Jonathan "Kupe" Kupersmith is Vice President of Brand Development, Let me share a little about me. I love my family, the business analysis profession, professional sports, Rocky Balboa, and Bruce Springsteen. When my loves blend I couldn't be happier! It happened a few weeks ago when the Dallas Cowboys unveiled their new $1 Billion; yes that's a "B", stadium. Pro sports and business analysis came together for me. Let me explain.
Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, who I do not love since I am a NY Giants fan, had a pet feature for this stadium...sixty yard long, high definition screens that are 90 feet above the field and run along the side lines.
Man, and I thought my 47" HDTV was cool.
Prior to having the screens constructed the Cowboys allegedly showed the specifications to the NFL, National Football League, and obtained sign-off to move forward. The screens were built and installed. Although I have not been to the stadium they look really cool.
The hype around the screens was all positive until the third quarter of the first pre-season game. The opposing team's punter kicked a ball right into the screen causing a do-over. Just like that the stadium "project" went from a success to a big concern in some critical stakeholders' eyes. The NFL is now reviewing the situation, the height of the screens, the impact on games, etc. A decision will be made soon if the screens need to be moved, who has to pay for the work and when they can safely be moved, if necessary.
So, what does sign-off really mean? Does sign-off of a requirements specification mean anything if the end solution does not meet the needs of key stakeholders? In the case of the Cowboys, they'll most likely argue to the NFL that they received the necessary approval on the plans. This may result in the NFL picking up the tab for the move of the screens, but there is still an impact to everyone involved. In my opinion only having this type of sign-off is worthless. If you stop there, all it does is allow parties to place blame on other parties. Why do you think so many customers are skeptical about signing off on requirements documents?
Now, let's talk about the right way to obtain sign-off. The Indianapolis Colts, who I am impartial to because they play in a different division than the NY Giants, were planning on a similar screen set-up when they were building their new stadium. To verify the screens would not impede the game, they built a "prototype" of the screens and had their punter try to hit the mock screens. He was very successful in hitting them which resulted in the team changing the design and placement of the screens due to this simulation. Now that's what I call sign-off you can be confident about.
In addition to my disliking the Cowboys, the moral of the story is you need to make sure you obtain the right level of approval throughout a project. At different stages of a project you need to take the opportunity to ensure you are headed in the right direction. I think the Cowboys did the right thing about getting the plans approved. The issue was they stopped there. By simulating the scenario with their punter, the Indianapolis Colts were able to obtain the right level of approval.
I'd love to hear your sign-off stories, good and bad!
Have fun simulating,
Kupe
Don't forget to leave your comments below
Jonathan "Kupe" Kupersmith is Director of Client Solutions, B2T Training and has over 12 years of business analysis experience. He has served as the lead Business Analyst and Project Manager on projects in various industries. He serves as a mentor for business analysis professionals and is a Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP) through the IIBA and is BA Certified through B2T Training. Kupe is a connector and has a goal in life to meet everyone! Contact Kupe at kupe@b2ttraining.com.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Kupe Kupersmith, September 01, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Vincent Cummins, September 01, 2009
VKC
-
- +0
-
-
written by Steven Blais, September 01, 2009
As for the Cowboys and Colts as BAs, there are a couple of other lessons in play. If the Colts made their choices after the Cowboys, then the Colts exhibited a strong lessons-learned mentality. That's good.
You mentioned that the owner of the Cowboys had these screens as a pet project. That leads me to believe that the BA (his staff) fell sway to the influence of his boss (metaphorically the project manager) and failed to perform due diligence, choosing rather to make his boss happy and get the sign off of what might be a flawed set of requirements. How many times have we seen that happen? And in the end, that BA (whoever it might be) was probably blamed by the signatory authority (NFL) and the project manager (team owner) for failing to do his job. Of course, had the BA stood up to the PM (owner) the owner probably would have fired him anyway.
And all this for a screen no one looks at anyway?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kupe Kupersmith, September 02, 2009
@Kcummins - I'm with you on the simulation front! I'm glad we are able to partner to help work on improving your BA practice!
@sparkerb - The sad thing is, the Colts new stadium was built first. No lessons learned. By the size of the screen I don't think you can help but look at it!
-
- +0
-
-
written by leslie munday, September 04, 2009
Not only that but did consider that NFL football is not the only sport played in that stadium?
Les.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kupe Kupersmith, September 04, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
Click Here to login or create a free account.
Not only did the Dallas Cowboys conduct testing of the height, they also went beyond the requirement of the NFL, at least 85 feet above the playing field. The HD Media Board is 90 feet above the field.
Although your article is more about not just getting signoff, in this case the standard which was to be followed was flawed.
I've been to Lucus Oil twice now and It's a great venue. I'll be in Big D later this month to see my Cowboys play.
As Jerry, Jimmy Johnson and others have stated, you rarely punt or kick the ball down the middle of the field.