Skip to main content

ITIL for BAs – Part VII; What Makes a Service Valuable?

Written by Terry Longo on . Posted in Articles. 1 Comment on ITIL for BAs – Part VII; What Makes a Service Valuable?

So much of a BA’s life revolves around functional requirements that the non-functional aka supplemental aka Quality of Service (QoS) requirements do not receive the necessary attention.

ITIL V3 defines the value of an IT Service as consisting of:

  1. Utility – the degree to which the service’s attributes have a positive effect on the execution of the customers’ tasks (e.g., steps in a business process), either by providing needed performance (functionality) or removing constraints; and
  2. Warranty – the robustness of the service with respect to availability, capacity, security, and continuity (that is, availability as a result of a catastrophic incident)

The diagram below depicts the relationships between warranty, utility, and their respective elements:

itilspart7_1.png

How useful is a service that is very fit for purpose but not fit for use?  The answer is that the service may have limited usefulness if its overall availability, security and responsiveness characteristics are either unpredictable or predictably very inconsistent.  What about a service that is highly available, secure and responsive, but does not offer the necessary functionality?  It is easier to see in this case the limited value, for the stakeholders’ primary interest is the solution’s functionality.

This model of a service’s value suggests:

  • Elicitation must address both sides of the “fit for use” questions – for example:
    • Not only “how available must the service be”, but also “what is the cost to the business when it is unavailable” and “what is the cost if we cannot recover the service quickly enough as the result of a catastrophic failure”
    • Not only how secure, but what are the costs and risks to the business without that level of security
    • Not only “what is the expected demand” but “what if the solution’s response time degrades with the specified demand parameters”
  • Full understanding of warranty requirements can only be gained relative to the stakeholders’ desired outcomes (this is in fact implied by the question “what are the costs/risks if the solution fails”).
  • Fit-for-use requirements are met through some combination of (a) the architecture that will accommodate the solution and (b) various design elements of the solution that are necessary to make up for deficiencies in the architecture relative to those fit-for-use requirements.
  • Early identification of fit-for-use requirements can help the solution team leverage as much as possible from the existing architecture and then include in the design only what is necessary to close any gap.

It is vitally important to capture the “costs and risks if it fails” for use by Service Owners and the IT support team once the solution is in operation, as that information is the basis for IT’s prioritization of pending Incidents.

As I noted in the previous post, the BABOK first takes on QoS requirements explicitly in the Requirements Analysis coverage (Chapter 6).  Hopefully you will interpret the above to mean that there is a lot of value in addressing those requirements (a) much earlier in the elicitation activities and (b) with the involvement of a core leadership team including the IT architect and lead software engineer (among others).

Here’s hoping that your 2009 is off to a great start!

Why Agile?

Written by Cynthia Low on . Posted in Articles.

What’s so Great about Agility?

The Agile approach to managing software projects has been getting a lot of play recently. Why are people talking about it so much? Is this just the latest “new thing”? Or is there some real value to it?

“Agile,” as a set of software development methods, was defined seven years ago, so the “flash in the pan” would have burned itself out long ago. The fact is that more and more organizations (from small shops to large corporations) are finding real value in Agility.

After defining what Agility is and is not, we will look at the value it can bring.

What is Agility?

The Agile approach has a number or key attributes that can be referred to as the “Essence of Agility.” They are:

  • Learning and adaptation – Traditional approaches expect that we can foresee how the project will unfold with reasonable precision. The Agile approach accepts that there are many things we cannot anticipate, so it is structured to allow us to first learn about those unknowns and then adapt to what we learn.
  • Collaboration – The Agile approach places high value on all stakeholders collaborating continuously, including the programmers and their customers.
  • Customer focus – The customer is the central focus of an Agile project and is actively involved throughout.
  • Small self-directed teams – Agility capitalizes on self-directed teams and recognizes that small teams can self-direct most effectively.
  • Lean principles – The principles that have been proven by Lean Manufacturing are embodied in Agility, especially concepts like “Just Enough” and “Just in Time.”
  • Progressive requirements elaboration – We expect to learn about the system requirements as the project progresses, so trying to nail them down in a full-blown specification at the beginning of the project doesn’t make sense. Agile projects establish a roadmap and elaborate the details as they are needed.
  • Incremental delivery – The best way to ensure we are building the right system is to regularly get feedback from our customer. Agility always includes incremental delivery of the product to the customer – at least for acceptance testing.
  • Iterative planning and adaptation – Agile projects place a high value on planning. They engage in planning at various levels of detail and engage in it regularly. Again, this is driven by the fact that we cannot foresee everything that is important, so we must adapt our plans as we learn.

What is Agility Not?

Many people have abused the term “Agility” by using it as an excuse for undisciplined practices. Some people wrongly believe that Agility means these things:

  • No documentation – The documentation that an Agile project produces is significantly different from what traditional projects produce, and an Agile team will always ask why various documents are needed. But they always document (in unique ways) their plans, requirements, designs, and whichever other artifacts provide value.
  • No planning – Agile projects actually engage in more planning than most traditional projects. They produce a high-level plan during project initiation, and they re-visit and adapt that high-level plan regularly throughout the project. They produce a plan of what they will do during each iteration of development, and they meet daily to check their progress and plan the day’s work.
  • No requirements – The Agile team’s Product Owner (customer) defines a Product Vision, and they work together to document the product’s high-level requirements (called the product backlog). Then, more detailed views of those requirements are elaborated upon and documented as they are needed throughout the project.
  • No schedule or budget control – Agile projects always operate within a “Time-Box.” That is, they have definitive start- and end-dates and are not expected to violate those dates. And because people’s time is the largest part of a software project’s budget, the time-box limits the project budget as well. The Agile mantra is, “We will deliver the greatest possible customer value within the project constraints!”
  • Programmers doing whatever they like – The Customer has primary control over an Agile project. The customer is involved in all aspects of planning, prioritization, and status keeping throughout an Agile project. If the project team is not producing what the customer finds to be valuable, it is up to that person to re-direct the work. The team’s only role is to estimate what can be done in limited timeframes. The team’s customer determines how that effort will be directed.

The Value of Agility

There are many reasons why companies find the Agile approach (when it is implemented as intended) to provide value. The value that is cited usually includes:

  • The right product – The customer is continuously involved in the project, ensuring that valuable software is being built and prioritizing the work. In addition, the customer accepts or provides critical feedback on each increment of the product that is produced. With this level of involvement by the customer, there is no way that the wrong product can be built.
  • Quality – Agility always includes a strong focus on the quality of what is built. This includes not only the customer’s acceptance testing, but also many technical quality practices. Properly functioning Agile teams produce high-quality software.
  • Schedule and budget – Time-boxing of an Agile project means that its schedule and budget are rarely “over-run” If things don’t work out as planned, the low-priority features can be skipped or cut short. If an Agile project does need to extend its time-box it would be with their customer’s and management’s full concurrence.
  • Early warning – Because an Agile project is essentially a series of short mini-projects, problems become apparent very early, when they can be corrected.
  • Adapting to change – Change is a fact of business. An Agile project can adapt to changes in the business environment, within the organization, or with the customer much more effectively than a traditional project.

Every business values agility (lower-case “a”). What many are finding is that Agility (upper-case “A”) provides what it promises.

Copyright ©2009 Global Knowledge Training LLC  All rights reserved.

Alan Koch, PMP, is president of Ask Process. Inc., (http://www.askprocess.com/) and an instructor with Global Knowledge Training LLC. A longtime member of the business analysis community, Mr. Koch has 28 years experience in software development. He can be reached at http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected].  

More Business Analysis Trends to Look for in 2009

Written by Cynthia Low on . Posted in Articles.

The last Business Analyst Times of 2008, reviewed some of the important trends to look for in business analysis, or requirements management and development (RMD) in 2009. A global panel of experts from ESI International has its predictions about trends that will impact business analysis this year. These trends, listed below, acknowledge the growing importance of business analysis as a strategic, cross‑enterprise discipline, essential to the success of systems development, process improvement and change, especially in today’s volatile economic environment.

Better Sight for Strategic Enterprise Analysis

As businesses work to ensure short-term viability as well as long-term security, the critical thinking, elicitation and assessments skills of  BA professionals will play an increasingly important role in helping senior management see across the enterprise to deliver more accurate strategic analysis.

The Rise of the Center of Excellence

The need to demonstrate the value of business analysis while increasing efficiencies will result in more organizations establishing centers of excellence.  Centers will increasingly be valued for setting methodologies and standards that enable consistent sight across the full breadth of the enterprise.

Increasing Role in Successful Change Management

As businesses retrench and react to the unpredictable economic environment, well-executed change management will help ensure that decisions made are delivered as planned.  Essential to that success will be BA expertise in helping organizations thoroughly understand and document the change criteria and their cultural and economic impact.

Proving the Value of RMD

Smart businesses will be looking to contain costs across all areas in 2009.  It will be incumbent on BA professionals to effectively measure the value of business analysis and demonstrate its ROI to justify continued support.

The Role of the RMD will Elevate Above the Project

The combination of greater organizational reliance on RMD to ensure enterprise-level success and the increasing value of RMD experience and expertise will result in RMD stepping up to greater roles at the program and portfolio levels.

BA Experts will be Prized Members of Service-Oriented Architecture Project Teams

As enterprise-wide solutions become imperative for cost containment and other efficiencies, BA professionals will be prized on project teams for their ability to see across the enterprise as well as for their change management skills.

Strengthened Collaboration of Business Analysis and Project Management for Best Practices

Projects will continue to become more complex and more expensive.  Collaboration between business analysts and project managers will play an increasingly important role in ensuring that projects meet organizational needs and deliver promised ROI.

Growth of the Business Analyst Leadership Gap

As businesses increase their reliance on business analysis to drive change, help contain costs, ensure project success and gain accurate enterprise-wide insight, senior management will recognize the need to grow more BA leaders. Organizations will place greater emphasis on business analysis-specific career tracks, professional development and certification to close the gap.

Higher Value of High-Impact Communications

Driven by a need to make faster, more cost-effective business decisions, the often background skill of effectively facilitating diverse groups to achieve consensus through high-impact communications will be moved to the fore as a key business analysis role.

BA will Facilitate Greater Use of the Agile Software Development Methodology

As organizations look to continuously become more streamlined and cost-effective, Agile development will be increasingly viewed as a key solution. Business analysis will be valued for its ability to increase understanding of pre-planning activities and the ability to validate information early, supporting successful use of Agile for streamlining and cost-containment.

Glenn R. Brûlé, director of client solutions for ESI International, has more than 18 years experience in many facets of business, including project management, business analysis, software design and facilitation. At ESI, he is responsible for supporting a global team of business consultants working with Fortune 1000 organizations. http://www.esi-intl.com/.

The Importance of Requirements Traceability

Written by Cynthia Low on . Posted in Articles. 1 Comment on The Importance of Requirements Traceability

Discovering a list of requirements and then not linking them to design, construction and testing often results in the delivery of a system that may not fully support the business process which it was intended to automate. Only through traceability can the project team ensure that all requirements are implemented. Traceability assures the business stakeholders that the developed system supports their original requirements.

Client Story: A Large Financial Institution

A large financial institution recognized that their IT projects were consistently not meeting the expectations of the project stakeholders. Delivery of systems with missing or incorrect business requirements resulted in modification of business process or expensive workarounds so that the system could be used. Consequently, many costly change requests were generated, often to implement requirements which were identified during the requirements phase of the project lifecycle.

Lessons Learned

  1. Each element of the design must come from the business requirements.
  2. In order for the system to deliver value it must support the process. The system is based on the design. Therefore, the design must be based on the process the system is to support.
  3. To ensure expectations are met, test cases should be based on business requirements, not technical design.

The client did an analysis of several projects which delivered systems that did not fully meet requirements and determined that the root of the problem was an inconsistent methodology to elicit and document business requirements. After a search process, IAG was selected to assess the organizational maturity in the area of requirements. IAG was also tasked with developing a customized optimal requirements process based on industry and organizational best practices as well as IAG practical experience gained on hundreds of requirements projects.

Recipe for Success

In order to determine the root cause of the requirements deficiencies, IAG conducted a Requirements Management Maturity Assessment (RMMATM). The RMMA is used for the identification and improvement of an organization’s business analysis, requirements definition and requirements management capabilities. The assessment evaluates not only organizational capabilities with respect to process, but also staff competency, practices and techniques, tools employed, organizational infrastructure and support, deliverables, and results which are currently being achieved.

IAG conducted a series of structured interviews with stakeholder groups including Business Analysts, Project Managers and key members from Lines of Business and IT. Additionally, IAG administered an assessment survey and a Business Analyst competency test to measure perceived and actual skill levels of the staff responsible for requirements management. Several common themes arose while conducting interviews with stakeholder groups, one of which was the lack of traceability after the requirements had been discovered. A number of key stakeholders went so far as to voice their skepticism about the success of any new requirements methodology since past projects had been implemented without incorporating all requirements discovered under previously-used practices. It was determined that the root cause of these past failures was that once business requirements were documented and handed over to the design and construction teams, they were not referenced going forward. In fact, test cases usually tested the design rather than the business requirements; if requirements did not make it into the design, testing would not catch the problem.

“For the first time, this approach provides us with a flexible and adaptable approach that takes us from our clients’ true business requirements seamlessly through software design. We also generate our test cases right at the start and ensure traceability through our SDLC.”

J.S., AVP Individual Systems

Upon completion of the RMMA, IAG produced a Requirements Practices Guide which included both an elicitation framework androbust tracking of requirements from discovery through testing and implementation. IAG then demonstrated the value of traceability through the success of several projects, in which the Financial Institution engaged IAG as a partner during the Requirements Phase. The Financial Institution now writes functional requirements which are derived directly from the business requirements discovered when describing the business process. These requirements are managed using a Requirements Traceability Matrix connecting them to design and testing elements and even linking change requests created during the course of the project. This has resulted in a dramatic decrease in missed requirements as demonstrated by a 75%reduction in change requests on similarly-sized projects.

Advice for Project Managers

When managing your project’s requirements consider what was needed in this client’s case: a better process to create functional requirements for each business component to be automated, as well as, the ability to trace those requirements through design, construction and testing to ensure each business requirement is satisfied as intended.

The client’s expectations are that the system performs functions to support their business process, as documented in their business requirements. Therefore, you have to reflect your client’s business process in the functional requirements. Ultimately, you must deliver a system which allows the business to function in its desired state. You can achieve this by creating a functional requirement for each business component to be automated – but – don’t forget to trace each requirement through the development lifecycle. Both are needed to ensure the system meets stakeholder expectations.

Duncan McDonald is a Senior Consultant at IAG Consulting (http://www.iag.biz/) with over 20 years of experience in bringing practical advice to clients across many industries.  Duncan has completed dozens of large-scale requirements projects with IAG’s clients as a lead requirements facilitator and requirements architect.  As a requirements trainer and best practices advisor, Duncan has also supported a variety of large clients in becoming more efficient in requirements discovery and management practices.  Duncan is a sought-after consultant, who brings pragmatic solutions to clients that want dramatic performance gains. 

The BAs are Coming! The BAs are Coming!

Written by Marcos Ferrer on . Posted in Articles.

BA Fire Alert!  How will the new Administration impact Business Analysis?  Please go to http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004t42&srPos=2&srKp=087 ASAP and vote!  There is a nationwide “brainstorming elicitation” being performed by the Obama transition team, and the idea in the link above is a BA clarion call!  This is your chance to be heard in an important new way, using a state of the art elicitation technique.

If you don’t like the idea you see, add your own, but PLEASE get involved – this is important.  It is a unique chance to lobby on a level playing field.  Tell your friends, your bosses, your professional colleagues, your government employee friends, spread the link by email, use your Linked In contacts, Facebook, the works!

The inspiration for the above initiative is that a different kind of Story from the Front has come to my attention. We are so consumed with our experience of BA (or its lack of practice in our immediate environment) that we don’t think about what this means for people’s lives.  Thinking about this is important; it keeps us in other people’s shoes, and is good practice in learning how to “say” things to be heard, supported, and gain consensus.

Check these samples out, and send me an email ([email protected]) letting me know which one(s) you relate to the most, and sharing YOUR story.

Story 1

“I certainly agree that business analysis has real value in the government sector. It may be interesting to note that I am currently engaged as a consultant in a Feasibility Study and Cost/Benefit Analysis for a state government project. I am proud of the techniques and skills that I, as a BA, can bring to the team performing the Feasibility Study and to the client who is fully committed to supporting the effort.  

“The business problem goes well beyond abstract notions of IT and process. It impacts thousands of children who are subject to abuse and neglect, foster and adoptive parents who take them under their care, case workers who become their advocates, and community organizations and private providers who deliver vital services.”

Story 2

“I recently was asked to join a government project for a federal government web service that was struggling with requirements.  With the support of another CBAP, we were able to help improve the requirements somewhat, but only with incredible resistance from the project management itself.  This resistance came in spite of the fact that CBAPs were hired specifically to satisfy the government that the requirements were being handled well.

“While the project will go on to “succeed”, there were cheap, powerful opportunities missed, all because project management had better ideas than stakeholders. I saw this as a direct “violation” of BA values, and did what I could to encourage stakeholder ideas. 

 “When you realize that the project would be a great benefit to this agency’s “clients”, it is a shame that these opportunities were missed. But I am confident that they will be  implemented in time – requirements get “paid now or paid later”, as always.

“As BA is increasingly better understood, I am guessing that this resistance will diminish.  The government clients were pleased enough with the CBAPs’ work, and felt they had been heard well when we were done.  The project management contract was not renewed, and one of the CBAPs was brought back to follow up with requirements on the development side.

“Like life, this was imperfect and messy, yet there is a positive trend in the outcome.  Clients ultimately love the integrity of the BA values and approach, and I love being a CBAP, and I love that the government “clients” in this case will get a better service from my contribution.”

Keep sending me your stories, and remember the people that we ultimately serve!

Thanks to my gentle readers for their frankness and willingness to share.

More shall be revealed.

Have fun!