Skip to main content

Ego Check: The Secret Sauce of Successful Business Analysis

You’ve spent days or even weeks working through your discovery and analysis details to craft wire frames for a new application or capability. You know what your stakeholders might ask for in terms of alternatives, so you create those versions as well. The day arrives when you’re finally ready to share with business and IT, the work you’ve labored over.

 

The big meeting happens and your stakeholder destroys everything you’d worked so diligently over, ripping your heart out.

Sound familiar? Some people take this as a crushing defeat and question their choice of profession.

Don’t let this be you!

 

You need to have a thick skin in this game. As a business analyst, your role resides at the crossroads of business operations and IT solutions. Navigating the complexities and personalities of both requires not only some technical knowledge and business acumen but also a crucial personality trait — the ability to leave your ego at the door. While this notion may seem daunting at first, it stands as one of the most invaluable skills a business analyst can possess.

Bringing your ego along in conversations tends to add chaos, disrupting free-flowing communication in an environment that might already have some chaos. Setting aside your ego entails acknowledging you don’t have all the answers; that meticulously crafted strategies may necessitate revisions; and that your perspective, no matter how comprehensive, may not encapsulate the entirety of a problem or its solution.

 

Within the dynamics of a business environment, ego can often act as a hindrance, impeding effective communication. A business analyst who can restrain their ego is more amenable to guidance for research and receptive to feedback, fostering continuous learning and growth.

While criticism is frequently viewed unfavorably, it carries substantial value within a business context, serving as an indispensable tool for development when harnessed constructively. As BAs, our mission revolves around streamlining processes, enhancing capability & value, and facilitating change — tasks that demand perpetual scrutiny and re-evaluation. Feedback, including criticism, serves as a critical lense through which we refine our insights and strategies.

 

You need to be strong enough to withstand the critique to investigate what the underlying cause or comments are about. When the feedback seems overly harsh and does not feel like it is constructive, exercise what you have available to you – use your tools to continue the conversation. Start by expressing appreciation for the input. Depending on the harshness of the initial comments, this can be disarming, so utilize the connection to ask questions for feedback that could be actionable areas for your improvement.

 

Advertisement

 

In addition to seeking constructive feedback, you can also practice the agile principle of Simplicity. If you don’t quite understand what “the art of maximizing the amount of work not done” really means for a BA… it’s this; don’t spend so much time trying to produce a pristine wireframe or perfectly crafted requirement. Do enough to identify value during conversations.

While on a project or during a product increment, the initial requirements documentation is really intended to be just enough to draw out the valuable conversation to confirm understanding while narrowing in on the solution and it’s constraints to facilitate realization of the business value.

 

Internalizing feedback can obstruct the broader perspective and overall objective of the task at hand. Conversely, leveraging feedback as a means of self-improvement can significantly elevate your standing within the team, while enhancing the quality of output and fostering stronger work relationships.

Keeping your ego in check does not mean a dismissal of your ideas, opinions, or self-assurance entirely. Rather, it involves striking a balance — knowing when to advocate persistently for your ideas and when to step back, listen, and glean insights from others. For seasoned analysts, this should be second nature but it’s worth a reminder from time to time.

 

In conclusion, the absence of ego can quell the chaos, amplify your capacity to discover and comprehend the real issues, and embrace diverse perspectives to construct robust and effective solutions. Thus, resisting the urge to take criticism personally and ensuring that our egos do not overshadow the primary goal of problem-solving constitutes an trait every successful business analyst must master.

Strings Attached: The Art of Adapting Templates in Business Analysis

I’ve recently started learning to play the ukulele. I made a decision early on that I’m not interested in learning ‘properly’, I don’t want to commit to formal lessons, I just want to try a fun new hobby. For that reason, the (very little) I’ve learned has been learned largely from YouTube.

When I say I’m not learning ‘properly’, I’m really just learning chords and tabs, I’m not reading sheet music and I’m pretty much just strumming along to the YouTube videos. That is perfectly fine for what I am aiming for, I never want to be a professional, I just want to play some simplified versions of songs I know.

 

In the dim and distant past I took piano lessons. Back then I could read sheet music (in treble and bass clef), knew about timing and some of the theory behind music. That knowledge has all gone now, and I have no idea how to play a piece of sheet music on the ukulele!

Now, you probably didn’t come here to read about ukulele playing, but there is relevance here, I promise! It’s all down to application within a context.

 

From Ukuleles To BA Templates

One of the things that I see a lot on social media is people asking for (and providing) BA templates. There’s a huge draw in using a template, it means that you don’t have to start from scratch. Things like templates and checklists can be very useful to make sure there’s consistency, and to make sure things don’t get forgotten.  (I have a travel checklist for that very reason.)

Yet a template without an understanding of the underlying theory and rationale can be dangerous. It can lead to slavish adoption (“well, I need to put this diagram in, because there’s a section for it… the template is ‘best practice’ after all”).  Just like my ukulele playing will always be restricted by my lack of music theory, someone who picks up a template without understanding why the template was created that way and what techniques can potentially accompany it will likely run into issues.

 

Advertisement

 

An Example: “BRD for the Financial Services Industry”

Let’s take an entirely fictional example and imagine that somebody produces a Business Requirements Document for the Financial Services Industry.  It is pitched as a document that will likely be used in a waterfall or incremental delivery environment, and includes a context diagram, use case diagram, scenarios, functional requirements, non-functional requirements and so on.

It’s hard to criticize any of those sections, there will be times when all of those are useful. But what if the person picking it up doesn’t know what a context diagram is? Even if they do, the whole act of eliciting information to construct a context diagram is an artform in itself.

Or, what about if you’re making a tiny change to the label on a single field? Are you really going to fill in all of those sections? You might, in some circumstances, but in all probability something more lightweight would be appropriate. In fact, a prototype alone might suffice…

Of course, this is a deliberately provocative example, but I’m sure you see the point. There really is no ‘one size fits all’ in business analysis. So much is down to context, and understanding the context is key.

 

However: Templates Can Be Useful

It is worth clarifying here that I am absolutely not arguing against templates, nor am I arguing against the appropriate sharing of templates on social media. They are extremely useful, when used appropriately by skilled practitioners. They can even act as a guide to less-experienced practitioners providing this is accompanied by a desire to learn the underlying theory and techniques.

However, templates are also most useful when they are flexible. What works in one situation won’t work in all, so cut a section, or add a section! It’s important to think about the purpose of the artifact, its consumers and how persistent it is (i.e. how long it is expected to remain current for).

Like so much in change, pragmatic and intelligent application is what matters.

Demystifying MVPs, Prototypes and Others in the BA Landscape

Let’s get some confusion out of the way. There are many different concepts and related acronyms that aren’t always used in the best way. Let’s try to clarify them.

Terms like MVP (Minimum Viable Product), MMF (Minimum Marketable Feature), MLP (Minimum Lovable Product), prototype, and proof of concept are all concepts used in product development, but they serve different purposes and have distinct characteristics. Here’s a breakdown of the differences between them:

  1. Prototype:
  • Purpose: A prototype is a preliminary version of a product used for design, testing, and demonstration purposes.
  • Focus: It primarily focuses on illustrating the product’s design, user interface, and user interactions.
  • Development Stage: Prototypes are created early in the product development process to visualize ideas and concepts before full-scale development begins.

 

      2. Proof of Concept (PoC):

  • Purpose: A proof of concept is a small-scale project or experiment designed to verify the feasibility of a particular technology, concept, or approach.
  • Focus: It concentrates on demonstrating that a specific idea or technology can work in a real-world scenario.
  • Development Stage: PoCs are often done at the very beginning of a project to assess technical feasibility.

     

     3. Minimum Viable Product (MVP):

  • Purpose: An MVP is the most basic version of a product that contains just enough delivery work to satisfy early customers and gather feedback for further development.
  • Focus: It focuses on delivering core functionality to test the product’s intended value to the customers.
  • Development Stage: MVP comes after the idea and concept but before extensive development.
  • Goal: The primary goal is to validate assumptions and learn from user feedback with minimal development effort.

 

     4. Minimum Marketable Feature (MMF):

  • Purpose: MMF is a subset of features within a product that is sufficient to make it marketable to a specific target audience.
  • Focus: It concentrates on delivering features that are essential to meet the needs of early adopters and generate sales or user adoption.
  • Development Stage: MMF typically follows the MVP phase, where you refine the product based on initial feedback and prioritize features for marketability.

 

     5. Minimum Lovable Product (MLP):

  • Purpose: MLP aims to create a version of the product that not only satisfies basic needs but also elicits an emotional response from users.
  • Focus: It goes beyond functionality to provide a delightful user experience and build strong user loyalty.
  • Development Stage: MLP often follows the MVP and MMF stages and is focused on making the product more appealing and engaging.

 

In summary, while MVP, MMF, and MLP are related to the development and release of a product, each serves a different purpose in terms of features, user experience, and market readiness. Prototypes and proof of concepts, on the other hand, are more focused on testing and validating ideas and technologies before committing to full development. In IIBA’s Guide to Product Ownership Analysis (POA®), the concepts of MVP, MMF, and Minimal Marketable Release (MMR) and Minimal Marketable Product (MMP) are introduced in terms of decision-making on what to build. The figure below is from the POA Guide and orders these four concepts. To know more about MVP with PoC and prototyping, check out a great article (with a video interview) with Fabricio Laguna (“The Brazilian BA”) and Ryland Leyton here.

Fig. 2: MVP, MMF, MMP, and MMR in the POA Guide

 

Advertisement

 

Business analysis Behind Proof of Concept (PoC)

We may use a PoC when the goal is to make a very small experiment around a business idea, from which we need to assess its feasibility.

A well-known way to explore ideas in an early phase of design is by conducting Design Sprints.

Business analysis work within this process is of extreme importance. First of all, a BA professional may use their facilitation skills to facilitate the entire workshop. When framing the BA scope to the ideation process, their work starts when applying the “How Might We” technique. If you want to know more about the “How Might We” technique, you can check it out here.

 

After ideating a range of “How Might We?’s, the BA work includes facilitating the following workshops, from which the ideas are refined until a (possibly very bad) prototype is built and tested with users. BAs are usually comfortable with conducting the tests. At the end, they gather the insights from the tests and assess the PoC.

 

Business Analysis Behind MVP

When planning to build an MVP, don’t forget you’re targeting and validating if a business idea, through a product, has value for customers that you believe it has. However, before investing in a solid product, the mindset is that you’re making the least effort possible to have something that technically works.

This means that the work around framing a problem and further elicitation, analysis, modelling, refinements, etc. relies on hypotheses to be validated rather than fixed requirements, allowing for greater flexibility and adaptation to changing customer needs.

 

Business Analysis If You’re Not Targeting an MVP

Sometimes, when building an MVP, it is planned in a way that has a minimum set of features that can be delivered to customers. As already discussed, that’s not an MVP but an MMF instead, so the mindset for building it focuses more on scope modelling to decide which features have to be included.

Also, if the mindset focuses more on delighting customers (sometimes disregarding the business value delivered), that’s not an MVP but an MLP instead. The BA work focuses more on user research, interviews, and partnering (if existing) with UX/UI professionals. Personas and empathy maps are commonly used techniques.

 

After that, you may define your strategy to test your assumptions. There are different techniques, which depend on the testing context. And such contexts have different approaches to use.

As a BA, we can support decision-making about the technique to choose. But also to help in setting up those tests.

 

What Apple’s Vision Pro Tells Us about User Stories

The Verge released a story recently reporting how early buyers of Apple’s Vision Pro “spatial reality” headset were already returning their devices to take advantage of Apple’s 14-day return policy window.

But why?

In this article, I’ll recap the issues sprouting up around this nonetheless revolutionary product in order to make a couple of arguments: 1) How Apple’s approach to hardware development may (to a fault) prioritize perceived quality over functional requirements, and 2) What user stories for a hardware/software product may necessitate to make future generations more viable for widespread adoption.

 

Problems Abound in VR, but Did Apple Put Form before Function?

The key issues cited for returns of the Apple Vision Pro are usability issues coupled with a hefty price tag (i.e., $3,500 MSRP).

That’s not to say buyers aren’t blown away by the revolutionary UI and what the device is capable of. Rather, users’ concerns are that—relative to the high price tag and usability issues—they simply can’t justify the expense for a device that presents these usability concerns. The price isn’t worth the experience, in other words.

Consider some of the tweets on X (formerly Twitter) from users describing their experiences with the device and ultimately their reasons for returning their headsets to Apple:

“Can’t wait to return the Vision Pro, probably the most mind blowing piece of tech I’ve ever tried. Can’t deal with these headaches after 10 minutes of use though,” tweets one user.

“Two hours after unboxing my Apple Vision Pro and using it, I decided to box it back up again and return it. It’s quite cool, but there’s nothing in it for me that I’ll use frequently enough to warrant my keeping it,” tweets another.

Virtual reality headsets are a complicated product category and represent an exceedingly difficult problem to solve considering the technical and physical challenges. I’ve reported on how, for example, ergonomics are a known issue.

Consider the problems a VR headset must address:

  • Weight – Obviously, a perfect solution doesn’t yet exist, but as some reviewers have reported, Meta’s redistribution of weight and use of pancake lenses in place of Fresnel lenses in their Meta Quest Pro represent an attempt to resolve UX problems their earlier Quest 2 presented. Considering that VR headsets aren’t a new category, reviewers may have liked to see a better first showing from Apple regarding the ergonomics issues related to weight distribution.
  • Price – With the $3,500 price tag (compared to $999.99 for Meta’s Quest Pro), price is an issue. Certainly, higher grade materials which play important parts of Apple’s industrial design philosophy and sustainability goals contribute to the heavier form factor compared to other headsets that rely on plastics. That said, alternative materials such as recycled plastics represent another way to reduce costs (e.g., potentially by 25-50%) while simultaneously addressing the weight issue.

 

User Stories and Understanding Evolving Needs

If you’ve seen the 2023 film, Blackberry, about how the once-dominant smartphone predating the iPhone (and later competitive offerings from Samsung), you know that the one thing the titular product from Research in Motion (the company that invented the product category) is that getting there first doesn’t mean staying there indefinitely.

The case of Blockbuster versus Netflix tells a similar story, where a giant who’s become the dominant force in the marketplace is complacent, slow to innovate (due to their complacency), and is disrupted.

In the case of Apple, they weren’t there first in the VR category. They also weren’t the first to the smartphone category, but in the case of the smartphone, they completely redefined the category.

Have they innovated enough while addressing known user problems in the category?

Certainly, Apple has created a revolutionary product, but as Mark Zuckerberg points out, the device doesn’t provide an experience so leaps and bounds ahead of its competitors that it warrants the price and the persistent UX problems.

In short: The Apple Vision Pro isn’t to the AR/VR product category what the iPhone was to the smartphone category.

 

 

Advertisement

 

What User Stories May Have Detailed: Ergonomics at the Center of Industrial Design to Solve Known User Problems

Chief among the user problems with the Apple Vision Pro is the ergonomics problem.

Considering the Verge report of customers returning their Vision Pro headsets with complaints of discomfort relative to the weightiness of the device for extended periods, it’s safe to say Apple hasn’t cracked the ergonomics problem on their first try.

But it’s also safe to say it’s a problem no manufacturer has truly solved, but Apple’s form factor doesn’t help. Consider, for example, how weight has been a known problem in VR applications studied by scholars.

Future iterations of these devices should seek to address the known ergonomics problems users are experiencing.

 

Example of Ergonomics-First Industrial Design

To stray away from VR headsets for a moment to talk just to ergonomics and how to approach solving real-world ergonomics problems, let me offer an example.

Heavy-duty power tools provide one real-world application where ergonomics are of heightened concern—we’re dealing with workers’ livelihoods and safety in situations that are inherently dangerous, after all. Characteristics of ergonomic power tools typically look to address a combination of weight, shape, and grip to provide a form factor that is as-comfortable-as-possible relative to the application.

Consider some of the common causes of musculoskeletal disorders like trigger finger (e.g., overexertion and repetitive motion) from a person’s finger becoming locked in a bent position as the result of repeatedly gripping and pulling the trigger of a crimper, for example.

Equipped with this known issue, the M18™ FORCE LOGIC™ 12 Ton Utility Crimper introduced a high-capacity muscle testing system to design the tool to require less than eight pounds of trigger release, which is 75% less than other crimpers, while also delivering an improved center of gravity and a significant weight reduction to the tool. What’s more, it requires 47% less muscle effort to use.

The example from Meta’s Quest Pro of redistributing the batteries to address the balance issue in earlier iterations is one that shows promise and Apple may take notice when addressing their own device’s weight problems.

 

Bottom Line

We may not have cracked the ergonomics problem associated with VR applications, but Apple may look at existing heavy hitters in the category, like Meta, as they tweak their own device’s shortfalls.

Outside of consumer applications, AR and VR offer exciting prospects for productivity enhancements in industries that could stand to gain in productivity like AEC: Studies have looked at the use of VR in safety training (e.g., articles have been published in Applied Sciences, additional research has been produced by California Polytechnic State University, and conference talks have been given on the subject).

If Apple can address the ergonomics and cost issues by prioritizing user needs, their Vision Pro headset may be the construction wearable of choice companies use to onboard new employees, train apprentices, and conduct safety demonstrations in the application to provide greater educational outcomes for the next generation of construction professionals.

Connecting the Dots: The Crucial Role of Synthesis

A few years ago, I was working in a fast-paced environment where we very quickly needed to achieve a shared understanding of a particular problem that existed, and then elicit and analyze requirements for improving things.

 

I’d spent a couple of days speaking to some of the key people, largely in back-to-back meetings, and I was working really late in the office, energized by the conversations I’d been having. I’d managed to find an empty meeting room where I could spread my notes over a large table to think things through. Over the past couple of days I’d had countless conversations, been given documents to read, been shown IT systems, processes and more… It was a lot to take in! Plus of course not everyone necessarily agreed on the nature of the problem, or even what a desirable solution would look like. So my thoughts went to “what next… how do I arrange and make sense of all of this ‘stuff’?”

Luckily, the meeting room had a whiteboard. I instinctively started drawing the ‘problem’ that had been described to me. I drew people, IT systems, data and information flow, customer interactions, bottlenecks, problems.  It was a messy drawing that wasn’t intended for anyone but me.  If you’re familiar with the idea of a rich picture, it was very much like that. Crucially, it helped me make connections between pieces of information that different stakeholders had told me. This act of synthesis—bringing things together—helped gain a more holistic picture of what was going on.

I was midway through pondering whether two concepts were related to each other, when a very senior stakeholder walked through the door. He asked what I was drawing, and I talked him through my messy diagram. He started instinctively adding things to it, not only adding his perspective to the mix but also highlighting things I’d missed (or misunderstood). Even though this happened years ago, I can still remember parts of the diagram now….

 

Analysis Needs Synthesis

Of course, that drawing on a whiteboard was really just an interim work product. It wasn’t a deliverable, and although I recorded it by taking a photo, it wasn’t ever intended to form part of any user stories or requirements documentation. It was really just an exploration of the problem domain and the connections within it. It helped me to get my own head around the situation, so that I could ask better questions and know which areas to examine further. It also helped me to understand which areas and perspectives I was missing.

This highlights the importance of synthesis as well as analysis. Synthesis is described by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as:

“…the composition or combination of parts or elements so as to form a whole…”

 

There are of course other definitions too, but this sentence is particularly useful for us as BAs. It’s very easy to think that our job is elicitation and analysis, capturing different viewpoints and pieces of information about a situation.  Yet without synthesis, those different pieces of information are of limited use! There will likely be contradiction, conflict, different views and more.  We all instinctively know this, but it is worth highlighting how important synthesis is in what we do.

 

Advertisement

 

Synthesis Techniques

Ironically, many of the techniques that we use on a day-to-day basis have synthesis, as well as analysis, built at their core.  I have already mentioned a rich picture, but many other techniques (when used with synthesis in mind) can help in bringing together different pieces of information and viewpoints.  Here are just a few examples:

  • Concept model and glossary: Bringing together (and reconciling) different terms, and the connections between terms
  • Process model: Creating a view on how the work should take place, taking into account a number of stakeholder’s viewpoints
  • Prototype: Bringing together and testing assumptions made, or a set of requirements assembled from varying stakeholders,.
  • Multiple Cause Diagram: After conducting ‘5 whys’ with different stakeholders, creating a combined diagram and presenting it back and saying “what else?” and “what’s wrong here?”
  • Workshops: Bringing people together to synthesis and discuss their views
  • … and many more besides

 

The Importance and Relevance

To do our jobs well as BAs, we need to consider synthesis as well as analysis, and this means making time for it. In my opening example, I mentioned I was working late in the office, drawing on a whiteboard. I was working late that night mainly because I was energized and excited about the project but also because time was so short and I’d focussed on planning the elicitation but less so the synthesis of the information I’d gleaned.

When you’ve conducted a whole number of interviews, read documents, seen processes and systems as they are operated, there are so many sources of information. It’s easy to just jump on to the next elicitation activity, or jump straight to writing a problem statement (or user story) or whatever. Yet, doing so robs us of the opportunity to see the bigger picture.

Building in time for synthesis—the sort that allows us to see connections—will help ensure we don’t implement a change in one area that inadvertently makes things much worse elsewhere. Of course, time is always tight… but if we don’t make time for synthesis, we might end up having to make time for rework. And that’s definitely best avoided!