Articles Archives - Page 398 of 418 - Business Analyst Articles, Webinars, Templates, Jobs

Nearly Painless UML

Written by Cynthia Low on October 15, 2008. Posted in Articles. 1 Comment on Nearly Painless UML

UML (Uniform Modeling Language) is a significant technical advance in the ability to formally specify, visualize and document existing and envisioned improvements to business processes and systems. UML was established by the collaborative efforts of three software engineering leaders each of whom had his own formalized methodology: Grady Booch, James Rumbaugh, and Ivar Jacobson.

They were able to create a common set of formalized concepts, diagramming conventions and methods to foster clear and efficient communications that are effective for both traditional and the modern needs for object-oriented programs, database systems, and web-based applications. UML has since evolved into an industry standard for software engineering best practices that is supported by tools such as Microsoft Visio and others.

While UML concepts have had much potential for improved communication of existing processes and business requirements with business management and staff, their potential is often difficult to realize in implementation.

Conventional wisdom suggests a multi-day UML class to train the key business users in UML similar to that done successfully for technical staffs. However, motivating and training already busy executives, business management and staff in a “cram UML course” often is overwhelming and ineffective plus it can easily instill a pervasive negative attitude toward UML and the requirements definition processes due to its perceived complexity and actual rigor.

The “Painless” UML Alternative
Business Analysts that have attained a good understanding and command of UML can identify current business processes and issues as well as communicate a vision for business improvements using UML. By using some extra imagination and ingenuity they can create effective diagrams, charts, ROI analysis and functional specifications to communicate meaningful business concepts in UML that can be easily understood by business management, functional-area staff and technical staff without mentioning UML.

These specifications and presentations can often be based on UML concepts, diagrams and methods without subjecting the business community to the rigors and “Pain” of formal UML training. The primary goal of the Business Analyst and their Business Clients is to establish effective communication – the particulars of what type of arrow is used in which diagram is only important when all are trained to use the same exact conventions or when communicating with UML-Trained and practicing technical staff.

In many organizations, UML is often not of interest and not a priority for executives, managers and non-technical staffs – nor must it be. In the author’s experience, effective UML and non-UML diagrams can be used to communicate efficiently to subtly begin introducing advanced UML concepts such as object-oriented inheritance, use-cases, functional swim-lanes and business process flows as ways to better understand and communicate business concepts. In this way, such advanced concepts are efficiently introduced and learned gradually in a more natural way, as discussed below.

In many cases the innovative Business Analyst can consolidate a big picture of how the business is supposed to work, actually works or should work better into a single picture that is “worth a thousand words” to clarify, communicate and help make the right business and/or technical decisions (as illustrated in the example below).

The concepts communicated in high-level diagrams, such as shown above, can be further decomposed into functional components and detailed specifications that are easily understood by technical and non-technical staff alike. Because staff members are already familiar with their business, they can now better see the complete picture and readily grasp new and advanced concepts such as inheritance (IS-A Relations) in the diagrams.

The staffing for the warehouse is clearly depicted in the object-oriented UML inheritance diagram (on the right) that shows the different roles assumed by warehouse workers.

Likewise, the same approach can be applied to define other types of objects such as products or equipment to clearly specify the general types and subtypes.

The functional vision for a proposed system can be introduced at a high level (as shown below) and then subsequently shown in more detail as the functional design approach is further detailed.

The functional design for a system as it affects different departments and functional organizations as well as the primary input and output information sources are shown in the example below,

The three separate vertical areas are called “Swimlanes” in UML. The diagram above clearly shows the functionality and high-level process flow among: Sales Automation, Production Management and Dispatch & Routing whether you know UML or not.

As business processes are defined at additional levels of detail, “Use Cases” are a very effective way to identify business objects and the business operations that must be supported in the application for those objects as shown in the example below.

Use Case diagrams provide additional detail by showing which operations may be performed by each type of worker that was defined in the prior inheritance diagram.

Use Case diagrams also employ inheritance relationships that are easy to understand by both technical and non-technical staff.

The clarity provided by these diagrams and methods allow functional users to catch omissions and mistakes such as: allowing the packing and shipping tasks, but forgetting that you must also provide tasks to accept and process returns as a part of project reviews and discussions.

Use Case diagrams are especially important to object-oriented software development projects since they typically become a guide as to how the objects and programs are designed and structured.

As the business analyst continues to understand the new manual and automated processes that will be integrated, a new functional organization for the many different warehouses begins to emerge as a diagram that aids in efficient discussion, review and innovation by the functional, technical and management staff involved (as shown in the diagram below).

These examples are just a few ways a business analyst’s skill at understanding and creating effective pictures of your current process and the vision for your improved manual and automated business processes can be evolved methodically as a progressive series of steps.

Clear and effective communication of business facts and needs serves to get both technical and non-technical staff on the same page as well as leads to better project results.

In Summary
This “Painless UML” case study has supplied examples as to how UML and even sophisticated concepts can be gradually introduced and discussed with business staff in a natural way by presenting their own business requirements and processes in a understandable format and making the extra effort to ensure that staff comprehends it.

The full UML (Unified Modeling Language) is quite extensive and many of its features, diagrams and nuances are primarily of concern to the technical staff – “Under the Hood”, so to speak, in the mechanic’s and engineer’s world. Similarly, you only need to understand a car’s controls to drive it just as only a portion of the UML is needed for effective Business Analyst to Business Staff communication in the requirements definition and review processes.

The Business Analyst is the key to effective application of “Nearly Painless UML” for excellence in specifications for the technical community plus keeping the business community focus on effectiveness in the communication, review and gathering of business requirements information without mention of UML.

Byron Claghorn is Director of Corporate Development for Point North Consulting. In this role he is able to leverage his broad experience to both develop and support the various Point North Consulting practices and our service offerings. He has had a long and varied computer science, engineering R&D and consulting career with Burroughs and Unisys Corporation, Vice President of Engineering and Manufacturing for Microcard Technologies and as an Air Force data-automation officer. Much of his career has been focused upon the development of software products and application development tools, client-specific integration of document imaging technology with existing computerized applications, databases and host systems. Byron can be reached at [email protected] or 407-514-2651

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/.

Business Cases, Budgets and Bear Markets

Written by Terry Longo on October 1, 2008. Posted in Articles.

ITIL v3 presents a definition of value that may improve our ability to judge the impact on IT Service quality of certain common cost-cutting measures.

ITIL v3 defines the value of a service in terms of Utility (functional requirements) and Warranty (non-functional or supplemental or Quality of Service requirements). Warranty is expressed in terms of the security, capacity, availability (normal operational circumstances), and continuity (involving the implementation of recovery plans).

The two underlying drivers for determining the appropriate level of Warranty are the Business Case for building the service and the Service Level Agreement for actual delivery of the service.

The point of Utility is to ensure that the business can make use of the functionality provided by the IT Service to drive desired business outcomes. The point of Warranty is to ensure the delivery of service within certain bounds of variability. In other words:

High Utility and low Warranty means the service is fit for purpose but is not reliable
High Warranty and low Utility means the service is very reliable but of little value in driving business outcomes

ITIL v3 also draws the distinction between resources within IT (infrastructure components, documentation, information, people, etc.) and the capability the organization has to make use of those resources, efficiently and effectively, for optimal service delivery. Capabilities include the processes, functions, and the people acting in specific roles, all making use of resources to deliver services.

One disconnect I see time and time again when enterprises take cost-cutting measures, is a broad reduction in training activities, as sort of a policy – in other words, a horizontal impact on capability (people acting in specific roles). [Full disclosure: I manage HP Education’s ITIL, PM and BA curriculums in the US.]

To what extent does such a decision impact Warranty – the variability in the quality of the services being delivered? Would it not be better to approach a cost-cutting decision from a portfolio point of view, reducing capability for lower-priority services? Should not cost-cutting measures be related back to Business Cases and Service Level Agreements?

Are you and your BA colleagues routinely involved in such broad cost-cutting decisions?