Congratulations to John Dean for his analysis of what to do with a nearly infinite list of specific identity transactions (see March 2nd blog for the list, and John’s April blog for his ideas). 

Improve on it if you can, but I like his idea of grouping identity transactions by the “certainty” required, and using known technologies (Human Chip Insertion, Fingerprints, DNA, Retina prints, id cards) to “produce” the needed certainty.  Each “identifier” stakeholder can simply select the level of certainty they require from such a system.  This is a huge simplification, and seems to be a doable analysis.  There is evidence for the accuracy of many tests, AND we will have to consider the usual 4-D time/space complications (DNA is reliable, and is easy to plant at a crime scene).

Condemnation upon John for his focus on the “identifier” stakeholder, instead of “we the identified”, who live on the other side of such transactions (mostly). 

Leaving out the identified in these analyses is (increasingly) the cause of problems like identity theft, loss of privacy, deprivation of due process (sure, you can fix your erroneous credit record – have fun with your new full-time hobby), erosion of civil rights, and much, much more (the teen suicide who was berated on-line by the adult mother of another teen?).

Leaving us out of the requirements gives John access to a seemingly EASY solution – “chip insertion”.  The risk of crooks “stealing” someone else’s chip for illegal purposes can be dealt with by rigging the chips to self-destruct if removed or fiddled with.  I leave the problem of “counterfeit” chips for a later discussion (solution, as usual, is premature,so nyah, nyah, nyah, Mr. Dean).

This kind of solution is especially tempting for management, in spite of being clearly odious to the “workers. 

The day is coming where, if you are a convicted drug user, or a crummy boyfriend, or a whistleblower, or just a cranky person, people will be able to single you out electronically – even treat you the way we treat convicted pedophiles, just by accessing your history based on your chip id. 

Convicted pedophiles and other sexual criminals already know what this is like – no chance to really start over, always labeled.  The process created by the “identifiers” is great for labeling one for life; not so great for allowing for change and forgiveness. 

The current system protects the interests of the “identifier” stakeholders (John, language is important – can we just call them fascists?).  It assumes recidivism, and does not measure rehabilitation.  Remember – Civil Liberties are not just for people that you like.

One can claim that measuring rehabilitation is a different problem from identification.  Unlike John Dean, my perceptive readers immediately realize that if we can’t measure rehabilitation, then crime, or any “unapproved behavior” becomes a life sentence in the system John advocates.  Do you really want the letter L tattooed on your forehead for life, just because you once littered?

We’ll deal with such “identifier” requirements next time.  In the meantime, as a proof of concept for John’s analysis approach, would you agree with the following estimates of how much certainty is currently required for the following identity transactions?.

Amount of certitude required to identify:

1. A terrorist = 0.1% (if we harass 1,000 people to actually catch one terrorist, we are satisfied – witness Guantanamo).
2. Oneself for a driver’s license = 10% (or commerce will shut down – i.e., it is easy to fake the id required)
3. Oneself to buy coffee and donuts = 95.0% (5% of transactions are “fraudulent”?)
4. A death penalty convict = 70% (30% of death row inmates may not belong there, the states’ “management” are not investigating their own mistakes, of course). 
5. A safe sex partner (varies by individual from 99.5% for those who want to witness your HIV test in person, no cheating, to 0% for Larry Craig, Senator from Idaho, who would prefer to know nothing about anyone next to him in a bathroom stall).

I finish with an important success point – small teams.  I want to make the point that our two person “team” (John Dean and myself) is (so far) enormously productive.

In perhaps 20 total person hours of actual focused, asynchronous but responsive work, we have enough grip on the scope to already despair of the sheer scope of the problem – this is good progress!

Next month (unless John tees me off again) we will contrast John’s “certainty” requirements with the requirements that “we the identified” might want to add.

Stay tuned – if we get the requirements right, it may only take one generation to finish this, and none to soon!

Second Fundamental: Creating a Common Vocabulary

Right now, there is more information available than ever before about business analysis.

As someone who has dedicated his career to this essential discipline, I find this fact both exciting and a little frightening. On one hand, it demonstrates that business leaders have embraced business analysis as a key element to success. However, on the other hand, I worry that such a mountain of information, opinions and tools may simply be too overwhelming for those looking to bring business analysis to their organization.

That’s why in April I began what will be a series of five articles covering how to cut through the vastness of information and get back to the very basics of effective business analysis. In my first article in the series, I discussed the importance of understanding overall business goals. The next step is developing a common vocabulary to be shared by your entire team.

A Glossary of Terms

At the very beginning of a project, it is absolutely essential that you and your team develop a glossary of terms, which is a type of requirement model that lists in alphabetical order the terms, definitions and aliases that may be required to support the development of your solution. The document will ultimately be the foundation from which all of your requirements are developed.

As obvious a suggestion as this might seem to be, I would estimate – and it’s a generous estimation, mind you – that only about 10 percent of organizations today actually take the time up front to create a glossary of terms.

What is the difference between a client, a user and a customer? What is an executive sponsor? Are sponsors and stakeholders the same? What is the difference between business requirements, user requirements and specifications? And, what about all of those acronyms that we only vaguely understand? What do those mean? These questions and many others should be discussed and agreed upon and then documented in your glossary of terms.

The easiest way to do this is through brainstorming sessions with key personnel. Once everyone is in the same room – either real or virtual – the group should work together to hammer out as many essential terms as possible. In order to build consensus on definitions, the facilitators of these brainstorming sessions should use voting techniques in lieu of all-out dictatorship.

Avoid Confusion Today . . . And Tomorrow

With tight deadlines and demanding stakeholders always a concern, it’s tempting to bypass the busy work of developing a glossary and assume everyone is on the same page.  I can tell you from firsthand experience this type of shortsightedness will do nothing but hurt you – both today and tomorrow.

It’s a simple fact: words and phrases mean different things to different people  -especially when we enter the always-dicey realm of corporate jargon. If terms aren’t understood from the get go, misunderstandings of expectations, wants and deliverables are inevitable, and they could lead to conflicts throughout the life of a project. A comprehensive, well-put-together glossary will save you valuable time and energy, allowing you to focus your efforts not on simply communicating but on developing the most effective solution.

Create a Living Document and Share It

Technology has been wonderful for businesspeople – and not just because it allows us to secretly watch hockey highlights from our desks.  Technology today has made it easier than ever to create, share and store information. A glossary of terms is no longer a bunch of pages that you bind together and then stick somewhere on your bookshelf.  You should always think of a glossary of terms as a living document that has the power to evolve and grow along with projects, programs and organizations.

Even after a project has been long completed and celebrated, its glossary of terms is still valuable and should still be maintained because it can be used as a baseline for future projects.  Aside from some unique particulars, the terms and acronyms will be applicable to teams throughout your organization.

And, this brings me to the sharing of information. If your organization has an Intranet site or one shared location for information, glossaries of terms should be housed there and made available to everyone. Glossaries are excellent tools for educating new employees and saving them from having to smile and nod at all of your confusing acronyms for their first six months on the job.  Knowledge sharing is an easy, efficient way to help increase another kind of sharing – profit sharing.

Next Time: Requirements Sources

Next time, for my third article in this five-part series, I’ll cover how to determine the sources from which you will extract your requirements.  In the meantime, I’ll allow you to document your own definitions for extract and requirements.

This is the second in a five part series of articles by Glenn Brûlé.

has more than 18 years experience in many facets of business, including project management, business analysis, software design and facilitation. At ESI (www.esi-intl.com), he is responsible for supporting a global team of business consultants working with Fortune 1000 organizations. As the Director at Large for the International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), Brûlé’s primary responsibility is to form local chapters of the IIBA around the world by working with volunteers from organizations across various industries, including financial services, manufacturing, pharmaceutical, insurance and automotive, as well as government agencies.