Skip to main content

Tag: Methodologies

Planning for Requirements in Agile – How is it different from Waterfall?

Many teams struggle with their requirements approach, but it’s especially challenging for teams transitioning from waterfall to agile.

If the team neglected requirements planning in waterfall, they assume agile requires even less planning. This leads to even worse results than their traditional approach, and the agile transition fails.

If the team planned well in waterfall, then they struggle with agile’s iterations and timelines. They aren’t sure how to plan requirements without structured waterfall phases. Lacking an alternative, most teams default to their old approach by focusing on document deliverables, activities and time needed from stakeholders. But that document deliverable-based approach, conflicts strongly with agile values. Agile values focus on deliverables being defined as business outcomes and working software, rather than document based deliverables.

Agile calls business analysts to shift their thinking about requirements planning. Instead of focusing on document deliverables, agile BAs plan their approach by defining and prioritizing increments of value; or increments that move outcomes. They determine which increments provide the most value and in what order. Increments of value come in many shapes and sizes including things like fixing a defect, running an experiment, building a slice of a prototype, or a user story at various levels of detail.

In both approaches, best practices call for multiple levels of planning where teams decompose requirements from a high level to detailed levels. Since many of you are familiar with the BABOK v3, let’s use it as our guide for planning. Here’s how the BABOK’s BA planning tasks manifest themselves in an agile approach:

Plan Business Analysis Approach: choosing methodology, activities, tasks and deliverables.

This is where agile values can really shine! Not all projects fit the agile approach, but increasing complexity, ambiguity, and market volatility push teams to use an agile approach more frequently.

When using agile, your BA work focuses continually on priorities and backlog refinement. This is not a task or phase that is “one and done”—planning is ongoing. In fact, agile teams and BAs plan to re-plan!

Agile BAs evaluate priorities holistically. They look at the priorities and ask themselves:

  • How do these priorities align to delight the end user?
  • How do these priorities align with strategic objectives?
  • Can these priorities be chunked into smaller increments of value?
  • Does the entire feature need to be built or can the team define incremental and usable versions of the feature?
  • Where does each new increment rank in priority compared to the other items on the backlog?

Agile planning is about getting quick feedback from users to inform decisions on the next level of planning and establish priorities. Agile BAs work closely with the product owner to track the visions and direction of the solution, to understand high level priorities, and to break down priorities into smaller pieces that can be delivered quickly to get user feedback.

Plan Stakeholder Engagement: identifying and collaborating with stakeholders.

Here BAs work closely with the product owner to determine who the various stakeholders are and how the team will interact with them.

Using the product vision, roadmap and backlog as a guide, BAs can determine:

  • who the important stakeholders are
  • when we expect to need time from them
  • how much time we need to work with them on story refinement
  • how and when to get feedback on the solution as it gets built

Advertisement

When requirements planning is ongoing, BAs continuously work on the backlog. They understand what is in the short-, mid- and long-term so they can anticipate when stakeholders are needed. Some stakeholders will interact regularly and some less frequently with an agile team.

Plan Business Analysis Governance: making good, consistent decisions while managing resources and risks.

When teams truly embrace the agile principles, there is actually more governance than you see in many waterfall or traditional approaches.

Why is this? Because there is a clear decision-making process and a clear role accountable for the decisions. In agile business analysis, this means knowing who the product owner is, and working closely with them as the decision maker. It entails helping the product owner understand when certain decisions are critical and ensuring they have the needed information to make them.

Plan Business Analysis Information Management: how to capture, store and integrate information gathered by business analysts.

Traditional projects teams capture and store requirements in documents and requirements tools. Agile teams can also use tools, but they tend to rely more on whiteboards, walls, flipcharts and sticky notes to capture and store requirements. With agile teams there is a lot less work in progress, so there is less to manage at a detailed documentation level.

The key in agile is for everyone to understand the big picture vision of where the solution is headed, and the details of what is currently being worked on. Agile calls us to think about what we are documenting. BAs on agile teams always ask themselves:

  • Is this documentation valuable and useful?
  • Who does this documentation provide value to?
  • When is the documentation needed?
  • How long will the documentation provide value?

One thing I commonly see teams concerned about is the life of the requirements. They hesitate to move away from big requirements documents because flip charts and sticky notes don’t seem like legitimate artifacts for future reference and support. I struggle with this because I have never seen it to be a good practice to use requirements documents as support documentation. This puts an undue burden on the requirements process and slows it down. Documentation of what was built and how it will be used is not the same as requirements. These are different artifacts and different purposes.

Identify Business Analysis Performance Improvements: managing and monitoring business analysis work for continuous improvement.

This is the “monitoring task” in the BABOK rather than a planning task. Agile teams use retrospectives to improve performance. The retrospectives facilitate continuous improvements in:

  • team processes
  • team collaboration
  • the quality of team and individual work

Whether you use the BABOK as a guide for requirements planning or take your own approach, remember that balance is the key. Avoid diving recklessly into the action without a plan, but don’t let planning be a burden that prevents progress. Whether your team is agile or traditional, find the balance that consistently and efficiently delivers value to your end users

Facilitators skills – Getting the most from your workshop

What is the different between workshop and meeting?

Meetings are focused on sharing information and creating “Buy-in” or awareness for the topic being discussed. Meetings can cover a wide range of topics as part of its agenda. Workshops typically focus on one topic and are more hands on for the attendees. For example, weekly regional meeting would cover sales performance, pipeline activities, departmental risks and other key metrics. Whereas, a RFP requirements weighting workshop would focus on the topic of weighting requirements that will form the RFP to be issued.

Workshops Facilitator:

The facilitator creates the energy that enables teams / groups to collaborate and achieve positive outcome within the workshop. They try to stay neutral and do not express opinion or lead the team towards a decision. The can support the team if they require clarification or directions on next steps in the workshop.

Key stages on workshop decision making:

When you present a new topic for discussion in a work, you may have a good sense of the answer(s). Unfortunately, when we are working on complex and dynamic problems we need the synergy of the workshop group to formulate the key decision points. The dynamics of the workshop group typically leads to multiple competing decision points to each new topic. As a facilitator, you are stuck in the loop of additional workshops to review each decision point, which in turn generates more and more. This is sometimes referred to as a rabbit hole. Your workshop team has lost focus and direction.

Getting the team from divergent thinking (many unstructured decision points) to a convergent thinking approach (fewer decision points) is the key activity of the facilitator. The key steps to managing the workshop group through these decision point stages is as follows:

  • New topic
    • Present topic is a logic manner, ensure everyone attending understands the basis of the topic and why it is being discussed.
  • Familiar opinions stage
    • This will be the point in the workshop that many opinions are expressed by the group. These suggestions will be close to their current knowledge area. Think of a problem topic in your business and you will quickly generate several solutions / options to resolve.
  • • Diverse perspectives stage
    • The facilitator pushes the group to generate more ideas / suggestions to move forward on the topic. These suggestions are fewer in quantity to the previous stage. The objective is more variety and fresh thinking to push the options available
  • Consolidated thinking stage
    • Now the facilitator reduces and removes options from the decision-making options. The facilitator will group similar options, remove no longer valid suggestions. The removal can be done with some voting for best options, those with lowest votes are removed.
  • Refinement stage
    • Building more validity into the remaining suggestions. Thinking and focusing on viability and possible proof of concept to test the suggestions.
  • Decision point
    • The best suggestion is now presented to the business as the output from the workshop group.

As can be seen the facilitator needs to allow the team to move through the stages of dynamic group decision making. They will initially create a lot of similar ideas to these existing knowledge base, then expand their thinking. This will create a wide range of suggestions. The facilitator will filter, consolidate and remove suggestions towards the final decision point.

Does Your Toolkit Contain Traceability?

Business analysis is not for the faint hearted. At the heart of business analysis lies eliciting, analysing, validating and managing needs, value and requirements, no matter what approach and method is used.

Requirements (written as user stories or otherwise), should align to the needs of the business whereas design definition represents the solution put in place to address those needs.
A smart and diligent sponsor and project manager will never risk the possibility of misalignment between the solution design and the requirements, value and needs. A slot is made in the project plan to call upon the expert in this space, a good business analyst who will take due care to ensure that the design definition aptly meets the stated requirements and highlight areas of misalignment. To do so, the business analyst leverages a distinct tool in the toolkit, known as – ‘Requirements traceability’. Equipped with this tool, along with an analytical mind, the business analyst should continually review the design to ensure that the solution aligns with the requirements.

Time and effort invested by the Business Analyst in tracing the requirements against elements of the solution design help to confirm areas of alignment and flag areas of misalignment between the two. Managing traceability of needs, value and requirements against design helps identify a requirement or a set of requirements that is not met by the solution or a functionality. On the other hand, it also helps to identify areas within the solution or those functionalities that do not support any requirement.


Advertisement

Layering the solution design map on top of the traceability helps the Business Analyst to provide a managerial summary along with a stratified view that suits a broad spectrum of audience. In simple terms, while requirements traceability provides the fact, a solution design compliance map helps to publish those facts at various dimensions and helps decision makers to pull the right levers to fill the gaps. While the requirements traceability highlights the trace between each functional component of the solution design, and requirements, the solution design map summarises the extent to which the solution design meets the stated requirements.

A solution design map aids smarter impact analysis and informed decision making. It is good to provide a hawk-eye’s view and then dive into details. To start with, provide a view of the overall compliance of the solution design against the stated requirements. This will help identify the number of requirements that have been either fully met, or partially met or not met at all or those that have been removed from scope. The following pie-chart is a good example of that:

powle 09062017a

Requirements should be prioritised based on their value to the business. It is important for decision makers to understand the extent of solution design compliance against the most critical requirements and that against the rest of the requirements. The following pie-chart provides an example of that:

powle 09062017b

The requirements can also be attributed against the functional areas of the business to give an indication on which areas the solution has initially met the requirements against best. This gives a greater insight into risk identification and risk management.

powle 09062017c

Leveraging tools such as requirements traceability and solution design compliance maps help the Business Analyst perform a thorough review of the final design specifications against the requirements and presents the findings at a level that help influence the decision makers to make changes and ensure an optimum alignment between the two. Traceability, therefore, is the key to managing needs, value, requirements, and the solution.

Business Analysis Canvas, Roadmap to Effective BA excellence.

Business Analysis and the role it plays has evolved over time as organizations strive towards refinement, improvement, and optimization.

A Business Analyst is someone whose role and function is ever changing with organizational evolution. The pace of change has increased over the last few years as more and more organizations shift towards a technology enabled future. Technology does provide the opportunity to harness efficiencies in process automation/removal as well as improved speed to change.

To allow for the change it is important for the organization to understand the pivotal role the Business Analyst plays within the realization of organizational development.

The Business Analyst role has developed into a mix of an internal consultant to a financial expert. When I consider the Business Analyst it is with the mindset of an internal consultant supporting the organization throughout the project life cycle.

With this said, I propose the following definition of Business Analyst:

“A business analyst is someone who analyzes and documents business, processes or systems. Assesses and recommending the business model or its integration with technology.”

There were a number of key questions posed whilst conducting research:

  • What are the key questions Business Analysts need to ask?
  • How can a Business Analysis plan be effectively communicated?
  • What supporting documentation would assist all Business Analysts?
  • How can a book become a playbook to support current and future needs of Business Analysts?

Extensive research, personal experience, group work, and collaboration have answered these questions. Each section of this book seeks out to provide insight to the Business Analysis activities to support the Business Analyst complete their duties more efficiently.

CANVAS

The CANVAS is not a magic pill that will resolve all your Business Analysis concerns/issues. It is a flexible approach to complex matters.

That sounds rather grand, what is meant by this statement is the fact that the CANVAS is a robust or troubleshooting tool that can be applied to the most complex of Business Analysis activities in a simple, yet refined manner. The CANVAS is repeatable and easy to share with subject matter experts (SME’s) and other stakeholders.


Advertisement

There are some suggested questions in the sections to follow that will help you build our your Canvas for sharing and communicating with project stakeholders.

Kelly 08102017

Section – Project Objectives

  1. What are the high-level expectations of the project?
  2. What is the project trying to change/improve/remove?
  3. Is this project part of a larger program, if yes, what is the expectation of the program?
  4. Has there been a project plan development for all project activity (beyond Business Analysis activity)?
  5. Is the business edging towards a specific outcome (try to identify embedded bias within the organization)?
  6. What systems/processes are affected by this project engagement?

Section – Stakeholders

  1. Who are the Stakeholder groups affected by this project?
  2. Where are these Stakeholder groups located?
  3. How complex is each Stakeholder group?
  4. What is the Attitude / Influence of each Stakeholder?
  5. What is the impact of the project on each Stakeholder?
  6. What is the Decision-making Authority of each Stakeholder?

Section – Deliverables

  1. What is the Deliverable key area(s)?
  2. How detailed is the Deliverable required to be?
  3. Is there an opportunity to review previous Deliverables?
  4. What is the approval/sign off expectations for each Deliverable?
  5. What is the sequence of the Deliverables (if more than one)?
  6. What are project dependencies aligned to each Deliverable?

Section – Communication Approach

  1. Who needs to be communicated?
  2. What does each group need to understand in the communication?
  3. What form does each group require?
  4. Who is the owner of this communication transmission?
  5. How often does each communication need to be sent?
  6. Is this communication part of the larger project communication approach?

Section – Key Dates

  1. What is the overall project completion date?
  2. What is the sequence of the project (key tasks/phases)?
  3. When do we expect each key task/phase to be completed?
  4. What are the elements of the key tasks/phases relating to Business Analysis activity?
  5. When is the Business Analysis resource expected to be off boarded from the project?
  6. What is the expected Business Analysis resource availability/allocation on the overall project?

Section – Responsibilities

  1. Who is the project sponsor and steering committee (if available)?
  2. Who are the SME identified for each key Business Analysis Activity?
  3. What are business units in which the Business Analysis activities will take place?
  4. Who are the Talent allocated to the Business Analysis project (who is doing work and producing deliverables)?
  5. Who is accountable for the overall deliverables / Business Analysis Activity and does this person(s) change depending upon the deliverable?

Section – Target Operating Model (TOM)

PEOPLE QUESTIONS –

  1. Will the project affect staffing hours of operating?
  2. Will labor structure change (number of people required to complete the role(s))?
  3. Does the skills/capabilities of the resource base change?

PROCESS QUESTIONS

  1. What processes are effected within the future state?
  2. How do these processes change the overall organization value stream?
  3. What are the process dependencies?
  4. What is the customer journey impacts of the change to process?

TECHNOLOGY QUESTIONS –

  1. Which Legacy systems will be impacted by the change?
  2. How is the enterprise architecture impacted by the project activity?
  3. What are the process touch points impacted with technology changes?

Section – Scheduling

  1. How long is the Business Analysis project activity (i.e. when is it starting and expected completed date)
  2. What resources are available to support the Business Analysis activity?
  3. What percentage of the time are these resources allocated to the Business Analysis specific activity (be mindful the resource may be working on other elements of the project beyond the Business Analyst activity)?
  4. What are the deliverables or their sequence?

Explore more of the Business Analysis Canvas:

The Business Analysis Canvas has been designed to quickly be adapted to meet your project needs. The questions help guide the Business Analysis through the steps of gathering and completing the information required to effectively kick off the Business Analysis project.

You can explore more of the CANVAS by downloading CANVAS templates, tools, PowerPoint side decks and additional information from www.BusinessAnalysisCanvas.com

Survival Guide: Bouncing Back and Forth Between Agile AND Waterfall

Are you bouncing back and forth between agile and waterfall? It’s quite common these days for Business Analysts to grapple with both agile and traditional approaches to requirements and development work.

This can be frustrating, and Business Analysts may feel like a ping pong ball, getting smacked back and forth between two different worlds.

APPROVED Graphic10

Assuming this scenario is not going to change, Business Analysts need to find a way to reduce their frustration level and think about their work a little differently. It’s time to change up the game!

Have you ever heard a coach tell an athlete, “Be the ball.” I never understood this advice, but it doesn’t work for Business Analysts in our Agile/Waterfall ping-pong scenario. So, let’s change perspectives. Instead of getting smacked around by multiple methodologies, Business Analysts can take charge of their methodologies. It just takes a shift in thinking, like this:

APPROVED Graphic11

Now the Business Analysts are in the power position, taking charge of how to approach each incoming ping pong ball. Some might require finesse, some might require backspin, some might require a long volley, and we might even duck and let some fly right past us.

It’s the same for Business Analysts moving between agile and traditional projects—they modify their approach to match the work that is flying at them. The best way to survive and do consistently excellent requirements work is to consider what stays the same and what’s different.

To explore the similarities and differences, let’s see what happens when an agile ping pong ball and a waterfall ping pong ball collide. Hello, ping pong Venn diagram!

APPROVED Graphic12

Let’s start with what’s different—team structures and team operations/procedures. In most cases, the structure of a traditional team looks a lot different than an agile team. A traditional team might have a defined hierarchy, where an agile structure might be flat, with several self-organized teams with loosely defined roles. The way the teams operate could be quite different too including the way the team collaborates, the timing and sequence of tasks, the process for reporting and measuring progress, etc.
BAs need to learn to roll with these differences, but luckily these differences don’t impact core Business Analysis work. It turns out the things that remain the same, in the center of our ping pong Venn, are the most important components of good requirements regardless of methodology. If Business Analysts focus their energy on these three areas, it will reduce the frustration of bouncing between Agile and traditional approaches.

Focus on the Customer

Both approaches demand we look at requirements from a customer point of view. The customer point of view carries most requirements and rarely fails us as a place to start requirements conversations. In both agile and traditional approaches, BAs are called to expand the definition of customer to include everyone who uses the solution internally and externally. BAs are also called to find innovative ways to identify and meet each customer’s rapidly changing needs.

Cultivate Conversations

Successful BAs in both agile and traditional environments use powerful conversations as the focus of their requirements process. Even in traditional/waterfall approaches, conversations are critical to getting to well-written requirements.

Powerful conversations take place with individuals or in groups and require a variety of elicitation techniques including brainstorming, games, models and visuals. Powerful conversations should be layered with whitespace—this means giving stakeholders time to process their thoughts internally before large group discussions.

Whether you are using an agile or traditional approach, cultivating conversations means dialog comes before requirements documentation. BAs let go of the temptation to hold a meeting to “review” a document or items in a tool before the team has a powerful and meaningful dialog. BAs who focus on conversations know that dialog before documentation speeds up the requirements process for both agile and traditional projects.

Avoid the HOW

Digging into the technical details, before the team understands customer needs, damages agile and traditional projects. So, let go of technical details. The BA role helps the technical team understand the needs and even collaborates on possible designs to meet the needs, but BAs should avoid the urge to tell the technical team exactly how to develop the solution.

Many BAs have knowledge of the technical details but realize this knowledge becomes outdated quickly. It can be tough to let go of knowledge, but remember, technical knowledge is not what makes BAs successful. Instead, focus on the user, goals, data, rules, and business process all with an eye on the future state. Don’t let your knowledge of the current or past keep you stuck there.

The truth is that BAs need to be versatile to survive! They need to be able to handle a wide variety of ping pong balls. This is not a new expectation. Successful BAs have always been able to operate in diverse environments. No teams or organizations work the same. Global teams, virtual teams, agile teams, hybrid teams, vendor teams and even internal teams choose different approaches to project work. Successful BAs stay focused on customers and conversations regardless of the methodology their team uses to deliver solutions.

Please leave your comments below.