Skip to main content

Tag: Leadership

BATimes_Oct03_2024

The Hidden Cost of Side Quests: How BAs Can Protect Their Time

Back in the late 2000s, I started a new job, having worked for my previous employer for a long time. It was a really weird feeling—I can still remember entering the building, being assigned a desk, logging in and there being virtually no email for me.

I was already assigned to a project, and I was introduced to a key stakeholder. It was a fairly small project, albeit with some hidden complexity. Working with the project team, we got it done, and the analysis work was done pretty quickly.

Partly, this was because I was new and keen to make an impression. But, on reflection, another reason I was able to get the analysis done quickly was (as a new team member) I didn’t yet have the overhead of a whole number of ‘side quests’ that tend to accumulate over time.

 

What Type of “Side Quests” might a BA be drawn into?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve been drawn into a whole range of other activities. Often there are good reasons for this, but sometimes I can’t help but think that what I’m really doing is filling a gap in the organizational structure.

Examples might include:

  • Providing production support to production systems: (“You wrote the requirements, you know how it works…”). This might be genuinely useful and necessary in a transition period, but I suspect a few people reading this are still supporting some elements of a system they worked with years ago, and that sounds like gap filling!
  • Quality assurance: BAs absolutely can feed into testing. Yet, as much as I’ll give some (very limited) testing a go, I know that I am not a professional QA engineer, I have a different skill set. In fact, I love working with QA colleagues, as they will often help me sharpen my game by reminding me that quality assurance is about a lot more than testing, and they can provide useful peer reviews on requirements artifacts too.
  • Messy workarounds: If there’s a ‘temporary’ workaround, it might make sense for a BA to help operationalize it. Yet, issues occur when the organization decides that workaround isn’t ‘temporary’, and three years later somehow you’re still lumbered with the task of deciphering operational data via an unmanageable spreadsheet with macros…and everyone is shouting that they need it ‘today!’

 

In all of these cases, it can be valid for BAs to be involved for a limited amount of time. Context is everything. Yet, being drawn in for too long, or finding that it becomes a permanent part of your repertoire could be damaging.

Put differently: If a BA ends up providing perpetual informal production support for every system or process they are involved with changing or deploying, then they have less capacity to do business analysis after every project. There will come a time when their role is more support than analysis.

 

Advertisement

 

Saying “No” by giving options

The challenge, though, is that these ‘side quests’ often are important to someone, and might be crucial to the organization, which makes them hard to say no to. A key question here is around prioritization: are they as important as the project work. Or put differently: should the project work be delayed, to create space for the side quest.  If a project is the priority, then this might mean saying no to a side quest or two… but that can be hard.

So what approaches are there for saying “no” constructively?

 

I live in the UK, and if you’re not familiar with our culture, it’s somewhat indirect.  In fact, when I say “somewhat indirect”, what I actually mean is “completely indirect to the point I literally don’t know how non-native English speakers decode what we are trying to say most of the time”.  So, as you can imagine, a curt “no” can be tricky. What follows is written through the lens of a UK citizen, things might be different where you are.

With regards to saying “no”, I once had a fantastic manager who gave the following advice which has always stuck with me:

“Try not to say ‘no’ outright, unless you really need to. Instead, find a way of saying ‘yes’ by giving implications and options”

 

This might sound like:

“Yes, I could absolutely take a look at that production support issue. That’ll likely take around half a day, which will delay a core project deliverable. Shall we go and speak to the project manager to ensure that’s OK? If it isn’t, perhaps I could ping you over some documents that might help, and I’ll be on hand for any quick queries?”

“Yes, I can certainly continue to help with the manual workaround. However, I’m likely to be a bit of a bottleneck, due to project work, which is always going to take priority as it’s my core role. I wouldn’t want to delay you. How about I train one of your team? I could also make a quick video of the process, so they have something to refer to. Then you’re in complete control”

 

Sometimes It’s a Hard “no”

While the approach described above will work in many situations, there will be times when a hard ‘no’ is necessary. In those cases, in my experience, it’s best to be direct (however uncomfortable that is). I have been amazed that often when I say no, and give the reasons, people are actually extremely understanding. Even if they aren’t, it’ll be some short-term discomfort while the issue is discussed, instead of long term pain (if you’ve ever taken on too much work, you’ll know how painful that feeling of overwhelm can be!).

Ultimately, whether to say ‘no’, and how to say it varies depending on context. You have to do what’s right for you. I hope this blog has given you some food for thought!

BATimes_Aug28_2024

Navigating Multiple ‘Right’ Answers in Business Analysis

We’ve probably all experienced situations where there are multiple ‘right’ answers to a question. This is particularly true with questions that appear straightforward, but actually hide significant nuance. Let’s take a seemingly simple question;

“Who released the song ‘The Boys of Summer’?”

 

If you know the answer, you might instinctively reply “Don Henly”. However, if you said The Ataris, or DJ Sammy, you’d also be correct, all of these bands/artists have released the song. Depending on when you were born and the type of music you listen to, you might be familiar with one, many or none of those tracks. You might even know of other versions!

Equally, you might have interpreted the question ‘who released this song’ as relating to the record label or promoter. So you equally might have responded “Geffen” or “Universal Music Group”, and you’d have been correct…

If it’s hard to get a single ‘right’ answer to a seemingly simple question like the one mentioned above, what hope do we have when undertaking requirements elicitation? We might be seeking to understand how a particular process works today, how things could be improved, or perhaps we’re wanting to understand potential requirements for an IT system. People are naturally going to have different opinions and experiences.

Yet if different people have different ways of undertaking the work, or if there are different views on what ‘good’ would look like, what do we do? How do we avoid missing (or misunderstanding) crucial information?

 

Advertisement

 

Avoiding Elicitation Woes

There’s no silver bullet, but three key considerations are specificity, multi-sourcing and modeling.

Firstly, it’s worth thinking about the specificity of any elicitation activity. By this I mean what level of granularity are we seeking. If we are at the very beginning of an initiative, we might be seeking answers to very big, macro-level questions. These will help us determine what direction we should take and where we should follow up. By their nature, these questions are big and fluffy, and there can be a tolerance for error in the answers. “Do you think the claims process works well?” is a big, broad, question. If the answer is “no” then it gives us something to follow up on.

 

Equally, as we get closer to granular requirements, we ought to be seeking very specific information. It’s crucial to actively seek to understand key terminology and probe into specific areas. We might probe into particular areas where improvements are necessary, and this is likely to require uncovering more and more detail. Feeling empowered to ask “what do you mean by that?” is a must.

Specifying contextual information such as the timeframe or situation is key. “In 2003, which band released ‘The boys of summer’ from their album ‘So Long, Astoria’” is a more specific question than the one mentioned at the beginning of this article. Equally “once a potential insurance claim has been reported by a policyholder by phone, what determines what happens next? What rules or decision logic are applied, and how?” is a more specific question than simply asking “what happens with claims?”.

 

Embrace Multiple Sources

However much specificity we gain, rarely will one person (or team) have a full view of a situation or process. Seeking multiple sources of the ‘truth’ is important. How a procurement process works, and whether it is efficient or not, will depend on who you ask. A procurement team might think its processes are very efficient, but managers from other departments trying to procure services might disagree as they feel procuring a product or service takes too long. External service providers might have a different view, particularly if their invoices aren’t paid on time!

Understanding different stakeholders’ perspectives will help to gain a 360 degree view. This helps avoid situations where an improvement is implemented that works very well for one group, but makes life much harder for others.

 

Modeling for Validation

Elicitation and modeling are sometimes seen as separate activities, and I have never understood why. I’m sure I’m not the only person who has sat with a stakeholder and sketched out a process, then quickly shown my sketch and said “is that what you mean?”.

Creating informal models is a great way of ensuring that everyone is on the same page, and also a great way to spot gaps. It might identify that there are different teams undertaking a process in different ways—and one way of improving the situation might be to unify this.

Not only this, but having some kind of model to point at ensures that areas of agreement/disagreement can be clearly highlighted. Creating a shared model, whether that’s an ‘as is’ or a ‘to be’ model, ensures that people are on the same page. It helps avoid situations where everyone appears to agree, but different stakeholders have slightly different views on what should be done.

 

The Power of Perspectives

All of this highlights the power of perspectives. Typically different stakeholder groups each know a bit about a particular situation or process. The art is to get enough coverage, enough variety, sufficient perspectives, to see a feasible and desirable way forward.

Doing so will ensure that the end solution or product is one that the stakeholders actually want to use!

BATimes_Aug15_2024

The Deadline Dilemma: Unpacking the Reality of Arbitrary Timelines

Perhaps I’ve been doing this job so long that I’ve become a little cynical, but I have a theory. I suspect that 80% (or more) of deadlines that are given are completely arbitrary. They are either based on ‘finger in the air’ guesstimates of when something is needed, or (in some cases) they are just plucked out of thin air. What is particularly difficult is when the person setting the deadline has no real idea of what the work is or how long the work will take.

 

An Example: The Deadline That Creeps Up

In a previous role, a long time ago, I was working on what I believed to be a very time critical deliverable. Once it was complete a senior executive would be using it, and I was told that the deadline was non-negotiable. The project manager was very clear: the work has to be completed, there can be no slippage. Initially, it looked just about achievable, so I set off doing my work.

 

As is so often the case, the work turned out to be more complex than anyone had realized. I escalated, and explained things were likely to take longer than anyone had assumed, and was told that there’s no chance of extending the deadline. Since I was enjoying the work and the deadline seemed so important I was happy to put in some late nights. Towards the end, I worked some weekends too, and just about got it over the line in time. I was tired, but it felt good as I uploaded the final version and emailed the senior stakeholder.

 

However, that feel-good factor soon faded when I immediately got a response: an automated ‘out of office’ explaining that the stakeholder was on vacation for a week. Investigating further, I find that yes, this person is on vacation, and this had been planned for a long time (they hadn’t taken emergency leave at short notice).

 

The deliverable wouldn’t be utilized for a week. There was actually a week of ‘slack’ built into the plan, but nobody told me. I could have slept more and I needn’t have worked the weekend…

 

My Bad: Not Asking “What Is The Implication Of This…”

It would be easy to blame the project manager or senior stakeholder in this story, but I don’t. In fact, it taught me something really important about deadlines. When a deadline is tight, it’s important to ask questions to understand how ‘hard’ and constrained it is. Ultimately here, we’re testing the constraints. Questions include:

 

 

There are many other questions too, and the intention here is to understand what is a real, immovable constraint and what isn’t.

 

Being Clear on Estimates

Equally, alongside asking questions, it is important to drive analysis deadlines on analysis estimates, rather than accepting arbitrary deadlines. There is often uncertainty, and if it is necessary to have a detailed plan up front, then the schedule ought to be based on a practitioner’s assessment of how long the work will take. If a deadline is found to be arbitrary or malleable, then planning forward and explaining what is possible in a particular timeframe can be a useful approach. Whatever approach is taken, getting regular feedback, updating estimates and pivoting accordingly is important, as is managing expectations.

 

In summary: understanding what is a real constraint and what isn’t is crucial. This can be achieved by asking provocative but important questions.

 

 

BATimes_May30_2024

Unpacking BA Requirements for the Blockchain Industry

When the word blockchain is heard, cryptocurrency comes to mind next. Some need to realize that cryptocurrency is just digital money and other digital monies, such as stablecoins, exist.

What exactly does blockchain mean?

A blockchain is a shared or decentralized digital ledger of public, private, or hybrid transactions. It relies heavily on the flow of information and, in this case, the flow of transactions across many computers in a business network. This specifies that the blockchain wouldn’t have any core function without information or data. A blockchain network provides a shared, simple, single view of transactions, signifying that transparency is a strength and a win in this industry. Blockchain can potentially revolutionize how enterprises transact business and solve problems creatively.

 

What makes blockchain, blockchain?

The presence of a distributed ledger, which is the shared database in the network that stores the transactions; smart contracts, which are used to self-manage business contracts without the need for 3rd parties, which means they are triggered automatically when certain conditions are met; public key cryptography, which is used to identify the members in the business network; and permissions necessary to ensure that all transactions are secure, authenticated, and verifiable.

 

Is there a future for business analysis in this delicate but ever-evolving industry?

As business analysts, we have the strength to feature in any industry or organization and play an integral and delicate role in bridging the gap between the present and the future. Remember, business analysts need to understand that they exist to drive change while still understanding the capabilities and competencies of every shift (Read, Business Analysis, how and why I need to evolve).

Taking a deep dive into the future of business analysis in this industry, business analysts must have at least a basic understanding of how this industry works and the specific details related to the company in which they work. This will help you understand details that would help you identify the business needs and vision, understand the potential of this technology, and align it with the organization’s objectives—understanding how the industry works can be a solid requirement for benchmarking and market analysis in an event where this becomes necessary.

 

Secondly, the blockchain industry would thrive on the practical and right adoption and application of use cases, which is where business analysis comes in. This is necessary to identify specific use cases that highlight value to the enterprise or company and even the industry as a whole. Business analysts are crucial to determining the context in which blockchain helps attain value or change. Furthermore, this will be useful in communicating diverse use cases for blockchain technology to various audiences with differing levels of technology understanding and divergent business needs. This remains a critical gap; thus, there is a need to ensure and manage stakeholder collaboration, involvement, and engagement.

 

Advertisement

 

Thirdly, stakeholders, top management, process owners, and project sponsors need to understand and assess the potential value blockchain would bring, possibly a solution to an identified problem, and determine if it meets their standards. Value assessment could be performed using a SWOT analysis, feasibility studies, cost-benefit analysis, market mapping, decision analysis, modeling, etc. An analysis of possible weaknesses and challenges this technology is prone to is an essential task all business analysts must perform, some of which include security concerns, as there is a possibility that distributed ledgers and smart contracts could introduce security concerns, data access, and storage issues based on the decentralized/consensus mechanisms (proof of work), and the evolving regulatory landscape surrounding blockchain can significantly impact and influence business requirements. It is pertinent to note that regulatory requirements always prevail to avoid costs and penalties in requirement prioritization. For example, the Nigerian government initially placed a ban on cryptocurrency but lifted this ban in December 2023. In this situation, business analysts would need to assess the viability with due consideration of the unstable regulatory requirements.

 

Fourth, when translating business requirements, there is a need for business analysts to walk closely with the stakeholders, both internal and external, to critically understand the business requirements and correctly translate them to technical specifications through functional decomposition. Suppose the requirements are not adequately broken down into functional and non-functional requirements. In that case, being able to develop use cases might be a challenge, hence the need for a business analyst. However, it is essential to mention that the role of a business analyst extends beyond developing use cases; they also play a vital role in all the business analysis knowledge areas such as planning and monitoring, elicitation and collaboration, requirements life cycle management, requirements analysis, design definition, strategy analysis, and solution evaluation.

 

Conclusion

Business analysts working with blockchain must be adaptable and embrace continuous learning. There is a need to master new skills while adapting existing BA practices and their skills to this evolving technology. Armed with the knowledge that the future holds exciting possibilities for BA professionals who embrace the transformative potential of blockchain, business analysts need to take the necessary steps to ensure that they will be well-positioned to navigate this dynamic and transformative landscape.

BATimes_Apr18_2024

Beyond Frameworks: Agile Insights from a BA’s Odyssey

Reflecting on my journey from a Junior Business Analyst to a seasoned Business Analyst and eventually evolving into a role where Business Analysis and Product Management intersect, I’ve had the privilege to contribute to organizations as diverse as Boeing, Rolls-Royce, and EPAM, alongside navigating the unique challenges of smaller entities.

This path, spanning over 13 years and multiple domains, has equipped me with a deep understanding of Business Analysis from the grassroots, teaching me the crucial balance between adhering to frameworks and embracing the agility necessary for today’s dynamic business environment. This narrative is an exploration of that journey, emphasizing the transition from rigid methodologies to agile adaptability, and the critical importance of customer focus and stakeholder management.

 

In the early stages of my career, the allure of frameworks was undeniable. They presented a structured way of understanding Business Analysis and Product Management, offering a semblance of control and predictability in the chaotic realm of project management.

However, as I progressed, the limitations of these frameworks became increasingly apparent. The real-world application of Business Analysis goes beyond the confines of any framework. It demands an acute awareness of the shifting business landscape and the ability to think on one’s feet—a blend of deep analytical thinking and pragmatic street smarts.

 

This evolution in perspective was mirrored in my approach to project management. Initially, my focus was on mastering the technical aspects: understanding the ‘what’ and ‘why’ to navigate towards solutions and create value for users. Yet, I quickly learned that the essence of effective Business Analysis lies in the ability to communicate, adapt, and understand the broader business context—skills that are foundational yet flourish only with experience and deliberate practice.

 

Communication emerged as the cornerstone of my professional development. The capacity to engage with a diverse set of stakeholders—customers, engineers, designers, and executives—and synthesize their insights is paramount. It’s a skill that goes beyond mere articulation; it’s about understanding the audience, choosing the right words, and effectively conveying complex ideas in a manner that resonates.

This skill set has been instrumental in navigating the complexities of projects, ensuring alignment across teams, and driving towards common goals with clarity and purpose.

 

As I embraced the agile methodology, the importance of flexibility became glaringly evident. Agile is not just a buzzword; it’s a mindset that values adaptability, customer-centricity, and continuous improvement.

It challenged me to think differently about project management, to be more iterative in my approach, and to prioritize direct feedback loops with stakeholders and customers. This agility has been crucial in climbing the project ladder, allowing for rapid pivots and adjustments in response to new insights or changing market dynamics.

 

Customer focus and stakeholder management have been the bedrock of my growth as a Business Analyst. Recognizing the criticality of these aspects, I’ve dedicated myself to becoming adept at navigating the complex web of stakeholder relationships and ensuring that the voice of the customer is always at the forefront of decision-making. This has involved honing my ability to manage expectations, articulate value propositions clearly, and foster an environment of trust and collaboration.

 

Advertisement

 

In retrospect, the journey from adhering strictly to frameworks to adopting a more flexible, agile approach has been transformative. It has taught me that while frameworks provide valuable guidance, the essence of Business Analysis and Product Management lies in the ability to adapt, communicate effectively, and maintain a relentless focus on the customer and business objectives.

As I continue to navigate this ever-evolving landscape, these insights will remain central to my approach, guiding my decisions and actions in the pursuit of creating meaningful, impactful solutions.