Skip to main content

Tag: Career

Business Analyst: The Strategic Implications

Written by Phil Ventresca on . Posted in Articles. 2 Comments on Business Analyst: The Strategic Implications

The new role of the BA is far more strategic in both the organizational sense as well as at the project level. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the BA, when appropriately leveraged, represents a liaison between business, project and customer teams. This shift in responsibilities identifies two areas that need to be addressed by any organization seeking to expand this role:

  • The organizational structure must support the actions of a “strategic” BA position.
  • The BA candidate must have wide skill sets, encompassing many generalmanagement competencies.

As organizations shift to become “projectized,” the roles and responsibilities that have supported projects within a traditional matrix structure must shift as well. Over the years we have seen organizations struggle with the following challenges related to shifts in both structure and culture:

  • Broken or disjointed cross-functional communication channels.
  • Uncertainty around roles and responsibilities within the project structure and beyond.
  • Quality concerns at the point of project delivery.
  • Skewed scope statements and thus implementation plans due to early stage breakdown.
  • Overall loss of productivity on project teams due to lack of continuity and methods

The items noted above are tell-tale signs that several strategic components of a best practice project management environment are missing. In earlier articles, we addressed the discussion around project office and methodology, the topic of BA is an integralcomponent to bring both of those items to life in the “real world.” Forward looking or “best in class” organizations have aggressively embraced the concept of the BA role. What sets them apart from the old school thinking associated with this job title is the escalation and expansion of the roles, definition and responsibilities. Not too many years ago a BA may have been confined to a very technical role within an IT environment working on specifications, functionality and even some quality and testing related to one or more project life cycles.

Today we are seeing BA positions filled from across the organization and expect that this trend will continue, as it should. Let’s address these points built in the context of how they can be leveraged to meet the challenges:

Broken or disjointed cross-functional communication channels

A BA should be in front of any project communication produced from the point of team inception to the close-out phase. This interaction does not mean that the BA takes on the role of project manager (although we have seen organizations combine the two roles), as it is not effective on larger and longer term initiatives. Our experience shows that an independent BA position can help to promote better communication, align protocol and help the project manager to extend
his/her reach into the project teams.

Uncertainty around roles and responsibilities within the project structure and beyond

The BA functions as a tour guide through the project plan ensuring that all of the moving pieces are touching at the right points. We call these critical communication points and they can be built around time, budget or deliverable expectations. The BA will be assigned a protocol map within the project structure to enable them better access to expectations and provide for a proactive way to reach team members.

Quality concerns at the point of project delivery

In reality, the BA is monitoring quality points through the project life cycle thus producing a quality product at the close of the project. Very much like the thinking around proactive quality control, the BA is in front of each deliverable and monitors the progress against the project plan.

This allows for immediate communication between the project manager, customer and associated teams.

Skewed scope statements and thus implementation plans due to early stage breakdown

The planning stages of a project are obviously critical to the implementation plan and ultimate quality. A BA should be assigned early in the process and work hand in hand with the project manager to ensure the highest level of intimacy with the plan. Just as important, they need to have a direct connection to the internal and external customers in order to ensure collaboration and proactive attention to emerging issues.

Overall loss of productivity on project teams
Due to lack of continuity and methods

A strategic BA assists the project manager and PMO with the execution of best practice within an organization’s project management structure. The BA has a unique opportunity to guide the process through an existing methodology and
essentially help the project to operate in better alignment. This is accomplished by having a dedicated individual who is consistently working against the deliverables and is not distracted by the operations management associated with the project manager’s job.

By taking the above steps you have begun the shift toward the organizational structure needed to take advantage of the BA position. With that said, we still have one more change to make in order to secure success.

It is obvious that the BA role as defined in this article will require wider skill sets than the more traditional BA position, still driven from the IT departments of yester-year. To that point we have begun to see a trend where the BA position can spawn from either business or IT. This is an interesting point as it speaks volumes to an organization’s maturity around project management.

Imagine, for just a moment, an organization that has no boundaries within in its functions and everyone on the team collaborates against a common goal. I like to call this organizational desegregation and cultural morphing. As we at AMS begin the next phase of benchmarking the project management industry and clients, we are beginning to see this shift as a representative of the next wave of advancing thought in the project management space. It was not too many
years ago that I published an article on the emerging role of the project manager as the CEO of his/her project. I am confident that the BA role will take a firmly positioned spot in the upper hierarchy of any world class project organization within the next few years.

In order to succeed the BA will need to have a competency profile that meets the following criteria:

  • Excellent understanding of both business and technology within the project environment.
  • Be a leader, communicator and professional.
  • Understand the skills associated with internal consulting techniques.
  • Be proficient in project management skills as well as a complete understanding of the internal process.
  • Epitomize the essence of a collaborator and team player.
  • Understand and be able to navigate your organization’s politics and structure.
  • Be able to manage without having authority via negotiation.
  • Understand true stewardship-based service.

So, the BA role probably looks a little different than a traditional structure may have dictated.

Yet, this is the trend and I believe will become the norm. As organizations look to enhance productivity and quality while reducing cost they are finding this role to be ultimately important.

Additionally, project managers we spoke to during the research for this article all stated that having a BA on the team made their job easier and allowed them to focus on deliverable based activity.

It is important to note that this type of structure is recommended for mid to large size projects, but on the smaller initiatives we found that these attributes were part of the project manager’s role.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Is a Business Analysis Center of Excellence Still Relevant?

Written by Robert Roldan on . Posted in Articles.

As of this writing, it is the middle of 2014. Information technology is exceedingly more and more sophisticated, business is conducted with highly complex and macrotized operating models, information is stored in petabytes, and becoming “lean” and more “agile” is not just a desired operating mode or mantra but it is de rigueur for most companies; especially when these entities engage in mergers and acquisitions in order to maintain or amplify a competitive edge. The back office backdrop is no less significant. The drive for performance and operational output in the analysis, development and marketing of new products and services require increasingly more dependencies on the commoditization of information, domain knowledge, operational subject matter expertise and engagement of consultancy services.

The business of Business Analysis training and certification programs has taken notice of this and is responding to the above influences and pressures as well. Reliance on these consortiums is at an all-time high. The ubiquitous International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA) remains outstanding with its business analysis certification program and now the Project Management Institute (PMI); an organization more known for its project, program and portfolio management standards, is offering a Business Analysis certification program of their own. Other organizations with an educational template are also experiencing a surge in business with requests for training services for the business analyst neophyte as well as the continuing education choice of the seasoned analyst practice professional.

The message is clear. As enterprises drive to maximize efficiencies and mission execution, business analysis as a service is not only needed but it is an equally critical component in the orchestration and delivery of business. However, if business analysts are still the primary content delivery arm of all project initiatives, they need to not only have a support structure to develop and raise competencies but the structure itself needs to be thoughtfully positioned to serve the organization as a whole in a capacity in par or commensurate with other strategic corporate units. This center of focus is both tactical and strategic. The tactical addresses the management of the practice of business analysis; communication of standards and methodologies, assessment and use of requirements management tools and the management and resource distribution of business analysis as a service. The strategic side is positioned to develop and expand on domain knowledge; analytics, enhancements to business process improvements, and to serve as a valuable research area for embryonic corporate initiatives. This is where a well-structured BA CoE comes into play.

BA CoE’s, in one form or another, have been around for over two decades. This longevity may very well speak for itself as this is a very long time given today’s appreciation and variety of methodologies, and the technological developments to support them. Much of the discussions around BA CoE’s however have remained static. While other disciplines have modified their approach to continue to be of value; allying their tactic to compliment the focal points of a company, the dialogue around business analysis and BA CoE’s has remained limited to the subject of process. So the challenge then is, how to best articulate the very real, quantitative and measurable value and impact of a BA CoE to a company. Given the business complexities faced by many organizations today, the necessities to make every dollar count, and the speed at which decisions need to be made; how to ask for a new cost center or staffing or capital dollars or yet another re-organization to realign an existing BA CoE or accommodate a new BA CoE. How to elevate the discussion above the narrative of a costly BA CoE for the purpose of just developing competency framework and of policing the delivery of “quality” requirements?

With perhaps the exception of those overnight booming “dot com” companies, all businesses struggle with improving the “bottom line”. There is always that delicate dance between capital and operational expenses, allocation of funds and budgets for new initiatives versus business as usual projects, and of course those expenses that are a must in order to keep the lights on and the doors open. Apply portfolio management of projects to any of these areas and at times, management of any of these financial responsibilities becomes an exercise in prestidigitation dexterity just to keep up with the speed and demands of the business enterprise. There are financial benefits projections, P&L and G&A documentation, SVA’s, earnings on project equity, capital utilization…etc. None of these terms and areas are new ways to manage corporate expenses and initiatives. However, the intense focused attention and the inordinate amount of time spent to manage these areas, is. Herein then are the problems / opportunities to move a BA CoE out of the value-neutral areas of process and methodology and into a productive, sustainable cost reduction and service delivery role.

There are at least three domain spaces where a properly realigned BA CoE could deliver cost-saving opportunities and benefits that can be realized in the short and long term. I have introduced some of these concepts already but will provide additional details here. These new added dimensions by the way are in line with and complimentary to the current historical role attributed to BA CoE’s.

Business Analysis as a “Service” – As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the current business climate and competitive atmosphere is such that companies feel compelled to reduce cost whenever possible in order to minimize expenses, appear fiscally responsible to shareholders or to flatten the organizational structure in order to realize a desired financial benefit; a financial benefit that hopefully translates into funding for a host of new initiatives. Many of these cost-reduction strategies are commonly applied to minimizing or replacing the labor force of full time employees with temporary allocation of contractors. This is a very common go-to tactic. However, while this scalability method makes sense in the short term and for those unique projects where the knowledge base may not exist, it is not an effective long term model for all companies, projects and corporate programs. As a result, the presence of contractors at times can account for over 70% of the business analysts and project management in almost any given organization. Apply the cost differential factors between temporary resources and internal full time resources and it will not require an advanced degree in macroeconomics to understand where the financial over-commitments will be. Additionally and in the long run, this not only ends up representing an enormous drain on the company’s operating budgets but a significant domain knowledge loss as well to an organization once these resources move on to other engagements and possibly with competitors.

A BA CoE, in addition to performing its role as a practice leader in a company, can help to mitigate project cost by operating as a resourcing partner. Working collaboratively with business unit leaders, it can help with project readiness and assessment of required analytical skills. It can source projects with the necessary talent from a pool of highly skilled and matured company BA’s.
In this capacity, it can provide BA resources to the enterprise using a scalable consultative service approach, with the benefit of promoting requirements standardization, methodology and retention of domain knowledge. In this form, the BA CoE provides a clear direction for all business analysis work by using accepted best in class and best-practice methods to deliver high quality work in a consistent, predictable and repeatable manner; especially to areas challenged by the lack of these resources. It can also ensure the work will be performed with the critical knowledge of tested processes and methodologies. These resources would be full time associates thereby retaining and leveraging any acquired knowledge for the future benefits of other engagements. When absolutely needed, the BA CoE can provisionally scale up to accommodate any high demand for resources. The BA CoE would recover the cost of resourcing and departmental staffing through each project engagement. The shift in resource allocation exempts business segments of the need to sustain staffing beyond the absolute need thereby affording better operational budget management. How much should a BA CoE staff for, is solely driven by the needs of the organization. The financial benefits of this model, when exercised and extrapolated across the enterprise can be staggering. This is a simple mathematical exercise; the customary costly use of temporary staffing with no long term value and no commitment to the organization versus the effective repurposing of internal, known and skilled resources at considerably less cost with the added amortized value of knowledge retention.

Requirements Management Tools – This is an incredible opportunity area where a BA CoE can demonstrate additional and critical value to any organization. Many companies are still relying on the use of productivity tools that have been around and virtually unchanged since the eighties to manage the thousands of project artifacts across departments, business units and lines of business. Think about this, if Word and Excel are the productivity tools of choice in your company to manually manage and communicate requirements today, you are using tools that were commercialized by Microsoft in the mid-eighties – three decades ago! Aside from the fancy graphical user interfaces they present today, very little in concept has changed since Word 1.0 and VisiCalc – yes, this is the precursor to Excel.

The assessment and valuation of the many tools available in the market today to aid in business analysis and requirements management is no less significant than the commitments companies make to invest in technologies to manage corporate finances, development of new software and new product releases. Millions if not billions of dollars are invested yearly by companies today in new market ideas. Given the complexities of today’s project portfolios and programs, the expected ROIs, the operational expenses to support large and complex proposals and the dependencies on costly consultative assets to make it all happen, is it not about time we enter the twenty first century with twenty first century technology to manage and communicate business requirements in line with the corporate vision?

I am not advocating technology for the sake of “the technology” or any particular requirements management software. I am however, in strong favor of investing in the most robust software that can meet and grow with the demands of the organization. I am encouraging the use of any software that can facilitate collaboration across the enterprise of any given company, provides the full measure of all that can be considered as requirements; Textual, Use Cases, UI Mock-ups, diagrams in native form, data or domain mapping…etc., The creation and cataloging of reusable artifacts…etc. These types of application software will accelerate development, compress timelines, produce better outcomes and ultimately save companies millions of dollars in operational expenses. Yes, the old saying “a fool with a tool is still a fool” is still worth remembering but is it not equally foolish to ignore benefits, savings, the bottom line purpose of what needs to be accomplished, the how and the when? How long can any company continue to expose itself to the inherent risks and expense of managing valuable information with hundreds of thousands of disconnected Word and Excel docs?

The Strategic Management Office for Business Analysis – This is probably too ostentatious or presumptuous a title for a BA CoE but I am trying to make a point. Every now and then; year or as a result of, or in preparation for a reorganization effort or a new president or CEO/COO/CFO, companies will spend millions of dollars in organizational capacity readiness, maturity assessment or project management maturity studies. The monies invested likely support companies specializing in these fields who in turn use supplemental materials likely developed by internal resources within the hosting company; vis-a-vis business analysts and other like resources. To add additional relevant observations, when these organizations search themselves for temporary talent to support these engagement it is not unusual that these companies will use these very same type of resources, with the same skills currently present within the contracting organization. These resources may in fact come from other hosting organizations, who through some disillusionment or lack of recognition seek employment of this type with companies that are appreciative of their talent.

If the above scenario appears too implausible or fancy or un-realistic, consider then the very common occurrence of a new project undertaking. A new product or service is to be advanced. Funding is acquired, staffing is committed and project timelines are developed. It is very likely that due to timing considerations; time-to-market concerns, decentralization of services, lack of or an unavailable documented experience, the project will commence as if it is a brand “new” endeavor. Given the benefits expected of this “new” program or product, the prospects are set high for a quick turnaround and with equally high expectation of realizing the expected ROI; all with an exceptional amount of pressures to deliver the project. The likely course of action for this project is to live with the limited amount of time to “analyze” the effort with the hope of mitigating the issues at engineering and deployment time; a well-known common and expensive approach. Had the organization had the benefit of the strategic management office described above it would have had the benefits of resources, reference libraries, domain knowledge expertise and the support structure to deliver the project within the expected budgets, ROIs and with minimal rework and defect remediation.

It cannot be overstated. A well-defined and structured BA CoE in the twenty-first century will offer significant cost savings benefits and opportunities for any company who chooses to improve productivity. These advantages may be in the form of improvements to estimated project ROIs, better cost control of resources or helping the organization to realize new revenue cycles due to the expanded prospects brought about by the existence of these knowledge domain centers. Meaningful appreciation of project management cannot be realized solely by the manipulation of project timelines, financial projection devices and dependencies on “the technology”. It requires the services of Business Analysts – the content delivery arm for every project. The reliance on external temporary workforce augmentation services comes at a premium, impacting project budget considerations, time spent on training outside resources and the eventual loss of domain knowledge when these resources leave an organization.

The strategic and quantitated value proposition of a BA CoE can be measured. It can be measured by the quality and success of projects, the savings brought about by the smart use and positioning of resources, the consistencies of work enabled by tested standards and methodology and the effective use of technologies to bring it all together. Technologies that will allow for the creation and use of centralized requirements artifact repositories, enterprise-wide views of all analysis artifacts, efforts, the relationships and dependencies of projects to one another as well as the impact to new initiatives. The amount of domain knowledge the BA CoE will accumulate with each successful business engagement is another area; acquired knowledge that can be leveraged again and again, to manage and maximize project speed-to-market. Another area is the direct or indirect correlation and alignment of a BA CoE to key corporate priorities and so on. Is a Business Analysis Center of Excellence (BA CoE) still relevant? You bet; now more than ever.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Know Who to Ask the Right Questions

Written by Kupe Kupersmith on . Posted in Articles.

Smartphones have made so many things easier in life. I don’t think I want to or can live without one. Besides all the benefits related to work, I am not sure I could go very long with a quick round on Candy Crush. At the same time we are letting smartphones stop us from doing the one thing that good analysis requires: connecting with others. What made me think of this was a trip on a shuttle from the airport to a conference. I was really excited because I knew we had at least a 30-minute ride. I entered the van with seven new people to meet and ready to start to get to know my fellow riders. Unfortunately, everyone but me had their head in their phone checking email, surfing the Internet or playing Candy Crush. Many of the riders were going to the same conference so it was a place I could start building relationships so we could stay in touch, share ideas and experiences — seven more people I could add to my list of meeting everyone in the world. Not so much.

This scene is not uncommon. Go to a lunch spot and you’ll see everyone on the phone. People no longer connect like they used to. And if connecting with others is not your strength, you have fewer opportunities to work on improving this skill. I recently gave a talk at an IIBA chapter called “Ask the Right Questions.” One of my points was, it does not matter if you have the right questions if you don’t know who has the right answers. As a BA professional, you need to connect with large audiences so you know who your go-to people are when you need them. This means you can’t wait until you need them to find them. There just is not enough time in the day when you are assigned to a project and have to find the right people to talk to. You have to have these relationships already so you can utilize them at the right time.

So how do you connect with others? First, take your headphones off and stop playing Candy Crush. Go have conversations with those you don’t know well and that may be needed in some form or fashion on a future initiative. When I teach my Improving Collaboration and Communication through Improvisation class, I have the class get to know each other. We do this because I want others to feel comfortable with each other so they can feel open to play the improv exercises I ask of them. To do this we play a game called Three Things in Common. Everyone pairs up and in two minutes they have to find three things they have in common. Now, if you think it is easy, it is until I add one more rule. The things in common can’t be things like, we are both men, we both have brown hair, we both wear glasses, we both work at company x, and, my favorite, we are both in this improv class. You have to get deeper than that. Find out what drives them, what their interests are, what gets them excited. Then you will start finding things in common that you both love, like the same author or movies, or you find out that you both have kids that play in the same sports league, or perhaps you share some of the same hobbies.

Why is this important? People love being around others who have things in common with them. So if you do, you’ll be more successful at getting the time with these team members in the future when you need something. Who do you pick up the phone for? Someone you know or someone you don’t? Come on, I know you see a number coming across your phone and if you don’t recognize it you let it go to voicemail!

Now, I want you to take it a step further. Find out the things they love about their job, why they work there, what skills and expertise they bring to the table, who they work with most and have good relationships with. Dig deeper into work-related knowledge and enthusiasm.

The more people you do this with, the more relationships you have with others. The more relationships you have, the more people you know when to reach out to when you are on an initiative. Set a goal to get to know at least two people a week. People excel more for knowing how to find an answer than knowing the answer to everything. Feel free to start with me. I am available for lunch most days!

All the best,
Kupe

register now

See Kupe Live in Washington May 4th and 5th at 
Project Summit Business Analyst World Washington!

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

 

The Value of Business Analysis: Identifying Business Need

Written by Aaron Whittenberger on . Posted in Articles.

One of the critical roles of the Business Analyst (BA), or Enterprise Analyst (EA), in the area of Enterprise Analysis is to identify business need. Many business professionals make the mistake of thinking that since it is named Enterprise Analysis, that identifying business need can happen only at the enterprise level. Nothing could be further from the truth; Enterprise Analysis and identifying business need, can happen at the enterprise level, involve multiple lines of business within the organization but not the entire enterprise, and at the business unit level.

There are many factors, or many ways that the business analyst can identify business needs. It can be a result of market research or an identified new opportunity brought about by actions of a vendor or competitor. It could be derived from a strategic goal or initiative of the organization. It could have come from a business user complaint about a current system issue and/or the subsequent Root Cause Analysis. It could also be derived from an Enterprise Analysis activity that the BA performed, such as Capability Gap Analysis, SWOT Analysis or Product Feasibility Analysis.

If this vital role is not performed than the organization would not realize the benefits of identifying some business needs that need to be addressed, possibly gaining greater competitive advantage, possibly achieving strategic goals or taking advantage of an opportunity presented in the market. As you can see this can have a direct effect on the strategic success, and bottom line, of the organization.

Define Business Need

Once identified, the business need should be documented in the Business Case to initiate a project to develop a solution for this business need. This solution may, or may not, involve information technology software development; some solutions are completely a business solution. The business need defines the problem for which the business analyst is attempting to find a solution. The way the business need is defined determines which alternative solutions will be considered, which stakeholders will be consulted and which solution approaches will be evaluated.

Define Problem

Defining business need and defining the problem are two different things. The business need leads to the problem, but both the business need and problem statement needs to be defined and documented. Take for example that you have identified that sales have been decreasing for the past three years. So your business need statement could be “Need increased sales”. What is your problem statement? A root cause analysis uncovered an aging sales force using archaic sales techniques, no new products introduced to the marketplace in three years, competitors introducing products with innovative features, no new marketing campaigns in the last two years, rising costs, and production equipment in need of repair and upgrade.

Leads to the Solution

Now that the true problems have been identified, the enterprise can now initiate separate projects to find solutions for the sales problem, product problem, marketing problem, and production problems; rising costs and production equipment. The team assigned the sales problem can determine if they need to hire younger salespeople, provide sales training on newer techniques, provide better sales support, or implement a new Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. Likewise, the other project teams will determine proper solutions to their defined problem statement.

One pitfall that many business analysts and project teams fall into is trying to define the business need by the solution. In practice, quite often the business stakeholders define the solution at the start of the project instead of defining the problem statement first. They start with the solution first instead of the problem first. This reduces the solution alternatives that receive consideration and may bring a lesser valuable solution to deployment than what could have been achieved. So starting with the business need, problem statement, and solution scope; then developing alternative solutions will bring the most valuable solution to the organization, and the business analyst’s recommendation, to light.
In our sales problem example above, the organization may have identified slumping sales for three years. Without proper problem statement identification the business team may decide to simply hire more salespeople to increase sales. Without proper root cause analysis, they may hire older salespeople, just like the rest of the sales force they have. None of the true root cause problems get resolved because the team jumped to the solution with identifying the true problems needing addressed.

We all learn from our mistakes, what pitfalls to developing the Business Case have you encountered in your career?

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Good Business Analyst, Bad Business Analyst

Written by Mike Lenz on . Posted in Articles. 1 Comment on Good Business Analyst, Bad Business Analyst

Lenz Aug18A Good BA has a product management approach to their role, partnering with stakeholders to define the very best solution. A Good BA is the subject matter expert of the project requirements. They are viewed by both Creative and Tech teams as one of their own while in reality serving neither, only the client’s project goals. A Good BA has patience to learn from the client, educate the client, and push back when needed.

A Bad BA acts as a note taker, documenting what other people tell them with no vested interest in the quality of the product being built. A Bad BA is a gofer and assistant for the tech team. They document just enough for client sign off.

A Good BA pushes decisions and detailed design understanding early. They focus clients away from bells & whistles and back onto solutions that drive project goals, and when necessary are not afraid to remind the client of agreed upon scope. A Good BA communicates as well in written form as they do verbally. They create great requirements documentation that tells the story of the product. Their documents flow in a logical way from feature to feature, big idea to detailed specifications. A Bad BA is distracted by other people’s jobs (user experience or tech solutions) losing focus on their own (documenting the What).

A Good BA ensures all sections of their documents add value. They flush out and define detailed requirements organized and aligned to business goals and scope. A Bad BA fills out a template. They write down disjointed meeting notes from stakeholder interviews and call them requirements.

A Good BA defines accretive requirements. A Bad BA uses words like may, shall, and should. A Good BA includes notes and supporting information in their documents for increased reader understanding. A Bad BA does the bare minimum, forcing conference calls to explain written requirements.

A Good BA is organized and manages open item trackers for their documents. They can accurately communicate work remaining and blockers to closure. They anticipate design challenges and drive clarity through their requirements. A Bad BA lets the tech team do their work for them by flushing detail through tech design questions.

A Good BA partners with the Client to ensure they are prepared for User Acceptance Testing. They ensure the client understands what was documented and categorizes appropriate UAT defects as Change Requests. A Bad BA assumes the client is organized and prepared. They flood the tech team with duplicate, unclear, and as-designed defects

A Good BA is viewed as a critical member of the team’s success. They do their best regardless of whether or not someone is going to read the document. A Bad BA cuts corners and is a replaceable with well-annotated wireframes.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.