Skip to main content

Tag: CBAP

BABOK Version 3 vs. Version 2 – Taming the new Guide – Part 3: BA CORE CONCEPT MODEL (BACCM) and Perspectives

In our continuing series on BABOK version 3 vs. version 2, we conclude with the two major additions made by IIBA: the BA Core Concept Model™ (BACCM) and an all-new section containing five perspectives on Business Analysis. This article provides a summary of the new BACCM, a practical definition of the six core concepts, and an example of each. This article also describes the new Perspectives and provides examples of the common elements in all the Perspectives.

BA CORE CONCEPT MODEL (BACCM)

One of the key changes in the BABOK® Guide version 3.0 is the introduction of the Business Analysis Core Concept Model (BACCM). This model defines the framework for all business analysis work, and can be applied across industries, methodologies, projects, and organizational cultures. It shows the interrelationships among six core concepts: Needs, Solutions, Changes, Stakeholders, Value, and Contexts. There is no order to these six concepts that can be read in a variety of different patterns. Let’s look at each of these six concepts and then some of the ways each relates to the others.

Figure 1 below, published by IIBA in the BABOK® Guide version 3.0, shows the BACCM.

Needs refer to business problems that require solving or opportunities that can be seized. Needs are satisfied by Solutions.

Solutions are the products and services that provide ways to take advantage of opportunities and solve business problems. Solutions are developed through Changes consisting of one or several projects, programs, or initiatives. Examples include installation of commercial software and changes to the current processes, development of a new medical device, creation of a marketing campaign, or implementation of new regulations.

 LARSON july6Figure 1: Business Analysis Core Concept Model

Changes are the steps involved in transforming Needs into Solutions. Note that the word “Change” is used in the BABOK® Guide in lieu of the terms “Project” and “Program.”

Stakeholders are individuals or groups that have Needs, an interest in the Solution, and/or are affected by the Changes.

Value. Solutions need to provide Value to the organizations and Stakeholders. If Solutions do not provide Value, they have not met the Need. Business analysis is really all about delivering Value to the organization.

Contexts are all those things that affect and are relevant to the Changes. This is the environment in which the Solution will be developed and includes such things as organizational culture, as well as the culture of the various countries that might be involved, languages, organizational process assets and environmental factors, constraints like weather, seasons, or other things happening at an organization or within a division or department.

Let’s look at an example of these interrelationships.

Need. A sponsor is concerned about losing market share to a competitor. One of the problems that contributes to this loss is the limited information provided by the set of Order reports she currently receives. Her Need, then, is the limited Order information inhibiting her ability to make good buying decisions.

Solution. After some analysis and a business case, the business analyst has recommended commercial business analytics software as a Solution. This is a complex Solution that will involve multiple projects addressing such things as processes, software, and new technology to name a few.

Changes. The Changes to the organization will be significant. The analysis of the current state and definition of the future state done during Strategy Analysis will need to be refined and expanded. Some of the Changes include designing new processes, purchasing new software, modifying data structures in existing interfacing applications, capturing new data, building technical ways to transition to the new software, and more.

Stakeholders. Stakeholders including buyers, merchandisers, advertising staff, distribution centers, retail store personnel, customer service specialists, several vendors, and many areas in IT will be affected globally.

Value. This Solution will provide Value to the sponsor, many Stakeholders, and the organization. The business case included a cost/benefit analysis which showed that although the costs were high, the organization would start seeing a benefit within a year. Several solution performance measures were identified during Solution Evaluation to help measure the realized value.

Contexts. Since this is a complex project with globally distributed Stakeholders, there are many Contexts that need to be considered. Each country’s laws and regulations, the various national cultures, as well as the different departmental cultures will affect the development of the Solution. For example and speaking generally, the distribution staff tends to be casual, the buyers more goal-driven and direct, and the advertisers more expressive. In addition, one of the facilities is in central Europe, which has recently experienced massive flooding. Finally, monsoon season is approaching India, where some of the technical and support staff are located.

Understandably not all Solutions and Changes are as complex as this one. This example was meant to provide an understanding of each of these six core concepts and how they fit together.

Perspectives

The BABOK® Guide Perspectives are focused areas that need to be addressed depending on the nature of the project. Each Perspective provides how business analysis work is completed and its unique characteristics on projects with these Perspectives:

  • Agile
  • Business Intelligence
  • Information Technology
  • Business Architecture
  • Business Process Management (BPM)

Some projects will have multiple perspectives. A business analytics application, for example, might have elements from all five perspectives.

Each perspective is organized into five sections:

  • Change scope (think project scope) includes such things as which areas of the organization are impacted and will be affected by the approach taken. For example, the Agile perspective alludes to a constantly changing scope. The BPM perspective contains four typical lifecycle stages and several methods to outline the scope.
  • Business analysis scope includes the scope of the business analysis work, including which artifacts or work products will be produced and which stakeholders will be involved in the change. For example, the Agile perspective notes that the amount of rigor applied to documentation, a business analysis work product, is dependent on the nature of the project.
  • Methodologies, approaches, and techniques. Each Perspectives might have some specific methodologies or approaches that are unique to that Perspective. Scrum, for example, is an Agile Methodology. Information Technology has its own development life cycles. As an example of a technique, Prioritization is listed as a general technique, but in the Agile perspective MoSCoW prioritization is listed as an Agile-specific type of prioritization.
  • Underlying competencies include those that are most relevant to each perspective. They do not have to be unique and might be relevant to other Perspectives as well. For example, the Communications and Collaboration technique is listed as an underlying competency in the Agile perspective. Collaboration Games is listed as a general technique. Communications Skills is listed as a general underlying competency.
  • Impact on Knowledge Areas shows a mapping of specific activities relevant to the Perspective to the BABOK® Guide tasks. For example, the Agile Perspective discusses the relationship to the Requirements Life Cycle Knowledge Area, stating that requirements are defined with increasing detail and that validation of requirements is done at the end of each iteration. The BI Perspective mentions overcoming barriers to utilizing new analytic tools and techniques in Solution Evaluation.

This article has provided a summary of the new BACCM and Perspectives with some examples to help decipher these new concepts. The overall series of articles gives an in-depth look at the new BABOK version 3. The new Guide represents a major increase in content and improvement over version 2. Our goal was to explain the major changes and additions, and to structure and simplify it. Please respond with your comments, questions, and any disagreements.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

About the Authors

Elizabeth Larson, PMP, CBAP, CSM, PMI-PBA is Co-Principal and CEO of Watermark Learning and has over 30 years of experience in project management and business analysis. Elizabeth’s speaking history includes repeat presentations for national and international conferences on five continents.

Elizabeth has co-authored five books on business analysis and certification preparation. She has also co-authored chapters published in four separate books. Elizabeth was a lead author on several standards including the PMBOK® Guide, BABOK® Guide, and PMI’s Business Analysis for Practitioners – A Practice Guide.

Richard Larson, PMP, CBAP, PMI-PBA, President and Founder of Watermark Learning, is a successful entrepreneur with over 30 years of experience in business analysis, project management, training, and consulting. He has presented workshops and seminars on business analysis and project management topics to over 10,000 participants on five different continents.

Rich loves to combine industry best practices with a practical approach and has contributed to those practices through numerous speaking sessions around the world. He has also worked on the BA Body of Knowledge versions 1.6-3.0, the PMI BA Practice Guide, and the PM Body of Knowledge, 4th edition. He and his wife Elizabeth Larson have co-authored five books on business analysis and certification preparation.

BABOK Version 3 vs. Version 2 – Taming the Guide – Part 2: Techniques

In Part 1 we started our comparison of BABOK version 3 and its predecessor, version 2. We outlined the Knowledge Area and Tasks that are changing with the new release and showed where the major changes are occurring. Our view is there were substantive, but not necessarily shocking changes in the versions pertaining to the KAs and Tasks. Now we turn our attention to the updates of the General Techniques in the latest BABOK version.

BABOK VERSION 3 TECHNIQUES

General BABOK techniques are another major area of change in BABOK v3, which we cover second for similar reasons as we did for the KAs. Namely, the amount of familiarity people have for the v2 techniques will help make understanding the changes in v3 a bit easier.

Version 2 of the BABOK included 34 general techniques and 15 task-specific techniques. Version 3 has added 16 additional general techniques, a whopping 47% increase. We could debate whether such an increase was needed, but one thing is certain: there are several new techniques to master if you plan to pass the CBAP or CCBA exam. And, for those using the BABOK as a general reference, Business Analysis has more techniques than ever that are regarded as generally accepted in the industry.

See Table 1 below for a summary of both the stability and changes to general techniques from BABOK version 2 to 3.

Technique Same Rename New Notes
10.1 Acceptance and Evaluation Criteria X      
10.2 Backlog Management     X  
10.3 Balanced Scorecard     X  
10.4 Benchmarking and Market Analysis   X   Added “Market Analysis”
10.5 Brainstorming X      
10.6 Business Capability Analysis     X  
10.7 Business Cases     X Was a task in v2
10.8 Business Model Canvas     X  
10.9 Business Rules Analysis X      
10.10 Collaborative Games     X  
10.11 Concept Modelling     X  
10.12 Data Dictionary   X   Dropped “Glossary”
10.13 Data Flow Diagrams X      
10.14 Data Mining     X Most applicable to BI Perspective
10.15 Data Modelling X      
10.16 Decision Analysis X      
10.17 Decision Modelling     X Includes Decision Tables and Decision Trees, both part of “Decision Analysis” in v2
10.18 Document Analysis X      
10.19 Estimation X      
10.20 Financial Analysis     X Moved from Enterprise Analysis in v2
10.21 Focus Groups X      
10.22 Functional Decomposition X      
10.23 Glossary     X Split off from v2 Data Dictionary & Glossary
10.24 Interface Analysis X      
10.25 Interviews X      
10.26 Item Tracking   X   In v2 were part of “Problem Tracking” and an Element in “Manage Solution Scope & Requirements”
10.27 Lessons Learned X     Dropped “Process” from title
10.28 Metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) X      
10.29 Mind Mapping     X  
10.30 Non-Functional Requirements Analysis X      
10.31 Observation X      
10.32 Organizational Modelling X      
10.33 Prioritization     X Previously were techniques in “Prioritize Requirements” in v2
10.34 Process Analysis     X Includes SIPOC and Value Stream Mapping, arguably part of process modeling
10.35 Process Modelling X      
10.36 Prototyping X      
10.37 Reviews   X   Formerly “Structured Walkthrough” in v2
10.38 Risk Analysis and Management   X   Formerly “Risk Analysis” in v2
10.39 Roles and Permissions Matrix     X Previously techniques in “Conduct Stakeholder Analysis” in v2
10.40 Root Cause Analysis X      
10.41 Scope Modelling X      
10.42 Sequence Diagrams X      
10.43 Stakeholder List, Map, or Personas     X Previously techniques in “Conduct Stakeholder Analysis” in v2
10.44 State Modelling   X   Called “State Diagrams” in v2
10.45 Survey or Questionnaire X     “Survey/Questionnaire” in v2
10.46 SWOT Analysis X      
10.47 Use Cases and Scenarios X     Formerly “Scenarios and Use Cases” in v2
10.48 User Stories X      
10.49 Vendor Assessment X      
10.50 Workshops   X   Called “Requirements Workshops” in v2

Table 1: BABOK v2 vs. v3 General Technique Differences

BABOK VERSION 3 TECHNIQUE SUMMARY

As you can see in the table above, all 34 general techniques from BABOK version 2 remained intact or were renamed. Again, we could argue the wisdom of keeping all the techniques or the appropriateness of adding some of the narrower techniques. Like any Body of Knowledge, there will be tasks and techniques in BABOK® Guide v3 that will never apply to a particular person’s job or career situation. The challenge becomes that of a) mastering the content enough to pass the CBAP or CCBA exam and/or b) deciding whether to use the particular techniques on the job.

Of the 16 “new” techniques, half of them are not actually new. Some have been moved out of task-specific techniques, such as Business Cases. Some are divisions of other techniques such as Process Analysis, which has many similarities to Process Modeling. Table 2 below is our list of the truly new techniques added to BABOK version 3.

NEW TECHNIQUE BABOK DESCRIPTION RELATES TO
10.2 Backlog Management Used to record, track, and prioritize remaining work items. Agile Perspective
10.3 Balanced Scorecard Used to manage performance in any business model, organizational structure, or business process. BPM Perspective and Process Analysis
10.6 Business Capability Analysis Provides a framework for scoping and planning by generating a shared understanding of outcomes, identifying alignment with strategy, and providing a scope and prioritization filter. BPM Perspective and Process Analysis
10.8 Business Model Canvas Describes how an enterprise creates, delivers, and captures value for and from its customers. BPM Perspective and Strategy
10.10 Collaborative Games Encourage participants in an elicitation activity to collaborate in building a joint understanding of a problem or a solution. Facilitation and Workshops
10.11 Concept Modelling Organize the business vocabulary needed to consistently and thoroughly communicate the knowledge of a domain. Glossary
10.14 Data Mining Used to improve decision making by finding useful patterns and insights from data. BI Perspective
10.29 Mind Mapping Used to articulate and capture thoughts, ideas, and information. Conduct Elicitation

Table 2: Truly New Techniques in BABOK Version 3

In the next part of this article, we examine the two major additions to BABOK version 3: the BA Core Concept Model and Business Analysis Perspectives.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

BABOK Version 3 vs. Version 2 – Taming the New – Guide Part 1: Knowledge Areas and Tasks

Most people in the BA field know that the IIBA® has produced an important update to its definitive Business Analysis Body of Knowledge, the BABOK® Guide. Released in April 2015, the BABOK® Guide includes major upgrades, ranging from the BA Core Concept Model™ (BACCM), to changes to most Knowledge Areas, the addition of 16 new techniques, and the addition of an all-new section containing five perspectives on Business Analysis.

By IIBA’s estimation, the BABOK has grown 50% from version 2 to version 3 and now has more than 500 pages. It has a richer and more complete set of information about the practice of Business Analysis. It also means the CCBA will have a greater amount of knowledge on which to test aspiring CBAP and CCBA candidates. Both points are good for the profession in our opinion.

Most comparisons of the two versions cover the major changes and ours is no different. However, we begin with the familiar aspects of version 2 and how they change in version 3. Part 1 features changes to Knowledge Areas and Tasks. Part 2 covers the expansion of Techniques, and Part 3 presents the two major BABOK additions: the BACCM and the Perspectives.

BABOK VERSION 3 KNOWLEDGE AREAS AND TASKS

We are starting the BABOK differences with the Knowledge Areas (KAs) and tasks instead of the Core Concept Model for two main reasons. First, most people are familiar with the KAs and their tasks, so it makes the jump to v3 a little less of a leap. Second, the BACCM surrounds the KAs and for each KA the BABOK Guide version 3 shows how the BACCM applies to it. Our view is that v3 is not as big a change as one might think when doing a KA to KA comparison.

Below is a table we compiled to show the differences in tasks. After finishing a draft we then consulted with the BABOK Guide’s table of differences and the result is shown in Table 1.

Some tasks have not changed much or at all, such as “Plan Business Analysis Approach” or “Verify Requirements. “ The task names of some 10-11 tasks have remained the same, which means roughly 21 tasks have been changed, added or deleted. There are now only 30 tasks compared with 32 in v2.

BABOK® Guide Version 2 Knowledge Area and Task Names BABOK® Guide Version 3 Knowledge Area and Task Names (additions/changes in v3)
 2.0 BA Planning and Monitoring – v2.0 tasks  3.0 BA Planning and Monitoring – v3.0 tasks
 2.1 Plan Business Analysis Approach (content for prioritization and change management moved to Plan BA Governance)
 2.3 Plan Business Analysis Activities
 3.1 Plan Business Analysis Approach
 3.3 Plan Business Analysis Governance
 2.2 Conduct Stakeholder Analysis
 2.4 Plan Business Analysis Communication
 3.2 Plan Stakeholder Engagement
 2.5 Plan Requirements Management Process  (see note for Plan BA Approach)  3.4 Plan Business Analysis Information Management
 New Task:  3.4 Plan Business Analysis Information Management
 2.6 Manage Business Analysis Performance  3.5 Identify Business Analysis Performance Improvements
 3.0 Elicitation – v2.0 tasks  4.0 Elicitation and Collaboration – v3.0 tasks
 3.1 Prepare for Elicitation  4.1 Prepare for Elicitation
 3.2 Conduct Elicitation Activity  4.2 Conduct Elicitation
 3.3 Document Elicitation Results
 4.4 Prepare Requirements Package
 3.5 Communicate Requirements
 (Note: ours is more complete than the BABOK comparison)
 4.4 Communicate Business Analysis Information
 3.4 Confirm Elicitation Results  4.3 Confirm Elicitation Results
 New Task:  4.5 Manage Stakeholder Collaboration
 4.0 Requirements Management and Communication –
 v2.0 tasks
 5.0 Requirements Life Cycle Management –
v.3.0 tasks
 4.1 Manage Solution Scope and Requirements  5.1 Trace Requirements (Especially relationships)
 5.5 Approve Requirements (Conflict and Issue Management; Approval was formerly an element)
 4.2 Manage Requirements Traceability  5.1 Trace Requirements (“Configuration Management System” becomes “Traceability Repository”)
 5.4 Assess Requirements Changes (Impact Analysis moved here)
 4.3 Maintain Requirements for Re-Use  5.2 Maintain Requirements
 6.1 Prioritize Requirements (from Requirements Analysis)  5.3 Prioritize Requirements (Moved from Requirements Analysis in v2)
 4.4 Prepare Requirements Package
 4.5 Communicate Requirements (both become part of “Communicate BA Information” in Elicitation and Collaboration)
 4.4 Communicate Business Analysis Information
 New Task:  5.5 Approve Requirements
 5.0 Enterprise Analysis – v2.0 tasks  6.0 Strategy Analysis – v3.0 tasks
 5.1 Define Business Need  6.1 Analyze Current State
 6.2 Define Future State
 5.2 Assess Capability Gaps  6.1 Analyze Current State
 6.2 Define Future State
 6.4 Define Change Strategy
 5.3 Determine Solution Approach  6.2 Define Future State
 6.4 Define Change Strategy
 7.5 Define Design Options
 7.6 Analyze Potential Value and Recommend Solution
 (Note: ours is more complete than the BABOK comparison)
 5.4 Define Solution Scope
 7.4 Define Transition Requirements
 6.4 Define Change Strategy
 5.5 Define Business Case  6.3 Assess Risks (was an Element in v2 Business Case task)
 7.6 Analyze Potential Value and Recommend Solution
 (Business Case is also now a General Technique)
 6.0 Requirements Analysis – v2.0 tasks  7.0 Requirements Analysis and Design Definition –
 v3.0 tasks
 6.1 Prioritize Requirements (Moved to Requirements Life Cycle Management)  5.3 Prioritize Requirements
 6.2 Organize Requirements  7.4 Define Requirements Architecture
 6.3 Specify and Model Requirements  7.1 Specify and Model Requirements
 6.4 Define Assumptions and Constraints  6.2 Define Future State
 7.6 Analyze Potential Value and Recommend Solution
 6.5 Verify Requirements  7.2 Verify Requirements
 6.6 Validate Requirements  7.3 Validate Requirements
 New Task:  7.5 Define Design Options
 (pulls together v2 Determine Solution Approach, Assess Proposed Solution, and Allocate Requirements)
 New Task:  7.6 Analyze Potential Value and Recommend Solution
 (pulls together v2 Define Business Case and Assess Proposed Solution)
 7.0 Solution Assessment & Validation – v2.0 tasks  8.0 Solution Evaluation – v3.0 tasks
 7.1 Assess Proposed Solution  7.5 Define Design Options
 7.6 Analyze Potential Value and Recommend Solution
 7.2 Allocate Requirements  7.5 Define Design Options
 7.3 Assess Organizational Readiness  6.4 Define Change Strategy
 7.4 Define Transition Requirements  6.4 Define Change Strategy
 (Also see Requirements Classification Schema)
 7.5 Validate Solution  8.3 Assess Solution Limitations
 7.6 Evaluate Solution Performance  8.5 Recommend Actions to Increase
 Solution Value
 New Task:  8.1 Measure Solution Performance
 New Task:  8.2 Analyze Performance Measures
 New Task:  8.4 Assess Enterprise Limitations

Table 1: BABOK v2 vs. v3 KA and Task Differences (table modified from BABOK Guide® version 3)

BABOK VERSION 3 KA AND TASK SUMMARY

The changes to BABOK Knowledge Areas and their associated tasks on the surface may seem to be significant. Only one KA name (BA Planning and Monitoring) survives intact from v2 to v3. Only nine task names are the same or roughly the same. This article does not cover details like inputs and outputs, and many of those names have changed from one release to the next.

Upon closer examination, though, the changes are actually not so dramatic. We can summarize a few observations.

  • Even though most KA and task names have changed, in many cases they are merely refinements rather than significant changes. For example:
    • The Elicitation KA in v2 is now Elicitation and Collaboration. Most tasks in that KA are the same with the addition of the “Manage Stakeholder Collaboration” task.
    • The v2 “Conduct Stakeholder Analysis” task in Planning and Monitoring has been changed in v3 to “Plan Stakeholder Engagement.”
  • The Requirements Management and Communication KA and Requirements Life Cycle Management (RLCM) are essentially similar. An important addition is that prioritize Requirements is placed in RLCM.
  • Enterprise Analysis has become Strategy Analysis, essentially broadening its scope. It now includes devising change strategies, transitions, and organization readiness.
  • Requirements Analysis is similar in v2 and v3, despite the addition of the concept of “Design.”. An important distinction has been made by IIBA between requirements and design, which boils down to the distinction between business needs and solutions to those needs.
    • Requirements – the usable representation of a need (see our forthcoming article on the BA Core Concept Mode).
    • Designs – usable representation of a Solution. A new task “Define Design Options” has been added to focus on the BA work in designing solutions. Another new task “Analyze Potential Value and Recommend Solution” actually pulls together facets of two tasks from v2.
  • Solution Assessment and Validation has been renamed as Solution Evaluation. There are three new tasks as the table shows. They were added to clarify the work of evaluating solution performance over its lifetime including organizational constraints.
  • Out of the 32 tasks in v2, only eight have been added, a 25% change. That means 10 have been removed since there are now 30 tasks in all.

In short, BABOK version 3 is better organized than its predecessor, and with refined KA and task names contains a structure that better reflects the practice of business analysis.

In the next part of this article, we explore changes to BA techniques in BABOK version 3.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

CBAP Was Always ‘UnPretty’ – Do You Have the Courage to Embrace Synthesis

“Certified Business Analysis Professional” (CBAP) always seemed a little awkward for a professional designation. Those of us who got it early actually worked directly with people to take the test (no on-line then). I had some low fun teasing the exam team (Cleve Pillifant and team, thank you again) about the acronym. It was low of me since the exam team was available and the decision makers were not (shout out to Kathleen Barrett, hope you are doing well). To those whose eyesight is fading, the “B” can even be mistaken for an “R”. This is no big deal and is common enough (case in point “PMP”).

Now things change, because it is increasingly obvious that ANALYSIS (breaking into parts) is only half the battle (the easy half). The harder “half” is business SYNTHESIS. * Synthesis means taking the parts stated by stakeholders (requirements [stated]) and organizing them into possibilities by reducing confusions and artificial constraints (“but we built what they told us to build…whimper, snivel”).

Modeling IS simplifying. Simplifying requires doing something MORE, NOT LESS. Some of you will understand the statement “If you want it shorter it will cost more.” We know this is true because stakeholders are very reluctant to “simplify” the information they can offer. We also see this is true because we must reconcile wants across silos – often very committed silos.

Simplifying includes breaking concepts down (user friendly means more than a smiley face on screen) with analysis. It works by re-assembling concepts into understandable high quality summaries (models) with synthesis. More than ONE synthesis will be needed. One is for people who will read and follow the complexity. One is for people who won’t be able to pretend they are following unless the words are put into polygon shapes. “I’m visual” is the refrain, but more than four or five polygon shapes quickly reveal that the shapes have “words” anyway, and confusion reigns among the “visual”.

For productivity the experienced analyst understands that working in text can be faster than working in diagrams (at least for analysts that like working in text). An ideal situation is one where a technical writer engages the stakeholders in diagramming simple text while the analyst produces complex text.

Many diagrams are just fancy vague lists. Perfect examples are Visio and PowerPoint “flat” diagrams). As a productivity technique, drawings are easily outpaced by anyone who can create or follow an indented outline.

Here is a sample text “analysis” using the puzzle from the last blog (Everything We Needed to Know We Learned on Sesame Street):

  1. Business Requirements
    1. Business Goals / Objectives
      1. We want to increase sales
      2. We want happy customers
      3. We want to get rid of old technology because…
      4. More?
    2. Business Needs
    3. Capability Gaps
    4. Solution Approaches
      1. We want to buy this in ONE software package
      2. We want to outsource all software configuration and maintenance
    5. Solution Scope
    6. Business Case (what matters, how it matters and why it matters)
  2. Requirements [STATED]
    1. Every want is stated only, not modeled, verified or validated.
    2. All are vague – unspecific – need improvement
  3. Requirements [ANALYZED / MODELED]
    1. No want has been analyzed / modeled
    2. Even business objectives are unclear –
  4. Business Analysis Plan
  5. Solution Requirements
    1. Functional
      1. We want users to have the freedom to override business rules
      2. We want the system to pick the best approach
      3. We want to capture name and address and contact info everywhere
      4. We don’t want managers interfering with our work (micro-management)
      5. We want to reduce data entry errors
      6. We want direct access to the database
      7. We want users to write their own reports and not wait for IT
      8. We want easier, better scheduling with fewer disruptions
      9. We want large monitors, aluminum cases and wireless keyboards on our PCs
    2. Non-Functional / Qualities
      1. We want easy to use
      2. We want a consistent high quality customer experience
      3. We want reliability, maintainability, scalability and no irritability
      4. We will know it when we see it but no sooner
  6. Transition Requirements
    1. We must have everything built before release
    2. We don’t want to change the work or conditions

We may not agree on whether the above is “correct”. I think we CAN agree that it is not useful, complete or free of conflict. There are unspoken relationships (e.g., relation of “solution requirements” to goals / objectives). There are potential conflicts right next to each other. One example is when stakeholders want direct access to the database vs. fewer data errors.

What can fix this? SYNTHESIS! Are you a business analyst only, or a business synthesist* as well? Creativity isn’t just gums bumping – talk is cheap, watcha got that a project team could follow, that could make sense to those who cannot code ambiguity, confusion or wishful thinking? Most importantly – which statements deserve more focus, and which less? Which statements represent the highest requirements risks? What is missing for effective objectives? What would your process model begin to suggest?

Can any of my readers write a single paragraph describing a workable approach? Can anyone resolve the apparent conflicts by addressing high-level business issues? What do the stakeholders mean and can it be built to the joy of all? Hint: Start by synthesizing “bottom feeding” requirements into “top priority” business needs related to goals and objectives.

And remember – you can’t skip any steps in BA world for true enterprise systems. Pay it now or fail it later. Think of all the BA work (yes, its hard, that’s why stakeholders don’t do it) as leading to a quality groomed backlog. Good process, followed by good interface design followed by quality development is unbeatable.

When we “do what stakeholders want” we are not serving their goals. Not unless they happen to be information systems experts. You might as well try to build a skyscraper for a toddler – “I want the 50th floor to be ALL ice cream” they scream.

Remember to say yes, and to place ice cream fountains everywhere on 50. Make it the centerpiece of the project, so no one will forget which stakeholders insisted. Allow all the stakeholders to pick flavors for prioritization. Above all synthesize the other 99 floors with FAST elevators to 50.

Mo’ later, thanks for reading, don’t get lost in the trees OR the forest.

* Do I have to spell it out for you 🙂 ?

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Work of the Future – Answers and Prize Award

The responses to last February’s challenge were excellent (thanks to my excellent readers) that we share them here. A winner has been chosen, even though reasonable people can and will disagree. Prize choices are listed at bottom* – the winner (don’t peek) will choose for himself or herself.

Case Study :

Questions and Answers: (ranked as):

UNO: Best based on my experience
DOS: Good first instinct, if there is no time for best answer UNO
TRES: Anything might work, and if TRES works best I SHOULD be embarrassed.
QUATTRO: No explanation or else ambiguous / unclear to this reader / writer?

Here we go – DRUM ROLL….

1. The best first “action” you could take would be to:

  1. Understand the farmer’s “root” cause more deeply
  2. Introduce yourself to the farmers for rapport
  3. Interview the blacksmith
  4. Start a project to invent steel
  5. Understand how you might be perceived by others

Debbie 2014-03-25 14:53
DOS 1. B

Ravi 2014-03-25 17:23
DOS 1. B
Since rapport is needed for either A, C or E. D is really solutioning, even before the problem is understood.

Mohsin 2014-03-26 00:26
DOS 1. A

Teri 2014-03-26 07:18
TRES 1. C
Figure out how the blacksmith is fixing the points, sharper edges may break the soil better

Dan 2014-03-31 16:00
DOS 1. B
The farmer will reject your foolish waste of time trying to understand why the soil is hard, or iron is soft. You must first be his friend to elicit deeper issues. The blacksmith will be defensive and say that he is working as fast as he can doing everything his father taught him, and no one will support you in creating steel unless other farmers and blacksmiths can relate to how you are solving their problems.

Ramya 2014-04-01 10:40
DOS 1. B
Human psychology, which has not changed with ages, wants a reliable solution. So I would first build rapport before jumping into solutions. Agile manifesto says – People over practices.

Bob F 2014-04-08 21:27
UNO 1. E
Until you at least try to understand how you will be perceived, you shouldn’t introduce yourself ( 2nd).

Asif Jehangir 2014-04-20 02:41
DOS 1. A
You may find something that may help in softening the soil.

Marcos supports Bob’s answer:

A BA who is comfortable with establishing rapport in the modern world (or in the U.S., for that matter) should probably not assume that they know anything about establishing rapport with rural farmers of the past (or anyone not from the U.S.).

For that matter, minus actual experience, a sharp BA should not assume they know how to rapport with doctors, sewer engineers, bankers, or with distant people on a teleconference, past or present. Best is to keep a low profile before jumping in with a “standard” approach of any kind, people or technical. Consider the following questions:

  • Are the farmers of French, German, Dutch or British ancestry?
  • Are they Catholic or Protestant or Quaker or Amish?
  • Are they Jeffersonians, Adams-sians, Simians, what?
  • Are they educated and in what ways?
  • How many people does the community:
    • Hang every year?
    • Shoot every year?
    • And for what violations of local protocol?
    • No dancing?
    • Too much debt?
    • Wrong color, creed, gender, or approach to life?
    • Offending the sheriff?
    • …?
  • Do you even have any local currency in your pocket?
  • In an economy where barter is still important, do you have anything to offer besides insane thoughts about the future?
  • How can you position yourself to learn and watch and see how the community treats others before interacting with them in a more serious relationship that is none of your business as a general rule?
  • Are farmers more powerful than merchants? Blacksmiths? Bankers? Archer Midland?
  • Is there a library in town?
  • Are there any teachers you could hire or barter with?
  • Are there any charities that might be sympathetic to a slightly deranged outsider from the future until she recovers from a concussion?

2. The best way to learn what solutions could address the farmer’s concerns would be:

  1. Get a job as a farmer
  2. Get a job as a blacksmith
  3. Get a job in Manchester, England
  4. Google the specifics
  5. Join the farmer’s cooperative

Debbie 2014-03-25 14:53
UNO 2.E

Ravi 2014-03-25 17:23
UNO 2.E
since cooperative will allow us to get various perspectives. D is not valid since there is no Google at that time. A and B only provide limited perspective. Not sure what value C provides.

Mohsin 2014-03-26 00:26
UNO 2.E

Teri 2014-03-26 07:18
UNO 2.E
More perspective, you don’t need to be the expert, just surround yourself with experts

Dan 2014-03-31 16:00
UNO 2.E
If you become the farmer or the blacksmith you will spend years learning how they do it, by hearing from others in the cooperative you can tap the experience of many.

Ramya 2014-04-01 10:40
UNO 2.E
Join the cooperative to have a better collaboration.

Bob F 2014-04-08 21:27
DOS 2. A
Nothing beats first-hand knowledge. Second best is listening to them at the cooperative.

Asif Jehangir 2014-04-20 02:41
UNO 2.E
Understand all the stakeholders

Marcos supports everyone with small caveat for Bob’s answer:

The first hand knowledge about hard soil and iron plow tips is probably as advanced as it is going to get in rural Virginia.

Look up Manchester, England for first hand knowledge that MIGHT make some difference IF it could be researched and developed in the Virginia of the time).

To figure out the best approach for the Virginia community, more voices matter more, not less, we think.

3. The most immediate way (from the following) to influence the farmers would be to:

  1. Explain the advantages of a steel plow
  2. Get a job as a blacksmith
  3. Listen for a few weeks before saying anything
  4. Get a job as a banker
  5. Beat them at farming using steel tools

Debbie 2014-03-25 14:53
QUATTRO 3.C

Ravi 2014-03-25 17:23
TRES 3.E
Provided you have steel tools since demo provides the best influence . However, if the steel tools aren’t available C would be the next best alternative followed by A. B and D wouldn’t be major influences in my opinion.

Mohsin 2014-03-26 00:26
DOS 3. C

Teri 2014-03-26 07:18
DOS 3. C
They are the experts, they don’t want to immediately hear an outsider giving their “opinion”, gain buy in and trust, build credibility

Dan 2014-03-31 16:00
UNO 3. B
Become the Blacksmith. This way you can temporarily provide the most evident need of the farmers by giving them additional plow heads. You can then implement the steam engine in your work showing them the benefits of automation and explaining how this could help them too.

Ramya 2014-04-01 10:40
DOS 3. C
Listening is important more than solution. This ensures that all are on the same page.

Bob F 2014-04-08 21:27
DOS 3. C
Listening is also good. Second best is the job as a blacksmith.

Asif Jehangir 2014-04-20 02:41
DOS 3. C
You can have all the viewpoints before making any decision

Marcos is torn, but believes in / is backing Dan (with or without steam) (why is Marcos writing about himself in the third person – medic? Medic?! MEDIC!!!):

A productive apprentice blacksmith (were you going to start at the top?), who belongs to the cooperative, and has knowledge of modern technology, could have enough influence (friendship) to eventually bring improvements to local (eventually world) plows. More importantly to the farmers, they get more plow tips immediately, even though they wear like iron.

Key phrase in the question: “Most immediate way”. Answer B is also good because no one is upset (except MAYBE the blacksmith, if an apprentice is not wanted.

Can you pull this off without apprenticing, or fist-fighting the blacksmith? If so, “Let ‘im whine” say the farmers, and off we go.

Changing the world can only work if the analyst succeeds in improving the plow (i.e., they must become the DEVELOPER, or frankly, the GENIUS).

A smaller success (for the farmer stakeholders and overall community) would be if the analyst resigns herself to making iron plow points (everyone has to eat).

By the way, a banker with an eye on the future and money to lend just MIGHT have much more LONG TERM influence, but less immediate influence (and impact). Anyone who can produce the next plow tip NOW might win friends quickly.

4. The most likely acceptable (and successful) solution for this time and place in Virginia would be:

  1. Mass production of plow tips
  2. Acceleration of the invention of steel tips
  3. Development of the first all iron plows
  4. Adding more animals for more power
  5. If you would just keep working as a blacksmith

Debbie 2014-03-25 14:53
TRES 4. D

Ravi 2014-03-25 17:23
DOS 4. A
Mass production would alleviate the delays in receiving plows allowing (D) more animals to be added. With B and D there is no guarantee that the problem will be addressed and in a reasonable time frame. E is not a good option since I can only produce so many plows.

Mohsin 2014-03-26 00:26
DOS 4. A

Teri 2014-03-26 07:18
DOS 4. A
Workers are available to produce. More animals require more equipment

Dan 2014-03-31 16:00
QUATTRO 4. B
Both Animals and Iron were scarce in 1714 so the solution of building an all iron plow, or mass producing plow heads would not have solved the blacksmith’s problem, and if you told poor settlers to “just go get more animals” you would be scoffed at. The best solution is better use of the resources you have .

Ramya 2014-04-01 10:40
TRES 4. D
Adding more animals [in a state rich in animal resource]. All others take significant money to initiate. Working as a blacksmith might be working but not by a BA who is actually there to provide a solution.

Bob F 2014-04-08 21:27
DOS 4. A
Quantity would always help; the sharper tips could become dull quickly esp. if due to rocks (and could break off if too sharp). More power might help (2nd).

Asif Jehangir 2014-04-20 02:41
TRES 4. D
Rest of the options will take too much time and effort.

Marcos says nice try everyone  (no hate mail please, question asked for the “most likely acceptable solution for this time and place in Virginia”):

UNO 4. E
Most likely acceptable. If YOU don’t apprentice to or become the blacksmith, someone else is bound to, no? While they build plow tips you can invent steel first, but I would go to Manchester, and I would NOT expect to get credit for the invention (since history shows that you didn’t )

5. The most “technologically accessible” solution offering improvement in plow performance would be:

  1. Mass production of plow tips
  2. Acceleration of the invention of steel tips
  3. Development of the first all iron plows
  4. Adding more animals for more power
  5. Making plow points sharper

Debbie 2014-03-25 14:53
TRES 5. C

Ravi 2014-03-25 17:23
UNO 5. A
is the most practical option. D is not a technical solution. B, C and E are options with unknown benefits.

Mohsin 2014-03-26 00:26
TRES 5. E

Teri 2014-03-26 07:18
TRES 5. E
See my answer to number 1, re-designing the plow tip

Dan 2014-03-31 16:00
TRES 5.E
Making sharper blades would have been the most technologically accessible solution, but it would not create long-term value since the plow heads were dulling too quickly already. A sharper point would just dull even quicker.

Ramya 2014-04-01 10:40
UNO 5. A
Initial problem was that the blacksmith is producing plow tips slow, so mass production. But then root cause may be known only after analyzing the soil, etc scenarios.

Bob F 2014-04-08 21:27
UNO 5. A
Mass production is doable assuming materials available – more blacksmiths sharing, around-the clock, in nearby towns. More power is definitely accessible but may not help – may not be a solution (so I wouldn’t call it a most-feasible solution).

Asif Jehangir 2014-04-20 02:41
TRES 5.E
Will ease out plowing.

Ravi, Ramya, Bob F. and Marcos all recommend mass production.

Iron and its sharpening has been around long enough that you need a breakthrough beyond the obvious. If you aren’t going for steel (sharpens better, AND it’s a little early, and you would probably want to move to Manchester, England, the “silicon valley” of the industrial revolution), mass production is most feasible. Can you organize a team of Virginians around process improvement?

AND mass production is much harder than you think – are you a natural leader, or maybe a metallurgist? Metallurgy has been around for at least 1200 years. Is it possible that there ARE limits to mass production of iron (never mind steel) and its needed forms – in Virginia if not in Manchester?

If you ARE a metallurgist, just get on with creating steel already and leave us BAs alone until you need to track your steel . We welcome HELP from any metallurgists in the house? Could steel be invented before the industrial revolution if one “knew the formula”, or are the temperatures and cauldrons and coke quality and air/oxygen needs not within reach of Virginian technology?

As a blacksmith apprentice it is conceivable that you could learn the limits of ironworking in Virginia (what about elsewhere?) and what (if anything) could increase productivity more than simply adding blacksmiths.

I (Marcos) just realized something! In Spanish, one would add Ferrers (Latin root “Ferrum” – Iron). Oh crud, Marcos’ subconscious having more influence than his conscious – where is that medic, anyway?

6. The most likely way to get your project off the ground would be:

  1. Convince all the farmers
  2. Convince the blacksmith
  3. Convince the competition
  4. All of the above
  5. Convince a banker

Debbie 2014-03-25 14:53
TRES 6. A

Ravi 2014-03-25 17:23
DOS 6. B
Since the best option identified is mass production of plows.

Mohsin 2014-03-26 00:26
TRES 6. A

Teri 2014-03-26 07:18
DOS 6. D
Farmers and blacksmiths need to be on the same page, competition encourages changes

Dan 2014-03-31 16:00
DOS 6. B
Once a better process/product exists adaption is easy as long as it is cost effective. With steel plows you are working with materials that the smiths are already using so additional funds aren’t needed, but convincing the blacksmith to change their process is going to be hard.

Ramya 2014-04-01 10:40
DOS 6. D
All the people [farmers and blacksmith should agree on mass production. then the competitors to accelerate the process.

Bob F 2014-04-08 21:27
UNO 6. E
Convince a banker to get a loan to hire/employ more blacksmiths is creative thinking. Next would be the “all of the above” answer (great and necessary to get everyone in line, but usually can’t get going without cash).

Asif Jehangir 2014-04-20 02:41
DOS 6. D

Bob F knows that Money Rules (while Marcos drools?)
(On the medic?)
(I/we think):

Any project will “get off the ground” if money is thrown at it – not always because everyone wants it (want does NOT hurt a project’s chances of funding and clearly doesn’t guarantee it).

IF you have influence with Bankers, you can use it to do lots of things, even if poorly. Best of all is to (of course) have the wide consensus AND the money – all stakeholders mattering can make for a really BIG win.

7. How did you explain your answers?

Just in case someone else is as brilliant as you, your explanation could be the tiebreaker.

8. AND, just for FUN theyouwehimermemarcoses ask (there are dozens of us now, we are explaining this to first responders without getting through, they think we are delirious, come in socraMarcos, come in…?):

You are in the present, and a person appears from the future and lets you know that the BA job has changed because …. ???

Ravi
…Every problem has been resolved and all processes are running as efficiently as they can.

Teri
…The world never runs out of issues/problems , but new ways to analyze them and come up with solutions will always evolve.

Dan
…Software became intelligent enough to eliminate QC issues, User Interfaces were so intuitive anyone could create good reports, and someone developed a program to make database integration seamless.

Ramya
…BA work is automated and business analysis now involves something great and innovative as usual.

Bob F
…Solution-Deliver-ers (used to be called programs) are so flexible / powerful / voice-instruction-driven now that you just communicate with the SD rules-reactor and it spits out the solution. So it is like RAD on steroids – a prototype is almost instantly available – you help guide the discussion to keep it on-topic and the job is all but done except for the inevitable “This is what I asked for but now that I see it, it, it, it,…

….DRUM ROLL….
….
….Hold It….
….
….
….Wait For It…
….
….Here It Comes…
….”It”….
….”It”….
….”It”….
….
….
….It isn’t what I want”.

Human nature hasn’t changed.

Thanks, numero UNO Bob F, for the last word, and for your winning entry. Thanks to everyone else for showing great thinking and instincts. Any DOS, TRES or Quattro’s were my confusion, bias from experience, or missed facts in the case study presented in February.

(Was it March? Marchos? Narchos? Wake up man, blink if you can hear us…).

Bob F. PLEASE choose your prize (list at bottom) and preferred mode of delivery.

I will contact you via BA Times comment mail and/or you can:

Best wishes to all my fearless readers (and creators, updaters and deleters)!

* PRIZES:

  • A chance to co-author a future blog in this space
  • A chunk of Silly Putty larger than a chicken egg
  • Free BABOK study charts
  • OR $20 of MY MONEY (sterilized, of course)
  • BA Times has NO liability for these prizes 

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.