Tuesday, 14 December 2010 10:56

What is Requirements Maturity?

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

KeithEllisBlog_Dec14_croppedWe've been in the business of helping companies improve their requirements definition and management (RDM) maturity for over 13 years.  One thing I've noticed is that companies that have made significant improvement in RDM tend to believe they are operating at a higher level of maturity than they actually are. There's a tendency to beat the chest and sing the praises of organizational excellence in RDM, when the reality of project performance and efficiency speaks otherwise. There are really two issues:

  1. Every organization has blind spots - people focus on what they do very well and tend to stay focused on these issues to try to spur further improvement. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, this doesn't work in RDM and you get a false sense of continuous improvement. In RDM, you have to find the blind spots, the stuff you don't do well, and fix those to really make gains.
  2. People define RDM "maturity" in different ways, either narrowly describing it <<<shiver>>> as merely having a stable documentation template that is used across the corporation, or more properly, a unique process within the organization that is defined, resourced, and supported.

So, simply - what is RDM maturity?  Process Maturity is all about the degree to which an organization can be repeatable, consistent and efficient in execution on a process - same thing with RDM.  Organizations with no defined process, or a process that is defined but not enforced, would have low levels of maturity, just like organizations with well described, institutionalized and optimized process would have high levels of maturity.  The issue is that it is not just process you need to look at, there are six underlying capabilities:

  • Process - What people need to do.
  • Technique - How people will do various steps in the process under certain variations and conditions.
  • Staff Competency - The skills, roles, functions of your people and their alignment to this target currently and in hiring practices.
  • Tools/Technology - The support and automation used to complete tasks.
  • Organization - The framework of doing requirements, infrastructure backing it, the services offered to the organization, and approach to managing resources.
  • Deliverables - The actual artifacts, deliverables and work products needed to make the process work.

Here is where most people fail...  they don't look at ALL the underlying capabilities.  An example organization might have well defined process and deliverables, but a terrible definition of the staff competencies needed and little training and support to build these capabilities.  How effective is this organization going to be if they are essentially defining what they want people to do, but not giving people the skills to perform those tasks?  If you believe yourself to be a high maturity organization, look across all six capabilities - which is your weakness?  That's the one you need to focus on.

The other mistake people make is in thinking of requirements as only documentation, or only elicitation.  In fact the "process" of requirements is made up of a number of really important processes like:

  • Requirements Planning and Management
  • Requirements Elicitation (requirements gathering)
  • Requirements Analysis and Documentation
  • Requirements Communication
  • Requirements Implementation

In reality, and organization may think it is very good at one or two of these process areas, and therefore consider itself mature, but few organizations look across all the process areas and understand their strengths and weaknesses. Again, just because you are great at one thing, does not mean the entire process is particularly efficient or predictable, and that means that it cannot be considered mature.

Getting maturity in your requirements organization might sound complicated, but it's really all about being honest with yourself in looking at the organization and accepting that there are always areas of improvement.  Most of the time, these improvements are in areas that the organization does not see - it's blind spots - so often, it's necessary to bring in outside people to assess the organization... just like you would with auditors.  So organizations often go around thinking they have a more mature organization than they actually do... and they miss out on the benefits thinking there is limited room for improvement.  On the upside, high maturity organizations have exception on-time, on-budget, and on-function performance - they also tend to deliver applications at about 40% of the cost of their low maturity competitors.  I'm wondering:  what other investment in IT yields so much just from being very frank with yourself?

Don't forget to leave your comments below

Read 3891 times Last modified on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 13:46
More in this category: Swamped in Detail »

Comments  

 
0 # GRV Anand 2010-12-14 14:56
hi Kethi, Its good article about requirements process overall. However, if my understanding is correct the article talks more about the requirements general process and I felt it missed out the essense of requirements development maturity! Can you elaborate exactly what is meant by RDM maturity? Is it defining all your requirements development process and aligning people towards this? Thanks, Anand
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Paul Genuario 2010-12-15 23:56
The term maturity, when used in this context, implies that there is some scale of maturity. Therefore one can talk about things less mature and others as more mature. Hence the very first thing one must do when talking about maturity is to define what they mean by Maturity. This involves creating a Maturity Model! The model should have dimension to it associated with categories of concern. Categories: I suggest making a process framework Project related process: project types, phase specific processes, phase independent processes, templates, guides… Draft what specific process artifacts in each of those areas you want Skill Center related processes: change management; BA level position qualifications summary, Requirements quality review board, status reports, overhead management process, performance evaluation process… You then decide how you want to ‘categorize’ the artifacts for maturity evaluation purposes. Note: by definition; your process framework is a living, breathing, changing thing which will therefore make your maturity model categories subject to change. But you can easily functionally categorize your ‘areas of interest’ to be different, broader or more narrow. This exercise is essentially a maturity model scoping exercise.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Paul Genuario 2010-12-16 00:00
Now I will provide a bit more insight into implementation. Next one must define levels of maturity in each of these categories. What should be shaping up in your mind is a 2 dimensional matrix where one dimension is category and the other maturity level. The cells will contain the criteria. The levels can follow a standard nomenclature like those of CMMI (1 thru 5… my recommendation as I like these) or simple terms like low medium and high. The levels are usually identified with numbers from 0 through typically no more than 5 but one can easily define more or less… depends on your objectives. Th e criteria must be defined to support as an objective evaluation as possible. So in areas of subjectivity, adding more descriptive information and even examples will be of great value supporting evaluation. This means you can add a little about your interpretation of the CMMI definitions specific to your categories.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Keith Ellis 2010-12-16 06:26
Thanks for your question GRV Anand - and happy holidays, Requ irements maturity is a measured thing. The concept makes tangible where an organization is on a measured scale of performance. The purpose is to make the assessment of 'how good is my organization at requirements' a tangible thing. A few elements make an approach to assessing maturity successful. - Objectivity is king: whatever you use it needs to be absolutely clear in the dimensions of assessment. Our model uses the dimensions of capability and requirements process. We make it crystal clear and the reason for this is BOTH the need to have a solid conversation about where an organization stands (and why) but if the model is fuzzy at all, the recommendations for improvement get very wishy washy. - How strong is the connection between increasing maturity and changes in project performance. This is a hard-facts research thing where you need to do some serious assessment work to look at how your model is constructed and be candid about figuring out if it adds value. Ours has two major primary research studies backing it up... Feel free to take a look at www.iag.biz to download the business analysis benchmark (look for the 2009 version of the study) The reason I mention both of these is 'the essense of requirements maturity' depends on what you value strongly as you measure maturity. At IAG, we value repeatability, predictable performance, an optimization of underlying capabilities, to result in a dramatic improvement in the on-time, on-budget, on-function and success rates of projects. When you do it this way, the essence of requirements definition and management maturity is no longer a theoretical construct, it is a roadmap to making very tangible gains in IT performance. I hope this helps. Keith Ellis
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Keith Ellis 2010-12-16 06:40
Paul - thanks for your comments and enthusiasm. Ye s - I'm going to need to agree to disagree with you. What you're describing is more akin to what we do in a balanced scorecard implementation particularly the bit about "by definition; your process framework is a living, breathing, changing thing which will therefore make your maturity model categories subject to change." When we do scorecard engagements designed to link the metrics of analyst performance measurement to overall corporate goals and objectives there is always a degree of evolution. You're not trying to get the perfect scorecard out of the gate, but trying instead to instill the approach and get people running scorecard meetings where performance is discussed objectively and goals are set. Organizations get better and better over time. Maturity is the inverse. You need to put tons of research into structuring a maturity model for requirements maturity up-front. The very purpose is that a level 1 is always a level 1, 3, 5 so on are always defined (for the next 10 years) in EXACTLY the same way. Each measure is preset, each value understood, and the linkage to improvement has been carefully researched to make sure you're impacting project performance positively. Co mmunicating a performance improvement program's dimensions is a difficult thing so I'll respect that you're likely referring to communicating an internal 'maturity building' (meaning performance improvement) iniative, and I'm referring to measuring the maturity of 30 different organizations on exactly the same comparative scale (which is something we do for a living) year after year so people can see and track performance change in the business analysis area against a very stable set of goal-posts. Ke ep up the great work - it looks like you've had some excellent success!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment