Vision document which states the problem, the need, the required
solution, its features and capabilities.
In practice, BAs can hardly count on sponsor's support in identifying
the need - the sponsor wants to get it defined by BA and PM.

The only realilable and practically proven way to deal with this
reality is to take a proactive position in facilitating the project
activities, explore the business context and best practices in the
relevant industry to warm up and engage the interested parties in an
organisation.

Write comment
We love to see comments! However, please do not market or sell any products. Your comment will be removed immediately!
smaller | bigger

busy