Author: Cynthia Low

Defining Requirements within a Short Time Frame

Written by Cynthia Low on October 15, 2008. Posted in Articles. 3 Comments on Defining Requirements within a Short Time Frame

Recent industry studies show that modern software projects on average spend 40 percent of their effort on rework. As a result, over 60 percent of software projects overrun budgets, miss schedules and substantially reduce delivered functionality. Without a clear idea of how to set requirements, most software development projects will face either significant rework or fail altogether. Over the past few years, Agile methodologies appear to be helping reduce this problem. This whitepaper will explore techniques of capturing requirements within Agile teams.

Wikipedia says that, “The term Agile Software Development refers to a group of software development methodologies that promotes development iterations, open collaboration, and process adaptability throughout the life-cycle of the project.”

So, if we apply a sports analogy, using Agile methods to develop software is like a series of sprint races. Developers are focused solely on successfully completing the next iteration, which is often due within a matter of weeks, and they zero in on defining their requirements to achieve that short-term goal.

In other words, Agile teams don’t produce any requirements specifications that are not absolutely critical to making it clear to the team what is expected of them in the short term. So, the question becomes: How do you decide what requirements are “just enough” to complete the next iteration?

There are a number of factors that need to be considered, when deciding what techniques and how much level of detail to provide when defining requirements for an Agile team. These considerations should include:

Team size and the proximity of team members
Skill and experience of the team
Has the team worked together before?
Complexity of the requirements
Complexity of the software.

Keeping the above considerations in mind, you will need to decide which techniques you will want to use and how much detail you will want to provide while using these techniques.

Common techniques include:

Verbal Communications. Verbal communications, perhaps using a whiteboard to capture key thoughts, is typically the fastest way to define a requirement. However, what this approach makes up for in initial speed, it doesn’t ensure that all stakeholders are in the loop. Plus, participants may not all remember exactly what was decided after the meeting breaks up. It is all too easy to have a different recollection of details that were discussed two weeks ago. This can lead to misunderstanding of requirements during development and testing, and will be reflected in inaccurate product user guides and training material. So you may have saved time initially, but wasted more time in the long run.

So when is verbal better than written communication? Agile methods promote face-to-face interactions, but that can be impractical in cases where teams are scattered across the globe or even across a city. Relying only on verbal communications is a last resort, to be used only when short-term time gains are worth more than the longer term problems this approach can create.

Story Cards. A popular and valuable technique within Agile development teams is to create a story card. These story cards tend to provide a text-based description of who wants to do what and why, along with perhaps a picture of the screen and some test scenarios. This technique works well for very small features but may not scale well for larger or more complex features that integrate and depend on other features.

Requirements Lists. Often a common place to start from a product scoping point of view is to create a hierarchical “Requirements List” which captures in text form an organized and grouped list of functional requirements, technical requirements, business drivers etc. Often these text descriptions can be enough to clearly articulate what the requirement is For example a technical requirement such as, “The application must support IE 6 and IE 7,” does not really need any additional explanation. However a requirement such as “The application must be able to define which users can have access to specific functionality and data” will need much more detail. The point is to only expand on requirements that truly need more details.

Use-Case Flows. Sometimes to truly understand the overall flow of a more complex requirement use-case flows or simulations are required to capture “just enough” requirements. However from my point of view it typically is not a good idea to use “use cases” to document complex logic or business rules such as authorization logic. These types of requirements are often better documented in text or tabular formats. For example, a simple 2×2 table showing the roles on one axis and what they can do on the other axis is a much more efficient way to convey authorization business rules than embedding alternate flows into use cases.

Simulations. Simulations can add great value to really bring a concept to life, but adding every single detail into the simulation can take too much time. And, frankly, it is sometimes difficult for developers to reverse-engineer a simulation and extract a discrete set of requirements. It is much easier for an Agile team member to read a simple table showing who can do what, than to run through a simulation and reverse-engineer the same information. Also, it is possible to spend too much time doing elaborate simulations that don’t add enough value for the time and effort they can take to develop.

Everyone will have their personal preference as to when to use what technique for communicating requirements, but the key is for the team to work together and agree upon when it makes sense to use different techniques and not “force” a technique when it clearly can be done more easily another way.

General Repository. No matter what techniques you decide to use to document requirements, keeping these requirements details/artifacts in a central repository and linking them to each other in an organized manner is critical to the collective success of your Agile team. Relying on people to keep track of endless email trails and simple document repositories with manually maintained links is not the answer. People are too busy to do it, and, most likely, the data repositories will not be kept up-to-date. Because of that, any repository needs to do whenever possible to automatically create and maintain these links based on how the artifacts are organized. For example, if a use case refers to a screen on a given step, then that screen should be automatically linked to that step in the repository.

So how do you know what is enough detail? Your team will let you know when things require more details. Part of working within an Agile team is to expect the need for requirements clarification throughout the project. In traditional waterfall, this was almost discouraged and under the good intentions of change management. However, within Agile, it is expected and embraced, which takes some getting used to for Agile newbies.

Recap

This topic is much deeper than can be covered with this small article, but the key points are

Make a conscious decision on the level of detail you want but expect to tweak that during development.
Choose the right technique for the requirement you are trying to describe.
Make sure you keep an integrated central repository that links together the multiple requirements artifacts.

Martin Crisp is CTO of Blueprint Systems. He can be reached at [email protected]

Business Analyst Development in the Insurance Industry

Written by Cynthia Low on October 1, 2008. Posted in Articles.

Transformation. If the topic was not in the last Board briefing, it was in the one before that. A Celent review of the websites of largest 20 property and casualty and life/health insurers found the theme of business/operational/company transformation featured prominently on 40% of them. Major investments are being made in new technologies across multiple areas-policy administration, rules engines, predictive modeling, workflow managers-to change the way business is currently performed.

Enterprise change happens on multiple levels and with the effort of many individuals. It cannot happen without modifications to business processes at the transaction level, as committed employees work with business owners to analyze changes to the way work is done. Once that analysis is complete, support areas such as IT, HR, and Operations must work to implement the new methods. In most insurance companies, the people responsible for identifying, facilitating, documenting, and communicating the new business requirements are the business analysts.

In the Celent report The 18 Month Rule: Avoiding The Endless Project, (November 2006), it was noted that “between 30% and 80% of all large projects fail, with most estimates coming in on the higher side of this range.” The definition of failure is a project that is not fully implemented on time and does not meet the original requirements.

With this in mind, what is the state of development of the critical business analyst function in the industry? Celent researched leading insurance firms and found that the professional development of business analysts lags that of other functions. In many cases, the job lacks clear definition and boundaries. Skills are often learned “as and when” through individual effort and initiative. BA development has been described as an “afterthought.” In contrast to the underwriting (CLU, CPCU, IIA), claims (AIC), and project management (PMP) designations, there is no industry-wide accepted certification of business analysts.

The good news is that disciplined, structured development programs in the insurance industry exist and have been recently implemented. These initiatives have been justified by a disciplined examination of the role and the contribution of BAs. This report examines these initiatives and also outlines the business case. Additionally, action steps to move business analyst development to the next performance level are detailed.

What is a Business Analyst?

The business analyst operates at the intersection of business users and information technology. (Note: Since so much business analyst work is IT-related, in this report IT is used as a placeholder for all of the support groups necessary to implement new/revised business requirements.)

Core business analyst (BA) tasks deal with requirements definition, acceptance test case development and execution, and client communication. Defining requirements can include business process design, use case development, and user interface specification. In companies without a dedicated Quality Assurance area, BAs play a prominent role in acceptance testing and may be involved in other test activities (system and or integration testing) as well. The BA is also recognized as a subject matter expert, having earned this designation through many years of experience with a specific business function or transaction system. Project management tasks can also fall to the BA, especially in smaller organizations or for implementations of limited scope. Emerging duties of the BA include the creation and maintenance of automated rules in rules engine applications, responsibility for business process management (BPM) tools, and the use of automated requirements generation tools.

Table 1: BA Duties
Always	Sometimes
Requirements collection, definition, and communication	Other testing (system, integration)
Acceptance testing	Subject matter expertise
Client liaison	Project management
	Creation and maintenance of automated business rules
	Business process management automation
	Use of automated requirements tool
Source: Celent

Organizational responsibility for business analysts varies. In some companies, the BA is part of the business. In others, the BA is firmly within IT. More than one insurer shared the fact that, in their company, reporting relationships for BAs periodically move from one side to the other.

The notion that wide-ranging tasks and changing reporting relationships create problems for BA development is a recurring theme in discussions with companies. One of the first tasks that leaders take is to build a fence around the duties of their business analysts. Bringing focus to the function is a key success factor in the leading development programs.

On the other hand, it does not seem to matter whether the BA resides in IT or in the business. What is critical is a corporate investment in the group and sustaining it over time.

When asked, BA managers describe the “ideal business analyst” using descriptors of both skills and personal characteristics. The skills required deal with a keen attention to detail, a “real world” knowledge of the business (especially company-specific operations, systems, and workflows) and effective verbal/written communication. However, because requirements gathering can be so relationship-focused, the best business analysts employ large amounts of empathy and influencing skills. Celent believes that the need to be able to “walk in a user’s shoes” and to exhibit an appreciation of their challenges at the coal face level tip the scales in favor of sourcing BAs from the business rather than from IT.

Table 2: Business vs. IT Sourcing of BAs-Skills Prevalence
Skills / Characteristics	Business	IT
Attention to detail		
Systematic thinking		
Structured analysis		
Deep understanding of the business	
Communication	
Empathy	
Influencing	
Source: Celent

Clearly, BA development is complex and sophisticated. This is not a “just add water and mix” HR exercise.

The Business Case

How do advocates champion the cause within their organizations? Most of the reported justifications are qualitative, but a quantitative case can also be made to justify investment.

Drivers of the change in companies already pursuing a more rigorous approach to development were varied:

Desire to support an outsourced IT model with more rigorous analysis by internal resources
Sponsorship at a senior leadership level
Need to backfill for an aging employee population
(demographic trends)
Recognition that the requirements development process needs improvement
Adoption of new tools such as business rules engines

In some cases, a more financially based approach may be necessary to motivate investment. One method is to approximate the dollar value that is dependent on quality BA execution to deliver the full benefits estimated for a project delivery.

For example, assume the net benefit from a system build and implementation is US $6.25million. Using a typical life cycle framework (SDLC), estimate the percentage of the total work effort attributable to each phase. Multiply this phase percentage by the total benefit to arrive at a benefits-by-phase accrual. Then estimate the BA contribution percentage for the each phase. Multiply the BA contribution percentage for each phase by the benefit contribution for that phase, and the result is the BA dollar contribution by phase.

The BA contribution is highest in the requirements phase (80%), and very important in acceptance testing (65%) and implementation (50%) efforts. Using these assumptions, the model calculates that 41% of the total benefit of the entire project depends on the performance of the BA resource on the project ($2,546,875 / $6,250,000). The costs of a BA development program compare very favorably to the income from only a single project.

Conclusion

Successful transformation efforts will invest in the skill development of business analysts. The bad news is that this function has historically not received the attention it warrants. The good news is that there are companies with formal, disciplined programs that are in their second or third year of operation and are beginning to deliver results.

If improved delivery of transformation initiatives is part of your company’s strategy, Celent recommends that you:

Identify a senior leader to champion the effort of business analyst development.
Establish a certification program for business analysts in the next three months; get the program up and running immediately and perfect it later.
Pay for any registration and exam fees for employees pursuing the certification.
Implement bonus award recognition for employees who successfully complete the certification.
Commit to a goal: If there are no certified BAs in your organization, commit to completing certification of 5% of the BA population in the next year; if there are employees certified, issue a challenge to the company to double the number in the next six months.
Create a professional career path for BAs; if feasible, establish a. AVP or VP level business analyst leadership position.

If your company is investing in BA development, redouble your efforts and maintain your lead. If it is not, it is time to begin.

Mike Fitzgerald is a senior analyst in Celent’s (

www.celent.com) insurance practice and is based in the firm’s Chicago office. He has particular expertise in property / casualty automation, operations management and insurance product development. His research focuses on underwriting and policy administration, business process and operations, billing, and project / program management. Prior to joining Celent, Mr. Fitzgerald was Vice President of Enterprise Underwriting Solutions of Zurich North America, where he led the evaluation of technology alternatives to support a new underwriting product development process. He was a business architect at HCL Technologies America, and held a number of positions at Royal & Sun Alliance, including a regional operations executive role. Mr. Fitzgerald began his career as a business analyst. Mr. Fitzgerald has a B.A. in economics from Davidson College in North Carolina and an MBA from the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University in North Carolina . He is a Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter and a certified Project Management Professional. He can be reached at [email protected]

I Don’t Have Time to Manage Requirements; My Project is Late Already! Part IV

Written by Cynthia Low on October 1, 2008. Posted in Articles.

Requirements Summary

In this series we have provided an overview of requirements management, a description of the requirements management plan and its components, and some tips on how to negotiate for realistic time frames that include just enough time for the appropriate amount of requirements management.

Before we conclude, we need to make some important distinctions among terms that are sometimes used interchangeably. These distinctions are important, since they are not only invaluable for requirements planning, but also help clarify roles and responsibilities.

A Few Key Terms

The following are some terms which, when clarified, will aid in requirements management:

Project Management and Requirements Management.

Project management focuses on delivering the end product within constraints, such as time and cost. Project management includes the entire effort to produce the end result, of which requirements management is a part.

Requirements management focuses on defining the features, functions, capabilities, and characteristics of the end product, ensuring that they are defined completely and correctly.

Business Analysis and Requirements

Business analysis is the work of producing requirements. Business analysis can be performed in one project phase or many.

Requirements are the end result of completed business analysis work. Again, they describe the features, functions, characteristics, and capabilities of the end result of the project.

Projects, Products and Solutions.

Project. Endeavor or undertaking that produces a unique end product, service or result.

Product. We are using the term as it is defined in the PMBOK® to mean the end result of the project.

Solution. There can be both business and technical solutions. The business solution is defined by the sponsor and business subject matter experts. The technical solution, if there is a technical component to the project, is defined by the technical subject matter experts. After requirements have been defined, they are turned into a solution to the business problem that needs solving.

Life Cycles, Methodologies, Approaches

Life cycles describe the phases that take the project from its inception to its end. While it can be used to describe products (for example, the life cycle of a new pharmaceutical drug), concepts (life cycles of safety), or of living things (fleas and flowers), we are going to think of a life cycle of the project. Project life cycles are important, because they need to be managed.

Methodologies define how to get from the beginning to the end, usually through prescribed processes and templates. Frequently, phases and phase names are provided, as well as tasks to be completed within each project phase. The methodology may or may not prescribe multiple phases for completing business analysis.

Approaches are like “hybrids,” not quite life cycles and not quite methodologies. Examples are agile and Waterfall. Proponents of certain approaches often refer to “methods,” such as agile methods or SCRUM.

Summary of Requirements Management

Below are activities that need to be performed, either formally or informally, with a great amount of rigor or with practically none. They are closely aligned with the BABOK, version 2.0 but, since that document has not been published, we have avoided specific references to the Knowledge Areas. These are processes that need to be performed, regardless of the methodology or approach used.

Planning Business Analysis

These are the set of activities included as part of planning the business analysis phase, or phases, of a project. Whether planning for a new process, new or enhanced software, a new bridge or a feasibility study, deliverables and tasks must be identified, planning processes must be identified or created, roles and responsibilities must be agreed on, metrics established, and a plan for communications, formal or informal, must be created. Although not all project life cycles include a formal phase(s) for business analysis, the activities that comprise business analysis need to be taken into account.

As described in the series Overview, one of the key deliverables is the Requirements Management Plan, which is a set of documents that can be expected to change over time. The subsidiary plans that comprise the Requirements Management Plan are executed and updated at different points during business analysis.

Elicitation

This set of activities includes gathering stakeholder requirements and ensuring that their needs have been understood. Effective elicitation requires the ability to ask the right questions, listen to and synthesize responses, and record customer requirements. These skills are required for effective project management as well. Finally, elicitation tasks include determining elicitation techniques that are appropriate for the project.

Enterprise Analysis

In a nutshell, this process includes tasks to recommend, which projects to undertake by completing feasibility studies and cost benefit analyses. Once projects are undertaken, recommend the product scope.

Analysis

This set of activities includes the progressive elaboration of requirements from highest level to subsequently lower levels of detail, as more becomes known. Its purpose is to ensure that the business needs are truly understood and that requirements are defined completely and correctly. The requirements need to be elaborated in enough detail so that business clients are satisfied that their needs will be met, and the development team can create the end product or service.

Solution Assessment and Validation

This knowledge area describes how well the solution, or end product, solves the stated business problem and meets the approved requirements. This knowledge area includes activities related to making sure the end product matches the stated requirements, and is closely related to Quality Management.

Requirements Management and Communication

This set of activities involves the packaging of requirements to provide the level of documentation agreed upon in the Requirements Communication Plan (Business Analysis Planning and monitoring), taking into account the various audience preferences for format, level of detail, and frequency of communication. It also covers the handling of conflicts and issues. Finally, this knowledge area describes managing changes to the product and version. Because changes have to be managed across business analysis, it relates not only to Communications Management, but also to Integration Management.

Below is a matrix summarizing the interrelationship between the knowledge areas for Requirements Management, as shown in the BABOK, and project management, as framed in the PMBOK.

Integrating Requirements Management and Project Management

Final Words

In summation, requirements management, whether done formally or informally is a vital aspect of project management. Without the requirements management plan, the overall project management plan is incomplete. Taking the time to plan and manage requirements will lead to a better end product and increases the chances of having satisfied stakeholders.

In addition, if we revert to when requirements were not managed, we can expect to see the cost of projects and defect repair, as well as scope creep continue to increase. However, if we spend too much time on requirements management, we are at risk of creating a burdensome process that will delay the project. It is important, then, to apply an appropriate amount of requirements management rigor to our projects to ensure that we have:

Thought about the approach we will take
Identified the business analysis deliverables
Developed a requirements schedule
Planned for requirements communications
Clarified important roles and responsibilities
Communicated our plan to our sponsor, ensuring an understanding of the requirements management plan and its importance

This care will help all stakeholders in planning their time and encourages their active participation on the project.

References
Ambler, S. (last updated March 3, 2007), Agile Modeling, retrieved on January 7, 2008, from http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/changeManagement.htm and http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/examiningBRUF.htm

Davis, A. Just enough Requirements Management Part 1, retrieved on January 7, 2008, from http://conferences.codegear.com/article/32301.

IEEE Standard 610,

1990,International Institute of Business Analysis (2006). A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge, version 1.6.

Project Management Institute. (2004) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK®) (2000 ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Software Engineering Institute (SEI’s) Square Project updated 5/12/05.

Elizabeth Larson, CBAP, PMP and Richard Larson, CBAP, PMP

are Principals, Watermark Learning, Inc. Watermark Learning helps improve project success with outstanding project management and business analysis training and mentoring. We foster results through our unique blend of industry best practices, a practical approach, and an engaging delivery. We convey retainable real-world skills, to motivate and enhance staff performance, adding up to enduring results. With our academic partner, Auburn University, Watermark Learning provides Masters Certificate Programs to help organizations be more productive, and assist individuals in their professional growth. Watermark is a PMI Global Registered Education Provider, and an IIBA Endorsed Education Provider. Our CBAP Certification Preparation class has helped several people already pass the CBAP exam. For more information, contact us at 800-646-9362, or visit us at http://www.watermarklearning.com/.

I Dont Have Time to Manage Requirements; My Project is Late Already! Part III

Written by Cynthia Low on September 15, 2008. Posted in Articles.

Getting to the Right Amount of Requirements Management

Choosing appropriate requirements management processes is critical. It is important to find the balance between the extremes of a burdensome process and no process at all. All levels of rigor can be appropriate, depending on the project and the organization where the process is followed. On some projects, following a great deal of rigor is required; on others little is. Scott Ambler, a proponent of the Agile approach, stresses the importance of “just-in-time JIT requirements elicitation.” Alan Davis supports “Just Enough” approach.

Some of us remember the pre-process and pre-methodology chaos of the 1970s. It was not uncommon for developers to sit down by themselves or at best with a single “user” to hammer out features of a new piece of software. Those of us who lived through that time remember some of the issues of the “users” who articulated their own needs, but who didn’t represent all the stakeholders. Or management who pitted one developer against another to try to get the software developed sooner, or the developers who dictated to the business what was in and what was out of scope.

Nevertheless, too much rigor can become overly-burdensome. Here are some pitfalls to avoid:

Misaligning the amount of rigor required with the size of the project with. One example of misalignment is having inappropriate levels of approval, such as requiring a formal Change Control Board for a small, well-understood, low-impact, and well-accepted change.
Developing a requirements management plan that takes more time to create than developing the product • Requiring the creation of a requirements management plan “because that’s the process we follow here.”
Handling all projects with the same degree of requirements management.

The “right” amount of requirements management occurs when there is enough rigor to:

Reduce business and product risks
Communicate effectively with all stakeholders. Communications becomes more complex with more stakeholders, so formalizing the communications on larger, more complex projects is usually appropriate.
Help ensure that a quality product is delivered at the end of the project.
Ensure the production environment is not jeopardized during deployment.

To this end, some applications of requirements management may need more emphasis than others. For example, one of the authors of this article was the project manager on a new retail application where the risk included the possibility of having incorrect prices on all the items in all the retail store locations. The project team spent several months planning traceability, testing, implementation, risks, communications, and other aspects of requirements management, and we implemented a three-year project within days of the projected date, only to have performance so poor, that holiday sales were in jeopardy. She also managed a project that she thought was “small,” ignoring requirements management completely. The team spent several months in “stabilization,” which was a nice term for cleaning up the mess that had been created.

Negotiating the dates

In all likelihood there will be stakeholders who want to complete the business analysis planning more quickly than seems reasonable. Because business analysis is not always perceived as value-added, some stakeholders will attempt to shorten the process. Here’s an approach to follow: negotiate not the deadline, but the deliverables. Trying to change the projected date is fruitless without negotiating the scope, which is comprised of the deliverables that will be produced. If the sponsor wants to bargain to reduce the business analysis time, here are some tips to try:

Make sure your sponsor is aware of the requirements process and/or methodology and why it was chosen. This implies that thought has been given to that requirements approach and that it was chosen with care. For example, a sponsor may have heard of “agile” projects and may want to dictate that your project be done “agilely.” Emphasize the benefits of the chosen approach.
Show the sponsor the deliverable Work Breakdown Structure, which serves as a “picture” of the scope of business analysis work. Explain why each deliverable is important to the project outcome. Give the sponsor a choice of removing deliverable(s), but for each one the sponsor wants removed, explain the risks and impacts of discarding it. You can also recommend which deliverables to remove. The sponsor will appreciate your understanding of the impacts and ability to present alternatives and the associated benefits and risks.
Be prepared to quickly re-estimate the effort with the removal of deliverables. You will lose credibility if the planning process drags on with iterations of estimating, reviewing, and changing, without solid agreement.
Be sure to be prepared when meeting with the sponsor. Talk to key stakeholders before the sponsor meeting to understand which deliverables really are negotiable, and which are essential to the end product being delivered. Work with the key stakeholders to obtain as close to a consensus as possible, so that you can present your recommendation neutrally thus truly representing the client perspective.
Be sure that you absolutely understand the business problem that the sponsor is trying to solve. Any deliverables that do not help in solving the problem should be removed from the WBS. In addition, explain how managing requirements can actually save time. Explain how using requirements management tools, such as the traceability matrix, can save time because it ensures there is a clear linkage between a requirement and the business problem being solved. By tracing requirements we not only help ensure that every requirement adds value, and that every approved requirements will actually be produced, but also that scope creep is less likely to occur.

If during requirements planning new deliverables are uncovered, or changes to deliverables are desired, it will be necessary to modify the WBS, create new tasks, re-estimate the amount of time it will take to produce the new or changed deliverable, and discuss what changes in the schedule are required. Negotiating with the sponsor, as described above, is important whenever there is a change. Sponsors typically want to know what every new requirement will cost, so be prepared with estimates when discussing them.

References: Ambler, S. Agile Modeling, http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/changeManagement.htm and http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/examiningBRUF.htm
Davis, A. Just enough Requirements Management Part 1 http://conferences.codegear.com/article/32301

Elizabeth Larson, CBAP, PMP and Richard Larson, CBAP, PMP are Principals, Watermark Learning, Inc. Watermark Learning helps improve project success with outstanding project management and business analysis training and mentoring. We foster results through our unique blend of industry best practices, a practical approach, and an engaging delivery. We convey retainable real-world skills, to motivate and enhance staff performance, adding up to enduring results. With our academic partner, Auburn University, Watermark Learning provides Masters Certificate Programs to help organizations be more productive, and assist individuals in their professional growth. Watermark is a PMI Global Registered Education Provider, and an IIBA Endorsed Education Provider. Our CBAP Certification Preparation class has helped several people already pass the CBAP exam. For more information, contact us at 800-646-9362, or visit us at http://www.watermarklearning.com.

In this Edition: Implementing BA, Managing Requirements, Service Management

Written by Cynthia Low on September 2, 2008. Posted in Articles.

Summer tends to become a bit of a habit, doesn’t it? And it’s a habit that’s often hard to kick. But no excuses! We have some articles that we feel sure will provide food for thought and help get you back into the business swing of things. I think you’ll find them a mix of pretty sophisticated business analysis ideas and techniques coupled with some getting the job done in general. Take a read and let us know what you think because that’s what helps us continue to run a website that is for and about you and your profession. And, talking of reading, don’t miss our new Bookstore that we set up just last month. It’s got a wealth of great BA books by leaders in the field.

Implementing Business Analysis; Three Distinct Phases. Victor Teplitzky believes that introducing business analysis to an organization is something that has to be carefully planned if it is to be effective. He write about the three phases involved.
I Don’t Have Time to Manage Requirements; My Project is Late Already! Part II. In the first article in this series, Elizabeth and Richard Larson looked at the framework for requirements management. Here, they discuss the relationship between the requirements management plan and the project management plan.
Random Thoughts on Service Management. Regular blogger Terry Longo gives us his take on service–oriented management and business analysis – and other random BA thoughts.
Labor Day is Here. Publisher, Adam Kahn, is sad that Labor Day 2008 has come and gone and the dying days of summer with it. But he’s also looking forward to winding up to take on everything that business can throw at him in the coming months.

And we hope you had a great summer and that you’re ready for and looking forward to new BA challenges and achievements in the busy days ahead.