Tag: Planning

The Tyranny Of “Default”: Be Careful When Choosing Analysis Techniques/Artifacts!

Written by Adrian Reed on November 3, 2022. Posted in Articles.

At its essence, a lot of what we do as business analysts involves co-creating a shared understanding. Whether that’s a shared understanding of a problematic situation, or of a set of requirements or features, a common theme is that we work to understand different perspectives and ensure that people are ‘on the same page’.

This can cause some challenges when we want to communicate complex ideas. Text is a challenging media to convey complexity, and the English language is just brimming with words that have multiple meanings. For that reason, it’s very usual to use a combination of text, models and conversations to ensure that key stakeholders are aligned.

When we create a model, we are essentially codifying some information in a way that can be later referred to. Codifying typically involves using some form of notation (whether that’s a business process modeling notation, or the symbols of an alphabet when writing text), and there will usually be particular rules on what elements of the notation mean and how they should be used. For example, particular shapes on a process model represent particular things, particular words in a textual paragraph have a particular meaning.

Yet when we encode our analysis in this way, how often do we reflect and think “will my stakeholders understand this?”. Will the consumers of the information both know how to read it, and, ideally like referring to it as it’s a format that works for them? Perhaps we don’t think about this quite as often as we could…

The Tyranny Of “Default”

I have a confession to make. I love Business Process Model & Notation (BPMN). I could quite easily ‘geek out’ and create process models to an executable level, using just about every BPMN symbol and construct that is available to me. But, as those of you who are familiar with BPMN will attest, if I did that the resulting diagram wouldn’t be very accessible to the average stakeholder. It would be somewhat akin to me sending an email in French to someone who only speaks English. It might be possible to pick out some elements of the communication and work out what is going on… but it’d be very difficult to draw conclusions.

This absolutely isn’t an argument against BPMN by the way—it’s stil one ofl my preferred notations—but it highlights the importance of thinking of the artifact’s audience and choosing an appropriate level. With BPMN, I might create a ‘view’ of a process using a cut-down palette of symbols, and model at a much higher level, so it is more intuitive. Equally, I might choose to use ‘boxes, arrows, diamonds and lines’ instead where it is appropriate to do so…

The key point here is flexibility. It is very easy to get stuck in a rut and choose a technique because it’s the default. You probably have a favorite approach or technique, which might mean you tend to default to a particular type of artifact. Or perhaps your organization has templates or tools that ‘nudge’ you towards a particular style. That can be useful, it can embed consistency… but it can also lead to things being articulated in a particular way “because that’s the way we do it here, and that’s the way that we’ve always done it”. Neither of which, on their own, are particularly compelling reasons.

Light The Fuse: Ask “Why Are We Using User Stories”

If you like a bit of controversy, next time you are working on an agile project, ask “why do we use user stories here?”. Usually, the response will be a blank face, followed by either “because we’re agile” or “well… the tool is set up for user stories… so….that’s what we do”.

But are these really valid responses? There’s certainly nothing in the agile manifesto that decrees user stories are mandatory. The term ‘user story’ isn’t in the Scrum guide at all. So why default to user stories?

Of course, user stories do have merit, particularly in agile. Yet the choice to use them should be a conscious one. In fact, user stories alone are probably not enough… they will probably need to be supplemented with regular collaboration, acceptance criteria and you might even decide to document some journeys or prototypes. It’s likely that most successful teams already do this, but it is worth highlighting. Some of this might emerge as you discover more about the requirements… but having at least an idea of what the requirements architecture will look like up front will save pain later (e.g. “We might use prototypes, so let’s agree that one prototype will span multiple user stories… we’ll capture the links here…).

So, this article certainly isn’t criticizing user stories. However, as with any profession, we need to regularly challenge ourselves and challenge our ‘defaults’. It is worth remembering that we have a wide toolkit at our disposal. If a plumber approached your sink with a hammer and started smashing it (rather than figuring out the right tool for the context), you’d be somewhat annoyed. An explanation of “ah, I always use a hammer” is unlikely to help. The same is true in our profession too… and it is worth remembering how broad our toolkit is. Which provides us with many possibilities!

To BA or Not To BA: Why Every Team Needs Business Analysts

Written by Katie Cubitt on October 13, 2022. Posted in Articles.

The importance of having a business analyst (BA) on your team can’t be overstated. Acting as the bridge between stakeholders and technical teams, the BA wears many different hats. On any given day, a BA can be expected to work on a number of different tasks, whether that’s defining business cases, validating solutions, or even working with data (See this article on the role of BAs in an increasingly data-driven landscape). Able to straddle both worlds and speak the language of businesspeople and techies alike, BAs really are one of the most versatile members of the team.

The Story of an Ask

Many businesses are concerned with their ideal state, while the nitty gritties of how to actually get there are very much back of mind. “Often, the client is not able to fully explain what business problem they wish to solve and how to translate their business requirement into language the technical teams can understand,” explains Lizande Botha, a BBD project manager for a major financial services client in Africa “which is why BAs are a vital part of the process”. Put simply, BAs are responsible for translating a business ask into detailed requirements that can be understood and actioned by technical teams.

But how do we get to this point, when the ask itself is unclear? “The first question I tell the BA to ask the client is: What is the problem we’re trying to solve?” explains Botha, adding that the cardinal role of the BA is to ensure that the client ask is clearly defined. “For clients who really are unsure of what it is they want, the BA needs to keep digging and asking questions to truly get to the core of the problem” she adds.

Once this key piece of information has been gathered, the BA can start drilling down into the different possible solutions, what the budget is for the project, and other confines or expectations the client might have. Understanding the requirements and clearly defining the scope of any given project from the get-go can be make or break – so much so that CIO magazine reports that up to 71% of failed software projects can be attributed to poor requirements. Thus, consulting with a BA at the start of a project can avoid potential stumbling blocks.

While this early engagement is vital, the job of the BA doesn’t start and end there. Leveraging rapport built with business stakeholders, they must check in regularly to provide progress updates, while ensuring that on the engineering side things are running on course and to the requirements of the client’s business. They’re even able to partake in platform or application testing. Truly, the BA’s impact is felt throughout the project lifecycle!

BBD’s Drive to Help and Resolve

BBD’s teams are all complemented with BAs who are well equipped with experience and a thorough understanding of the industry they’re operating in. As each industry offers complexities unique to its environment, BBD strives to best match their analysts to sectors where they can bring their experience and real-life learnings to the table, explains Botha. This is a high priority for BBD, a software solutions company which delivers software solutions for clients across the industry spectrum, from financial, education, public sector, gaming, and beyond. Assigning BA’s that already understand the nuances, jargon and processes of a particular industry enable us to expedite the solution process” says Botha

But beyond managing teams to ensure the best hands are on board, BBD is ready to tackle any problems their clients have. And when it comes to understanding what those problems are, BBD has BAs on call to bridge the client-engineer gap and ensure the success of all of their solutions.

Looking for a software partner to help you on your next ask? Get in touch with BBD.

Improve Prioritization Using a Combination of Techniques

Written by Steve Jones on September 28, 2022. Posted in Articles.

Software development projects have a long history of unsuccessful delivery for myriad reasons. A lack of success is often determined by what didn’t make it into the final product release; like a core functionality, while some enhancement items did make it in. This begs the question, “Why weren’t all of the core capabilities the focus until they were complete?”

Rarely does everything in the requirements get implemented, so knowing the core capabilities is necessary to keep from getting derailed by enhancement requests. When a project includes multiple stakeholders, it isn’t uncommon they end up fighting for the wrong thing as it relates to the project, “their stories.” What gets lost in all the fighting over each stakeholder’s “priorities” is the real goal – achieving the right outcomes for and by the project.

What’s the problem?

TLDR: There are challenges when using just one prioritization technique to provide guidance of what to work on next.

User stories and requirements can be prioritized using several different techniques (Ranked Order, MoSCoW, Scaled, $1/$100, High/Med/Low, Story Mapping, Weighted Shortest Job First [or WSJF], to name a few), with different benefits and drawbacks to each of them.

Ranked order, i.e., setting out to identify the explicit order to be worked, is a very time-consuming challenge. Changes, whether from business decisions or technical limitations, can happen at any time during the project and cause a reshuffle every time they occur.
Using fixed amount methods to prioritize, such as the $1 or $100 methods, are good at giving clear indications of importance by virtue of the highest number. Fixed values limit the number of stories that can be created without resorting to restructuring the whole valuation system. On reviews and revisits, any change forces a recalculation of many stories.
Categories produce multiple stories with the same value (many ‘High’ or ‘Must have’) that do not always provide enough information to know priority. When there are so many with the same value, it forces a break in the effort to know what should be worked on next, unless a tie-breaking method is already defined.
Story Mapping helps manage the big picture of the project since it displays all themes / activities of users. The themes and activities are ordered along a top row, then broken down into smaller stories and ranked in priority. Early in the project, the number of stories and ranking effort is focused, more easily identifying high value functions / stories.
Weighted Shortest-Job First, WSJF (pronounced wiz-jif), rates each story on business value, time criticality, and risk reduction / opportunity enablement (the business valuation, known as ‘Cost of Delay’), as well as factoring in the IT effort to deliver the story. With several criteria getting a valuation for each story, it becomes easier to see the highest business priorities to work on next. This can still mask the core needs that must be delivered.

Another challenge to prioritizing arises with many of these techniques when new stories are added. Sometimes a key requirement is missed during early analysis or through story decomposition and story splitting. Other times, demonstrations of work inspire new requests or research identifies a new need. How are the new stories valued, ranked, categorized? Do the newly added stories all get the same value as the original when split or does the ranking need to be done again? What becomes of highly valued stories which are just enhancements? Enhancements may have higher business value than some core technical stories. Some of these techniques handle additional stories more easily than others.

Maintaining prioritization is a challenge in itself

Capturing all this prioritization detail can be a frustrating challenge but maintaining it over time is just as frustrating. If you have a software tool that can automatically adjust rankings, some of these techniques may not be as much of a problem. But what if you are using physical cards or sticky notes to keep it all organized? It becomes a tedious task to manage the series, which will drive some to stop updating after a while, especially after repeated changes. Choose your method of prioritizing wisely, you will likely use it often.

How do we solve it?

Story Mapping is an effective approach to keeping an eye on the big picture goals without getting lost in the details. This is beneficial as it provides a more complete end-to-end view of the project, in addition to providing a view of the lower-level details in accompanying stories. Each of these stories can then be identified as a core ‘must have’ vs a ‘nice to have’ enhancement.

Combining multiple techniques simplifies project priority determination. For example, utilizing the business valuation portion from the WSJF does a good job identifying the value for any given story. The valuation can be used for easier ranking without the need to constantly revalue everything below (see Figure 1). In addition to identifying the value of each story, it is very helpful to identify what is needed for core delivery and what is enhancement. When splitting a story, make sure core functionality is clearly differentiated from what may be an enhancement.

Taken in combination, stories are identified as a core delivery need or enhancement AND with each story’s individual business value (the number inside the ovals in Figure 1). While there may be enhancement stories with high value (sometimes viewed as the next shiny new thing), they may not be core functionality. Keeping the high-level view of core delivery items distinct from enhancements enables the focus to stay on outcomes. This perspective can be crucial to maintaining reasonable prioritization efforts in limiting unnecessary re-work of rankings, and identifying enhancement stories to address after all the core functionality is complete.

In the end, using more than one technique to manage project and product priorities ensures that the team is focused on getting the right overall outcomes, instead of persistent debate over individual stories. Practice quality communication and utilize your tool kit to experiment in finding what works best with your stakeholders and team.

Constructive Conflict Is Better Than False Agreement

Written by Adrian Reed on July 21, 2022. Posted in Articles.

Over a decade ago, I was in a workshop with a range of different stakeholders.

Everything seemed to be going well, and people seemed to be agreeing and we were even running ahead of the meeting schedule. Around halfway through the meeting a particular issue was being discussed, a conclusion was going to be drawn and a stakeholder interjected strongly and firmly with two powerful words. They simply said:

“I disagree”

I remember being taken aback by the bluntness. I live in the UK and our communication style is somewhat indirect most of the time. It’s far more normal to say “Hmmm, interesting idea, or what about…?” which is code for “That’s a crazy idea”. Or often the temptation might be to revert to the ultimate British stereotype and apologize “Sorry to be a pain here, but I’m not sure I entirely agree”. I’m sure British culture is not the only one that has such indirect nuance.

The reason I remember this meeting so vividly, even more than a decade ago is that those two words initially made people visibly uncomfortable. Someone was breaking the consensus; they were “creating conflict”. Yet that wasn’t the intention, and of course they didn’t just say that, the stakeholder went on to explain the source of their disagreement, and what they proposed instead. Thirty seconds later (once the stakeholder had explained themselves) any feeling of discomfort gently dispersed. What’s more, other attendees of the meeting started to question things, interject and show disagreement. One stakeholder questioning a decision had the apparent result in creating perceived permission for others to do so. And you know what? I am convinced that the output of that meeting was better as a result.

Don’t Let Conflict Fester

Many of us have been taught to consider conflict as bad and consensus as good. I suppose that is true in an ideal case, but if you’re working on any kind of large scale change how realistic is it that every stakeholder is really going to be ‘on the same page’ and in total agreement? If a government implements a new type of tax and requires businesses to submit more information, there’s unlikely to be a standing ovation from business owners. Yet that doesn’t mean that their input isn’t valuable—I would go as far as saying it’s essential!

Our fixation with consensus can lead to a situation where we achieve illusory agreement, a veneer of satisfaction. Dissenting voices get marginalized, as they’ll never agree (so why spend too much time asking them?). We carefully facilitate meetings so that there aren’t big disruptive arguments, as we’re desperate to hit all of the aggressive (sorry ‘ambitious’) project deadlines. Yet this dangerous glossy veneer is very quickly broken when people start to interact with the product or service that we deliver. All we’ve done is defer the conflict to an even less convenient time, often a time when there’s so much political capital riding on the ‘solution’ that’s been designed that there’s no appetite to change it.

Cultivating Constructive Disagreement

As business analysts, we can help avoid these situations. We have the opportunity to create space for constructive and respectful conflict, and we should certainly avoid us or others sidelining people just because they have contradictory views. In our analysis activities we should encourage constructive and respectful disagreement.

Taking an example, when setting up a workshop we have the perfect opportunity for creating the opportunity for a robust and respectful discussion. We can lay down an appropriate set of ground rules that allow for differences of opinions to surface. I’ve found myself opening workshops saying things such as:

“This is a controversial topic, and there are bound to be some differences of opinion. That’s to be expected. With that in mind please do speak up at any time and add your view, but please do be prepared to elaborate on it. Keep in mind I’ll be facilitating fiercely but fairly—and there might be times when I need to ‘park’ your item for later discussion. It absolutely won’t be lost, we will come back to it, but please don’t be offended if I need to do that.”

When we facilitate, we can actively prompt, asking questions such as:

“We seem to have complete agreement here; are there any contradictory thoughts. What have we missed?”

Ensuring that stakeholders have the ‘air time’, and ensuring that the most bombastic attendees don’t steal the limelight is crucial. Using a range of tools and techniques in the workshop to consider not only what we want but also what could go wrong can be useful too. Even just asking a question such as “That seemed too simple, might we have missed something?” can help.

Most of all, cultural nuances aside, we shouldn’t be afraid of the concise clarity of an expression such as “I disagree”. When someone says it they provide us with a gift, an opportunity to better understand them.

Best of BATimes: Deal Breaking Soft Skills – The Essential BA List

Written by Usman Haq on July 7, 2022. Posted in Articles.

If you don’t have the right soft skills, you will struggle as a BA. Business domain knowledge and hard skills can be taught.

But finding a BA with the right set of soft skills can be a deal breaker for employers. And no, it’s not just the ability to read, write and converse. So which soft skills do you need?

Heads up

In this post I will be going over the soft skills which are essential for a BA.

Communication

Being a good listener, showing that you are patient and empathetic. Actually listening to the DEV team when they say a feature can’t be achieved. And being transparent with the business when explaining the same.
The ability to explain difficult (and sometimes simple) concepts/ideas/justifications (anything really) at all levels.

For example, walking through a business process with your DEV team. Clarifying business terms and ideas which they not be familiar with. Translating that into how the system works and explaining the value provided to the business.

Being able to articulate answers to questions clearly and clarify points on the spot. For example, not confusing the business with technical terms. Explaining concepts in a way that they will understand. Even if you don’t know the answer (rather than making something up) say that you will find out and get back to them later (and actually do that).

(Difficult) Stakeholder Management

Managing your emotions. Not all stakeholders play nice. You will always (always!) have one or more difficult stakeholders. You need to understand their motivations and why they are being difficult. The key is to maintain your professionalism and not let your emotions get the better of you.
Influencing. This also includes influencing without formal authority, persuasion and negotiating. Your reputation helps significantly here. If you are known to get things done and do what’s best for the company/client, your stakeholders will be more inclined to see things your way.

Managing Expectations

Showing you are in control. The business/stakeholders/your boss needs to know you have a handle on things. The worst thing you can do is pretend that everything is ok but in reality, it’s all falling apart. You must be clear about your workload and ability to deliver on time. If things are slipping, make sure you have evidence why. For example, maybe the business is not cooperating during requirement’s session. Possibly the vendor has screwed up somewhere. Maybe you have too much on your plate and you need to offload some work.

Diplomacy

The ability to understand office politics. For example, knowing who can get things done for and who always plays hardball.
Conflict resolution. Ideally conflict mitigation. Knowing when a situation can get out of hand and how to resolve it quickly.
Knowing what to say and to who. You will probably know certain people in your organization who you will want to avoid unless you really (really!) need to speak to them.
Having the ability to speak the truth and gain trust but also not “putting your foot in it”.
Learning how to tell people in power that they are wrong without them feeling like they are!
Not oversharing information to the wrong people and opening cans of worms which can impact you later.

Analytical Thinking

Being naturally good at working out problems. Being able to dig deep to find out the the root cause of an issue. (link to root cause)
Reading people/understanding people. The ability to sense when stakeholders are reserved and giving them the power to speak up and be heard.
When a stakeholder asks for something, being able to understand what they really want but are struggling to convey. Working out when people are masking the truth or too scared to speak up.

Adaptability

Handling pressure and stress. For example, working towards deadlines which might change at the last minute. And having to drop things and work on something else more urgent.
Dealing with WTF situations. For example, being dropped into a major production issue which is affecting the company’s revenue and the stakeholders are looking to you to get them out of it.

Relationship Building

More than just chit chat. You need to build effective working relationships by being known for:
- Getting things done
- Doing what you say you will do
- Going the extra mile when needed
Being able to call in favors based on trust
Knowing who to ask when you need answers to difficult questions
Know who to ask (if they don’t know) to find out who else might have the answer to your questions

Leadership On Demand

Leading a group of BAs (e.g. in your managers absence), leading workshops and coaching junior staff

In this post I went over the soft skills which are essential for a BA. Effective soft skills are often taken for granted. I was guilty of this myself early in my career. Over time I have worked hard to develop my soft skills (and still continue to do so). Are there any surprises in my list? Anything you would like to add?