Skip to main content

Does the BA Role Belong in IT or the Business?

Written by Terry Longo on . Posted in Articles.

The question of whether the BA role should be defined with IT or within the business is one of those ongoing questions of organizational structure. As we progress in professionalizing the role of the BA, we will need to hammer out a useful response that accounts for the pros and cons of each.

Are you a BA in IT or in a business unit or function? What do you see as the pros and cons of each? Where do you think a BA should be in the overall organizational structure, and why?

It seems to me that more and more people are landing on the side of the BA role being defined and “hosted” within the business. If that overall paradigm is inevitable, what can we, as a community of practice, do to ensure that we preserve the advantages of the BA-in-IT paradigm?

Behind this question are various complexities related to change management, relationship management, solution scope, risk management, and other elements that can make or break a business case.

I hope you can take a minute to comment on your situation, what you’ve learned based where you are in your organization, and what you believe to be a sound direction for the BA profession.

Effective Requirements Gathering and Management Need the Skills of Both the BA and the PM

Written by Cynthia Low on . Posted in Articles. 1 Comment on Effective Requirements Gathering and Management Need the Skills of Both the BA and the PM

In my previous article, Is it Time for the BA and the PM to Get Hitched? I set the stage for additional comments on the inevitability of the morphing of the business analyst (BA) and project manager (PM) into a single professional that I labeled the BA/PM for lack of an appropriate title. Along with that I promoted the idea of a World Class Business Project, Program, Portfolio and Process Office or BP4O, for short, to support this new professional.

In this article I would like to discuss requirements gathering and management. I believe it is the area of greatest overlap between the BA and the PM. Both the PM and the BA face the same challenges here. Even under the best of circumstances, it is very difficult if not impossible to identify and document complete requirements during the Initiation Phase of the project. The reasons are many and well known to both professional groups. There are at least a dozen approaches you might use for requirements gathering and it is not my intention here to present a tutorial on their use. Rather my focus will be on the need for a more collaborative effort between the BA and the PM in the process of effectively managing those requirements throughout the entire project life cycle. I have defined the Requirements Breakdown Structure (RBS) as an artifact in the Initiation Phase of the project. It is the infrastructure that supports requirements management throughout the project life cycle, the choice of a life cycle model and the choice of best fit project management tools, templates and processes.

Requirements Breakdown Structure

The RBS is a hierarchical description of the client’s needs. There are at most four levels of decomposition in the RBS:

Level 1: Client statement of a requirement
Level 2: Major functions needed to meet the requirement
Level 3: Sub-functions (for larger more complex functions)
Level 4: Feature(s) of the functions or sub-functions

The RBS defines what is to be done and can be thought of as a deliverables-based WBS which defines what will be done. Further decomposition of the RBS produces a deliverables-based Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), which defines not only what must be done but how it will be done. There is, however, a fundamental difference between the two. The RBS may not be a complete decomposition of what will be done whereas the WBS must be complete in order for the traditional linear approaches to project management to be appropriate. There is an obvious disconnect here. The temptation is to speculate on the future to fill in the gaps in the RBS. If you take this approach, you are planting the seeds for failure.

It is this lack of completeness that drives the choice of Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) and the supporting Project Management Life Cycle (PMLC) tools, templates and processes. The two life cycles are inextricably linked. Any project that produces an incomplete RBS at the outset must use some type of agile approach to managing the project. In these situations the obvious conclusion is that the professional who manages requirements gathering and management over the life of the project must be expert at both business analysis and project management. The learning and discovery of heretofore unidentified requirements occurs in the iterations that make up an agile approach. In other words, requirements discovery takes place throughout the entire project life cycle and is fully integrated into management of the project. This is not a situation where a hand-off from a BA to a PM will work. The complexity and uncertainty of the solution and the processes for its discovery negates that approach. A BA/PM is needed for maximum impact.

Project Landscape

At the risk of over-simplifying a complex and uncertain project environment, consider Figure 1. It is one way to envision the project landscape. Two variables define this landscape: the goal and the solution requirements.

EffectiveRequirements1.png
Figure 1: The Project Landscape

Each can take on one of two values: Clear or Unclear. Traditional Project Management (TPM) approaches are used in situations where both the goal and solution are clear. These projects should use life cycles that are Linear or Incremental. TPM Projects, because of the clarity of goal and solution identification, can effectively use a BA and a PM with the requirements hand-off fairly straightforward. Agile Project Management (APM) approaches are used in situations where the goal is clear but the solution is not. These projects should use life cycles that are Iterative or Adaptive. And finally, Extreme Project Management (xPM) approaches are used in situations where the goal and solution are unclear and should use life cycles that are Extreme.

As I travel around the planet speaking to BAs and PMs at conferences and workshops, I always ask my audience what percentage of their projects fall in each of the TPM, APM and xPM quadrants. I’ve asked that question to over 5,000 BAs and PMs in the US, Canada, England, Germany, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, China and India. The results are remarkably consistent:

  • Linear or Incremental 20% 
  • Iterative or Adaptive 70% 
  • Extreme 10%

I suspect that a major contributor to project failure is the force fitting of a Linear or Incremental approach when an Iterative, Adaptive or Extreme approach should have been used. The fourth quadrant where the goal is unclear but the solution is clear is not a viable choice. That is not unlike a solution out looking for a problem. Maybe you know of some consulting firms that act like that. I sure do.

I’ve made my point. We say that every project is unique: That it has never happened before and will never happen again under the same set of circumstances. It would be naïve to think that one project management approach would work for every project. We have already noted how goal and solution clarity and completeness of requirements drive the choice of development model and project management approach, but there are several other project characteristics that should be considered. I have had occasion to consider risk, cost, duration, complexity, market stability, business value, technology used, business climate, degree to which you expect to have meaningful customer involvement, number of departments affected, the organization’s environment and team skills/competencies.

Putting It All Together

I believe in and have always presented a one-stop-shopping experience to my clients. It is critical to project success that a strong sense of teamwork be created between the client and their team and the project manager and her team. The BA/PM professional is better equipped to do that than if a BA and PM were separately involved. The BA, PM and client structure requires three communication links, all working in harmony, while the BA/PM requires only one. With people-to-people communication being the major reason for project failure, we need to give serious thought to creating the BA/PM professional for those APM and xPM Projects. There is much to discuss about the preparation and development of the BA/PM and I hope to present that information in subsequent articles.

The first article in this series drew a large response, and I would certainly like to hear your further thoughts on the BA/PM professional. I’m sure we could have a lively discussion. I promise to respond personally to every email and to incorporate your thoughts in succeeding articles.

Robert K. Wysocki, Ph.D., has over 40 years experience as a project management consultant and trainer, information systems manager, systems and management consultant, author, training developer and provider. He has written fourteen books on project management and information systems management. One of his books, Effective Project Management: Traditional, Adaptive, Extreme,3rd Edition, has been a best seller and is recommended by the Project Management Institute for the library of every project manager. He has over 30 publications in professional and trade journals and has made more than 100 presentations at professional and trade conferences and meetings. He has developed more than 20 project management courses and trained over 10,000 project managers.

 

ITSM Work Sessions: Lessons Learned

Written by Richard Lannon on . Posted in Articles.

Over the last few years I have facilitated several Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) work sessions within the oil and gas and utility industries. The challenge was to build consensus through identifying what is important, making recommendations and decisions, and establish direction that would enable the IT organization to improve processes and services offered to their customers. This article briefly outlines a number of lessons learned that came from our experiences.

An ITSM Work Session should provide the foundation for your organization to create the blueprint to propel IT services and business value forward. In establishing an ITSM initiative the following key groups must be involved:

Strategic: CIO and Directors to establish strategic intent, vision and enterprise objectives

Tactical: Directors and Managers to establish improvement objectives, priorities and program charter

Operational: Managers and Key Stake-holders to establish solution, roadmap, business case and project charters.

Fundamental to any ITSM session, when engaging these groups, is to develop a clear problem definition, defined and approved by the executives or senior steering committee. This is an area in which IT often falls short. The lack of a clear problem definition negatively impacts the tactical and operational levels of the organization, and limits the ability to move forward.

When working with your teams, build an understanding of all the work that is taking place in the IT department right now, and how it fits within the ITSM support and delivery relationship models. Discussion, training and clarity will be required to ensure your people understand the ITSM relationship and delivery model. By engaging people in a defined work exercise, your teams can map out and see how their work aligns with your ITSM program requirements. This is effective in establishing leadership and team buy-in.

Establish a clear understanding of your points of pain (PoPs) and the IT maturity. PoPs can be established through focused brainstorming sessions. Once collected, your PoPs should be looked at from an organizational and process maturity perspective. This is often missed, as IT has a habit of looking only at processes and tools to solve problems. Align your PoPs with the industry maturity model standards (non-existence, chaos, reactive, proactive, service, value). It is important that the content be translated into a service management maturity grid and aligned with the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) process categories. Work to obtain various IT teams, customers and business representatives’ perspective on the ITSM organizational and process maturity levels. This builds some reality into the PoPs and maturity levels thinking by dislodging IT from a position of working in isolation.

Build a business case and program plan that can be activated by your people. At this point you are seeking clear recommendations and improvement objectives (what), benefit realization (why), tactical needs (how) and time frame (when) for which to move your organization forward with your ITSM program. This is the foundation for your ITSM program business case and charter that will be divided into project and operational requirements. You will need a solid approved business case and charter to enable you to navigate the challenges that will unfold on your journey and to clearly articulate the streams of work to be completed. There needs to be an executive team or steering committee assigned to provide clear strategic guidance. When forming and using a steering committee, their mandate must be strategic and clear. Tactical, task-based reporting can be left to the project management teams and their need for task-based results and status meetings.

Recognize that ITSM is not an IT tool solution. From a business perspective, IT needs to stop chasing tool solutions, and “flavor-of-the-month quick fixes.” Ultimately, the ITSM program is a business organizational change program that seeks to align IT with the business objectives and requirements, improve processes and change culture in an effort to control or decrease costs, increase productivity and contribute to the bottom-line. ITSM programs need to be effectively operationalized. Therefore change management and communication must be at the forefront.

Work with your teams to have them answer “WIIFM” and “WIIFT” questions (what is in it for me and what is in it for them). Ensure you established the fears, uncertainties and doubts (FUDs). Be prepared to have a long FUDs list. These will need to be acknowledged and managed within the context of the ITSM program and the change management and communications plan. Use your teams and people to establish a communication plan that takes into consideration your target audience and communication needs. Every organization has an approach to communications that may or may not align with their corporate culture. Prepare a clear communications strategy and follow it.

The information in this article is based on feedback obtained during facilitated ITSM work sessions and the work of dedicated IT professionals. Efforts focused on consideration for the strategic, tactical and operational requirements. Ultimately the goal was to improve IT. It can be done. Good luck.

Richard Lannon and BraveWorld Inc. ©2007

Richard Lannon is an international business and technology industry veteran turned corporate speaker, facilitator, trainer and advisor. He specializes in aligning the enterprise and technical skills to common business objectives. Richard helps organizations and professionals identify what’s important, establish direction and build skills that positively impact their bottom line. He provides the blueprint for your organization to be SET (Structured, Engaged and Trained). His clients call him the SETability Expert. He can be reached at [email protected] or 403-630-2808.

The Debate Over Blending the Roles of the BA and the PM

Written by Richard Lannon on . Posted in Articles.

may15editpic.pngIn the last Business Analyst Times, Bob Wysocki suggested that, in this day and age, the business analyst and the project manager have much in common with major areas of overlap. He pointed out that the skill and competency profiles of the effective BA and the effective PM are virtually identical. He argued that possibly a new role will emerge combining the competency of both. Boy, did that set the fur flying! As a result, we’ve created a dedicated discussion forum for you to participate in. To go there now, click here.

Part two of Bob’s series, Effective Requirements Gathering and Management Need the Skills of Both the BA and the PM, is in this issue and we invite you to read it and react by contributing to what is an ongoing and, at times, heated discussion.

Contributor Richard Lannon brings his experience in facilitating Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) work sessions in the energy sector to helping IT organizations improve processes and services. He stresses the importance of looking at situations from a broad business perspective rather than a narrower IT viewpoint. In his article, ITSM Work Sessions: Lessons Learned, Richard shares the lessons he’s learned over the years and how to put them to work.

Bloggers John Dean and Terry Longo are back. John shares his views on setting up identity systems, while Terry wonders should the BA be part of the IT department or have a broader role within business.

I know you have your own views – I’ve heard some of them on the road. Please share them with other Business Analyst Times readers.

Best Regards,

Adam R. Kahn
Publisher, Business Analyst Times
[email protected]

Is it Time for the BA and the PM to Get Hitched?

Written by Cynthia Low on . Posted in Articles. 1 Comment on Is it Time for the BA and the PM to Get Hitched?

My life as a project manager (PM) began in 1963 at Texas Instruments at about the time IBM announced System 360. It was a landmark event in the history of computing and little did I know at the time but it was also the wakeup call that a revolution was about to take place. It was a revolution that we weren’t ready for. If I remember correctly I ran projects but was called a systems consultant.  I don’t recall anyone in my industry carrying the title project manager. There was very little in the way of tools, templates and processes to support me. The only software that I knew about was an old IBM1130 program that I think was called Process Control System. One of my friends in the building construction trade introduced me to it and I thought I was now king of the hill. PMI wouldn’t arrive on the scene until 1969.

As for the business analyst (BA) they weren’t around, at least not by that name. What we did have were computer professionals that were called systems analysts. They were the mystics from the IT Department who could talk to a businessperson about what they wanted, retreat into their space to concoct a solution, emerge to tell the programmers what to build and then hope for the best. Few clients were satisfied with the results but they weren’t involved enough to know what to do about it. Life was tough in those early days of project management and systems development. Clients were kept at arm’s length and only got involved when it was time to sign a document under the threat of a project delay if they didn’t sign. Every one of my colleagues, including myself, was looking for silver bullets.

Fast forward to 2008. The systems development landscape is more mature as are the life cycles employed. We have linear, incremental, iterative, adaptive and extreme projects. In less than 40 years PMI has grown to over 250,000 members worldwide. It is the de facto professional society for PMs. IIBA, launched in 2003, is just getting started and has a membership of over 4,000 worldwide. Size differences aside the two organizations have a lot in common and a lot to gain through collaboration and joint ventures.

The major area of overlap is requirements gathering and management. Both the PM and the BA face the same challenges here. Even under the best of circumstances it is very difficult, if not impossible, to identify and document complete requirements. The reasons are many and well known to both professional groups. Underlying it all is the need for more collaborative efforts.

The next area of overlap is process improvement. In the world of the PM and their management this means applying some variation of the Capability Maturity Model and continuous project management process and practice improvement. For the BA this means business process improvement projects and that means having effective project management methodologies.

The next area of overlap is the skill and competency profile of the effective PM and the effective BA. The two profiles are virtually identical. Some have posited that we really don’t need both types assigned to the same project. We could certainly debate that point of view but, if present trends continue, I would argue that a single person, whatever label you choose to use, will soon be sufficient. In other words the BA should have the requisite skills and competencies to be an effective PM and the PM should have the requisite skills and competencies to be an effective BA. They will have morphed into one professional. Lacking an appropriate name right now, I’ll refer to this single professional as a BA/PM. We are not too far away from that day.

The next area of overlap is the processes, tools and templates that both professionals follow. Again they are virtually identical at the concept level.

I could go on but I think you get the picture. I am led to the conclusion that the support of both the PM and the BA should lie in a single organizational entity that I am going to call the Business Project, Program, Portfolio and Process Office or BP4O for short. Please excuse my taking liberties with the multiple use of “P”. I do that for good reason. PMs have had the Project Management Office (PMO) under various names for a number of years. The BA has not had a similar support organization. Recently I have seen Communities of Practice (COP) and Centers of Excellence (COE) emerging for the BA, but these are more voluntary forums for the BA to network and exchange ideas with their peers than an organized business unit. There is no valid argument that can be given for not expanding the PMO to embrace the BA. That is what I am calling the BP4O and that is the focus of the remainder of this article.

The World Class BP4O

On the surface the world class BP4O won’t seem much different than the traditional PMO. The world class BP4O offers an expanded portfolio of support functions as compared to the typical PMO but if you look under the hood, you will see that I am proposing that there be a significant difference. In organizations that see the handwriting they see that project management, program management, portfolio management and business process management are all converging on a single strategic role with enterprise-wide scope. The world class BP4O that I envision is a central participant in that role. It helps define strategy and through its infrastructure provides for the enablement of that strategy too. And so here is my first shot at a definition of the world class BP4O.

Definition of the World Class BP4O

The world class BP4O is an enterprise-wide organizational unit that helps formulate and fully supports the strategic, tactical and operational initiatives of the enterprise. The world class BP4O is characterized by:

  • Led by the VP BP4O who has a voting seat at the strategy table
  • Fully participates in the formation and approval of the business plan at all levels
  • Establishes the processes for and monitors the performance of the project portfolio
  • Has authority and responsibility to set priorities and allocate resources to projects
  • Establishes standards for the tools, templates and processes used by BAs and PMs
  • Monitors compliance in the tools, templates and processes used by BAs and PMs
  • Establishes an integrated BA/PM position family with defined career paths
  • Provides a complete program (training and human resource management) for the professional development of all BA/PMs
  • Assures that the skill and competency profile of the BA/PM staff is sufficient for the realization of the project portfolio
  • Allocates BA/PMs to the approved portfolio of projects
  • Offers a full range of support services to executives, sponsors and project teams
  • All BA/PMs have an approved professional development program.
  • Performance metrics:
    • The project management and business process methodologies are assessed at CMMI Maturity Level 5 
    • On average the practice maturity level is at least CMMI Maturity Level 3
    • The project failure rate is less than 10%

As you can see the VP BP4O is an integral part of the enterprise from the strategy formation level to tactical planning to execution at the operational level. It is that unit’s responsibility to make the most effective use of the enterprise’s human resources towards the realization of the business plan.

Mission of the World Class BP4O

To provide a comprehensive portfolio of strategic, tactical and operational support services to all project teams, sponsors and executives in order to assure the delivery of maximum business value from the project portfolio.

Objectives of the World Class BP4O

  • Define a project life cycle with stage gate approvals.
  • Design, develop, deploy and support a comprehensive portfolio of tools, templates and processes to effectively support all projects.
  • Design and deploy a project review process to support project teams and monitor compliance to established standards and practices.
  • Establish a project portfolio management process to maximize the business value of project investments.
  • Establish a decision support system and dashboard to support executive management’s project decisions and provide for the timely monitoring of the project portfolio status.
  • Design, develop, deploy and support a comprehensive HR Project Management System.
  • Design, develop, deploy and support a continuous process improvement program for the BP4O.

Organizational Structure of the World Class BP4O

The only structure that makes sense to me is one where the BA/PMs are close to their client groups. That structure is what I call the “Hub & Spoke. At the Hub we have the enterprise level unit that is responsible for policy, process and staff development. At the Spokes are the various divisions and departments with their own staff of BA/PMs. They might establish tools, templates and processes specific to their needs but in compliance with the enterprise policies and processes.

Staffing of the World Class BP4O

There are five staffing models that come to mind:

  • Virtual BP4O

The Virtual BP4O does not have any BA/PMs assigned to it. Instead they are deployed throughout the enterprise where they are assigned on an as needed basis by their organizational unit. These are not fulltime project managers but are professionals in other disciplines who have project management skills and competencies as part of their toolkit.

The BP4O staff consists of a manager and one or more assistants who support BA/PMs as required. They may be BA/PMs but that is not necessary. The important thing is that this staff has the necessary expertise to provide the support needed. The support services may span the full list but are often quite restricted because of staff limitations.

  • BA/PMs are assigned to the BP4O on a rotating basis

This is an excellent model for deploying the BA/PM methodology, skills and competencies throughout the organization. In this model BA/PMs from the business units are temporarily assigned to the BP4O as a sabbatical from being on the firing line too long. A sabbatical might last from 3-6 months during which time they might conduct a specific process improvement project or simply act as mentor and coach to other BA/PMs.

  • BA/PMs assigned to the BP4O

In this structure the BP4O BA/PMs manage critical mission or enterprise-wide projects. Usually not all BA/PMs report to the BP4O. There will be several who are assigned to business units to work on less comprehensive projects for their unit.

  • BA/PMs assigned at the division level

BA/PMs assigned at the division level work on division-wide projects. These may be projects that span two or more departments.

  • BA/PMs assigned at the department level

Same as the division level except they are assigned within a department and only work on projects contained within their department.

Summary

This article is an opening gambit for me. My hope is to expand on some of the ideas expressed above in future articles. I hope that this article has provided food for thought and that you will take the time to let us have your comments.

Robert K. Wysocki, Ph.D., has over 40 years experience as a project management consultant and trainer, information systems manager, systems and management consultant, author, training developer and provider. He has written fourteen books on project management and information systems management. One of his books, Effective Project Management: Traditional, Adaptive, Extreme,3nd Edition, has been a best seller and is recommended by the Project Management Institute for the library of every project manager. He has over 30 publications in professional and trade journals and has made more than 100 presentations at professional and trade conferences and meetings. He has developed more than 20 project management courses and trained over 10,000 project managers.