So there are 5 special senses, we all know that. There are more subtle 'senses' like a sense of fear amongst others. But what are the senses of a Business Analyst? Someone who makes letters and numbers in a spreadsheet into a successful system or change initiative. Someone who makes the impossible possible. Someone who tames the wilderness.
Here are some thoughts on the emergent senses of the evolving BA.
> Common sense
Several of my contemporaries, notably @ukadrianreed, have highlighted how common sense is a thing missing from many BA's armoury at the moment. I fear that BA's get carried away in seeking to please and getting the validation of that coveted 'sign-off' which so blinds us all to the reality and practicality of making commitments on speculative requirements. I wholeheartedly believe that this is a key sensory talent that BA's need more than ever and it will ensure their survival out in the project wilderness. And it is an unforgiving wilderness at the moment in the change space!
> Sense of clarity
Engaging with people of all kinds is complicated. When developers say the only problem with their system is the user, the BA should take heed. Users are the source of our requirements, they will make all requirements high priority (or Must Have - if you are a Muscovite) and they will bamboozle you with complex rules, spreadsheet models and bizarre user interface needs. It takes a smart BA to sense ambiguity, dissonance and omission of requirements from the user community. Ever had scope creep? Users are wild creatures, unpredictable. Never smile at a crocodile; and never forget a senior user's requirement to login "just like Facebook"
> Sense of proportion of things
As I noted earlier, users tend to get requirements trigger happy - and all requirements tend to be must have's. I guess it's natural, if I ask you what you want tomorrow, it is unlikely you will settle for less than you have today will you? This is where the relative priority of requirements or features is a much better method than absolute requirement prioritisation. It forces users to rank requirements. No two requirements are equal, the jungle has a natural order and so do requirements.
> Sense of connectedness
As a caveat to the relative prioritisation of requirements above, I believe it is incredibly important to note that sometimes - depending on how you have completed your requirements, some requirements may be inextricably linked to one another. It means that a simple ranking process helps, but has exceptions. But where would we be without the odd exception to the rule?
Further to this, but linked to the sense of clarity, it is important to realise connectedness in relation to dissonance and omission. Dissonance may occur (and often does) where requirements contradict each other and sadly, yet predictably, we never notice this in the sessions when the users are relaying their needs and neither do they! But sometimes, things are not connected on the surface. A keen and experienced BA will sense the dissonance; gurus may even do so in the middle of a workshop. Omission is to requirements as the platypus is to land mammals - an entirely unexpected cousin.
> Sense of perspective
As an agent of change, BAs realise that sometimes it is more important to know enough to move ahead, than to know everything right now. The BA profession is not a career stepping stone to being psychic; requirements change over time, they evolve. Much like any king of the jungle, projects and requirements are emergent and as much as we try to manage change - the state of flux is natural. From change control to Agile, all we are try to do is manage the inevitable. It is perhaps better to have a strong sense of perspective, what do we need to know to move ahead: does this validate or invalidate the perceived project benefits? Am I comfortable living on the edge of certainty and uncertainty?
> Sense of style
A business analyst should be creative, imaginative and innovative. Your delivery should have a sense of style that inspires others, wants them to engage with you, your work and be energised by engaging the change that the BA is representing in the project. There is nothing less engaging that boring workshops, black and white models and lots of text. In order to get ahead in the jungle, fauna and flora need to attract others to their wares. Like bright flowers for pollination, BA's need to attract stakeholders and users to their artefacts to improve the probability of project success through engagement and buy-in.
Looking back on my starting question: I think yes. There are 'senses' to a BA. Furthermore, we might even have specialised sensory tools to receive the stimuli that drive those senses...
But for now, as BA's evolve, the project wilderness is what it is. Happy evolving.
Kind regards,
Stuart
Friday 31 August 2012
Monday 6 August 2012
Monday 23 July 2012
Dilemmas of the pie kind
So I faced a conundrum recently...
My partner and I were having lunch at a nearby supermarket cafe (glamorous I know!) and I ordered the pie and chips. The pie wasn't ready so we headed off to pay as I was told I'd have the pie brought to me. At the till, a small battle ensued as I (and my partner) tried to relay to the gentleman eagerly tallying up the total that I had ordered a pie and that should be included in the bill. Despite several attempts on her part and mine; he was happy it was all square and we were ushered off.
At the table, awaiting the pie... I looked at the bill. It seems fairly cheap at the till so I wasn't sure it was correct. And it wasn't right. There was no pie accounted for in the £7.50 total. Her food was there; but mine was not.
Now, I am a fairly principled guy. I don't feel right eating something I haven't paid for; but I don't like being shoo-ed off like an imbecile. So I faced a dilemma. I didn't want to go back up to the now unmanned till, hail a staff member over and explain the whole story and pay for a pie when I was so eagerly rebuffed earlier... the offending fool must pay his price. But I couldn't eat a pie I hadn't paid for.
Toil.
I felt like a Shakespearean tragic hero... ok. Tragic guy. Plain tragic maybe the best description actually.
So I concluded that I wouldn't hand my money over to the supermarket staff; but couldn't keep it myself and the only way to satisfy both was to donate the money to charity.
So cheers whichever charity has their little blue change bin at Tesco's in the South East of the UK - I enjoyed my pie from the moral high ground.
My partner and I were having lunch at a nearby supermarket cafe (glamorous I know!) and I ordered the pie and chips. The pie wasn't ready so we headed off to pay as I was told I'd have the pie brought to me. At the till, a small battle ensued as I (and my partner) tried to relay to the gentleman eagerly tallying up the total that I had ordered a pie and that should be included in the bill. Despite several attempts on her part and mine; he was happy it was all square and we were ushered off.
At the table, awaiting the pie... I looked at the bill. It seems fairly cheap at the till so I wasn't sure it was correct. And it wasn't right. There was no pie accounted for in the £7.50 total. Her food was there; but mine was not.
Now, I am a fairly principled guy. I don't feel right eating something I haven't paid for; but I don't like being shoo-ed off like an imbecile. So I faced a dilemma. I didn't want to go back up to the now unmanned till, hail a staff member over and explain the whole story and pay for a pie when I was so eagerly rebuffed earlier... the offending fool must pay his price. But I couldn't eat a pie I hadn't paid for.
Toil.
I felt like a Shakespearean tragic hero... ok. Tragic guy. Plain tragic maybe the best description actually.
So I concluded that I wouldn't hand my money over to the supermarket staff; but couldn't keep it myself and the only way to satisfy both was to donate the money to charity.
So cheers whichever charity has their little blue change bin at Tesco's in the South East of the UK - I enjoyed my pie from the moral high ground.
Wednesday 18 July 2012
A social media moment...
Having watched a recent TEDtalk (http://bit.ly/NxnMxY), it got me thinking about stuff. Work stuff as usual; in particular our experiences in the use of social media in our fledging BA business in London town. I want to share one of the many great points he discusses in his talk and what it meant to me.
I really love Clay Shirky's concept of the asymmetry of media: media that is good at creating groups is no good at creating conversation; and media that is good at creating groups is no good at creating conversation.
This resonates with me and the team that I work with as we had a similar discussion about engaging with our customers - existing and potential. The conversations centred on my observation of broadcasting versus engaging in conversation. And is there some lesson to be learnt with regards to intimacy.
Shirky's observations of the medium of the web as (of course) true. There is a confluence of media in the thing that is the web - written word, video, audio, etc. But whilst the medium of the internet allows the conversations to go on alongside one another; it relies on the producer engaging the reader/consumer on those channels in order to have a collaborative conversation.
Sure, we can use one of these sub-media of the internet to initiate a dialogue. We need to be conversant in the remaining media types to ensure that the initial contact maintains some energy and richness, that there is a reason to carry on engaging. To be clear,I don't mean using different media for different media's sake - I mean using the right media for the right message to the right audience.
That talk taught me not to think too narrowly in terms of a dialogue, consider what I and trying to say and why but most importantly considering the reason in context and selecting an appropriate initiator medium with suitable flow from there.
I really love Clay Shirky's concept of the asymmetry of media: media that is good at creating groups is no good at creating conversation; and media that is good at creating groups is no good at creating conversation.
This resonates with me and the team that I work with as we had a similar discussion about engaging with our customers - existing and potential. The conversations centred on my observation of broadcasting versus engaging in conversation. And is there some lesson to be learnt with regards to intimacy.
Shirky's observations of the medium of the web as (of course) true. There is a confluence of media in the thing that is the web - written word, video, audio, etc. But whilst the medium of the internet allows the conversations to go on alongside one another; it relies on the producer engaging the reader/consumer on those channels in order to have a collaborative conversation.
Sure, we can use one of these sub-media of the internet to initiate a dialogue. We need to be conversant in the remaining media types to ensure that the initial contact maintains some energy and richness, that there is a reason to carry on engaging. To be clear,I don't mean using different media for different media's sake - I mean using the right media for the right message to the right audience.
That talk taught me not to think too narrowly in terms of a dialogue, consider what I and trying to say and why but most importantly considering the reason in context and selecting an appropriate initiator medium with suitable flow from there.
Thursday 21 June 2012
As soon as possible. Possibly. Gimme a "why"!
ASAP (context qualifier: in emails) - An ambiguous term, frequently misused by the sender, used to inject some sense of urgency where none may be required on the recipient's part especially where there is no clear link to the intent - prosaic, utopian, Machiavellian or otherwise - of the sender. And no reason for me to respond.
Allow me to present an example to illustrate...
That is why "why" is so important - and most importantly why an alignment of "why" (AKA intent) can create action without the need to even say (or send) any form of communication. And I am using my crude example to prove a single point...
Alignment of the "why" across a group will mean that, if any opportunities are available to the group, anyone in the group will response in sufficient time and with sufficient detailed content to ensure the opportunity is realised*
And if you aren't asking "why" - you aren't learning as you are going through this detritus! If I am part of the group for the right reason (my why) I will react to new opportunities for the group to ensure the group benefits. And best of all - no-one needs to ask me. Least of all to do so "as soon as possible" because you can bet the farm I would have jumped like a crazed donkey if I knew you'd post it on YouTube.
*Caveat: I suppose my assumption is somewhat perfect information within the group. Cute hook for social media product plug here.
Allow me to present an example to illustrate...
- Sender: "jump up and down as soon as possible" - even with suitable polite top and tail etc; we are still flummoxed as to the reason and intent behind this lunacy.
- Recipient reaction: mystification, thinking hard about sender's intent, failing to decide intent, demotivation, sadness and then death (emotionally - and just for today).
- Sender: "jump up and down as soon as possible so I can record your dumbass on the CCTV feed" - better!! At least there is clarity of intent. Albeit one of ridicule and a resultant YouTube viral rise and fall soap opera.
- Recipient: feeling of debasement at being ridiculed, submission and excited action on the basis of momentary fame and the hope of a spot in suitably trashy live-in-this-moment-now magazine.
That is why "why" is so important - and most importantly why an alignment of "why" (AKA intent) can create action without the need to even say (or send) any form of communication. And I am using my crude example to prove a single point...
Alignment of the "why" across a group will mean that, if any opportunities are available to the group, anyone in the group will response in sufficient time and with sufficient detailed content to ensure the opportunity is realised*
And if you aren't asking "why" - you aren't learning as you are going through this detritus! If I am part of the group for the right reason (my why) I will react to new opportunities for the group to ensure the group benefits. And best of all - no-one needs to ask me. Least of all to do so "as soon as possible" because you can bet the farm I would have jumped like a crazed donkey if I knew you'd post it on YouTube.
*Caveat: I suppose my assumption is somewhat perfect information within the group. Cute hook for social media product plug here.
Thursday 10 March 2011
Ties
There is a debate in my office around the applicability, value-add, sense, morality and use of a tie. A neck-tie to be precise...
To me, it is the only bastion of male fashion differentiation left on this planet. Let's face it, every suit is the same - blue or black mainly, but some grey ones out there. Shirts are fairly standard unless you want to attract a swarm of bees (or worse - birds) on your lunch break walk. And who looks at your shoes... really?!?
To some, the tie exudes a sense of professionalism, decency and a working attitude. Professionals wear ties. They convey that you are trustworthy, upstanding and worthy of respect. Why? I am not sure, but I know that there aren't many people who are the opposite of that wearing ties. Not to say that absence of evidence implies truth, that would be a foolhardy error to make. After all... bankers and lawyers wear ties.
To others, ties are a ball and chain. A sign of oppression by a manager over a worker - like school uniform - a way to be told that you are just like everyone else. It may be that ties are uncomfortable to some people, however it is rare that a tie is uncomfortable... people just need bigger shirt collars. Ties are also a link to the past. A past of Taylorist managers and workers - metrics, accountants and the world of non-creatives... juxtaposed against the 21st century world of the twitterati with foursquare and facebook - ties seem so last millenium.
Ties are also appropriate in certain scenarios (weddings, funerals and the like) where a lack of a tie may be disrespectful. Ties bring a sense of decorum perhaps, solemnity and dignity to an occasion or event.
Consider perhaps that the tie, in this most modern of times, has been devalued for the wrong reasons: School children who have to master quadratics but cannot master a Windsor knot; weddings and corporate black tie events that often turn into late night revellry for some, boring hand-shaking for others and embarrassment for a hopefully smaller portion (P45's for a few too!); interviews and sales meetings only bring feelings of anxiety, nervousness and sweaty palms. And I needn't mention emotions and funerals.
I don't think the tie is dead. I think it is alive and well - just surviving quietly. It's fallen out of favour, like the fashion item that it is... but likely all fashion items (including neon leg-warmers and puffer jackets) it will make a return. Maybe not like it exists now... but after all what started as a cravat, gained popularity as a tie.
To me, it is the only bastion of male fashion differentiation left on this planet. Let's face it, every suit is the same - blue or black mainly, but some grey ones out there. Shirts are fairly standard unless you want to attract a swarm of bees (or worse - birds) on your lunch break walk. And who looks at your shoes... really?!?
To some, the tie exudes a sense of professionalism, decency and a working attitude. Professionals wear ties. They convey that you are trustworthy, upstanding and worthy of respect. Why? I am not sure, but I know that there aren't many people who are the opposite of that wearing ties. Not to say that absence of evidence implies truth, that would be a foolhardy error to make. After all... bankers and lawyers wear ties.
To others, ties are a ball and chain. A sign of oppression by a manager over a worker - like school uniform - a way to be told that you are just like everyone else. It may be that ties are uncomfortable to some people, however it is rare that a tie is uncomfortable... people just need bigger shirt collars. Ties are also a link to the past. A past of Taylorist managers and workers - metrics, accountants and the world of non-creatives... juxtaposed against the 21st century world of the twitterati with foursquare and facebook - ties seem so last millenium.
Ties are also appropriate in certain scenarios (weddings, funerals and the like) where a lack of a tie may be disrespectful. Ties bring a sense of decorum perhaps, solemnity and dignity to an occasion or event.
Consider perhaps that the tie, in this most modern of times, has been devalued for the wrong reasons: School children who have to master quadratics but cannot master a Windsor knot; weddings and corporate black tie events that often turn into late night revellry for some, boring hand-shaking for others and embarrassment for a hopefully smaller portion (P45's for a few too!); interviews and sales meetings only bring feelings of anxiety, nervousness and sweaty palms. And I needn't mention emotions and funerals.
I don't think the tie is dead. I think it is alive and well - just surviving quietly. It's fallen out of favour, like the fashion item that it is... but likely all fashion items (including neon leg-warmers and puffer jackets) it will make a return. Maybe not like it exists now... but after all what started as a cravat, gained popularity as a tie.
Monday 21 February 2011
Progress of life without a smartphone
Follow thoughts, musings and pains of my life without a smartphone on Twitter: @stugom :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)