BAs Adding Value to Projects

Nice article. Decided to share it with my friends.
Especially with the those who willing to pursue a career in Business Analysis, Consultancy and Testing. 

Written by Ian Partridge 

I'm sure there must be a thesis somewhere on this question: How do you know whether a specific decision or action definitely influences the actual event? I like soccer analogies - in a pre-World Cup game against Argentina, Sven-Goran Eriksson then manager of the English national team, was praised for his tactical decision to bring on Peter Crouch and the 3-2 victory that resulted. Yet, Eriksson was slated for poor substitution decisions during the actual tournament when those decisions did not lead to a more positive outcome. In truth, can you really prove these decisions have either a positive or negative outcome? England may have beaten Argentina without the introduction of Crouch and, during the World Cup, the outcome of the games could have been even worse if the substitutions hadn't been made!

I would like to think deliberate decisions and actions can influence a positive outcome, and I especially believe this is the case when business analysts work on projects and are able to play an effective role.

Too often I have experienced misunderstanding of what the business analyst role is and what it can add to a project. This article looks at how business analysis activity can have a massive impact on the outcome of a change program.

Context and Challenges

Following an earlier company acquisition, a leading telecommunication company initiated an IT project to decommission a legacy billing and customer care system and migrate to the company's strategic systems.

Similar projects in the past had taken at least 18 months to complete, were poorly managed, and had run over time and budget. This particular project had been initiated twice before, had not progressed, and there was no documented output. However, expectations had been set by IT that the project would be completed in five months.

Contractual arrangements with the vendors of both legacy and target systems were driving accelerated delivery time scales, and a staff rationalization program was underway in the impacted business area in preparation for the new system.

No resources had been allocated to the project - apart from me, the lead business analyst.

I am a strong advocate of best practice; however, proven methodologies, training and technical skills very rarely provide a ready guide for dealing with challenges such as these!

Scope of the Project

The company's project methodology was to undertake an initial feasibility phase or, what it was to be in this case, an unfeasibility phase! There was a view among senior management that the changes would impact about 5,000 customers and could be achieved by manually keying customer details from one system to another. In fact, the scoping activity completed as part of the analysis made clear that this was a business transformation project, migrating systems that were at the very heart of the acquired company, and involving very significant changes:

• 100,000 customers would be impacted, and nearly every interaction they had with the business would change: changes to bills and billing dates; the company brand they were familiar with; changes to the TV channels they received; and other services gained or lost
• The opportunity to adopt a standard operating model - based on virtual contact centers, centers of excellence and consistent national processes.

Managing Expectations ... or Trying To

At a meeting to discuss the way forward that involved senior stakeholders and the recently appointed project manager, I highlighted the issues regarding scope, risks regarding previous projects of this type, and the opportunities the project provided. Although the stakeholders took the issues on board, the time constraints remained, and it was agreed to undertake a five-week impact analysis.

It would be nice to recount that the business analysis view was readily accepted, but this wasn't the case. Often, the task-focused, project management view of implementation conflicts with the business analysis objective of a quality implementation that delivers value and business benefit. This was the case here. Again, best practice would say that success factors would be agreed upon and defined at initiation, yet this had been ignored The first two bastions of project management - time and cost - were being pushed hard with little consideration being given to the third - quality!

With business analysis resources increased to three and a remit to engage technical staff, a framework was agreed upon to carry out a gap analysis between target and source systems. An aggressive schedule of workshops was planned, and senior managers across the business were consulted to ensure the project scope fully addressed the benefit opportunities and business goals. This also provided the chance to get commitment from areas supplying subject matter experts (SMEs) to the project, as well as re-setting expectations around required activity and time-scales.

A key success for the gap analysis was fully engaging the SMEs attending workshops. The approach we took was to be clear about:

• The drivers of the project
• Why we were doing this work in a tight time-scale
• Why we needed their involvement

This simple, yet often overlooked, approach had immediate benefits: contact centre staff were surprised at the high cost of extending the support of the legacy billing system. They thought the motive for the change was purely headcount reduction. Involving staff in the decision-making reduced resistance to change and led to more motivation and commitment.
 

The output of the gap analysis highlighted two things:

1. The impact of replacing these legacy systems was extremely broad and deep. More than 100 sub-systems and interfaces would need to be changed or decommissioned. No simple keying of customer details!
2. The work was estimated to take 10 months to complete.

Business Requirements and Detailed Analysis

I'm still surprised that in many organizations, and on many projects, the benefit of doing analysis and undertaking requirements is not better understood. I won't go into the pros and cons of various techniques other than recommending that the activity needs to be:

• Fit-for-purpose
• Appropriate to the organization
• Communicated, in terms of its value, to relevant stakeholders

The output of doing this work on a major project is, undoubtedly, documentation. There were two main concerns we had to counter: the perceived lack of value of the analysis, and that this was seen as the reason to extend the project timescale by five months. I have often seen that tight project timescales lead to under-analysis; business managers sometimes prefer "doing" to understanding the "what" and the "how." I'm sure many people have experienced solutions to problems that weren't properly understood, or delays due to extensive change requests. Moving to "doing" too quickly only creates a false sense of progress. With good analysis, you reap what you sow.
 

The concerns were addressed by briefing the main project stakeholders on what we were doing and why, covering all the detail that would underpin the project plan and providing visibility of the work to be carried out. We also highlighted how independent research supported the link between clearly understood requirements and success - especially for complex projects.

Documentation

We couldn't avoid the fact that a reasonable amount of documentation would be produced due to the breadth of work. To make this as pragmatic as possible, a document template was defined from scratch to ensure that only the relevant information was captured, that it was easy to populate, and that it would be consistent and easy to read. The format was agreed upon by major stakeholders, ensuring expectations were managed and avoiding resistance to receiving documents.

As for the gap analysis, we were to engage many SMEs and would need to cover a fair degree of technical input. The work was divided into work streams, each assigned a lead BA and a lead technical analyst (TA) with my role as an overarching lead. Excellent relationships were fostered between the BAs and TAs, helped by the co-dependence of our roles, to make the work a success.

Relationships

I have always believed the softer skills are a far greater asset to a business analyst than the more technical ones. Interpersonal skills make the difference when resolving issues, managing conflict, communicating, influencing, etc. Active relationship building proved really effective on this project. Just as engaging workshop attendees had encouraged participation, and two-way communication helped address resistance to change, good relationships with TAs helped gain more buy-in from SMEs. In the end, more than 100 SMEs contributed to this phase of the project. I have seen situations where BAs and TAs do not work well together and have even heard a TA accuse BAs of "sucking out what we know and then documenting it." This is perhaps a little extreme, though there is some truth in it when you consider what BAs do in terms of facilitating understanding.

The lead TAs on the project were given joint responsibility on authorship of documents produced. This was not only to address the workload but also resulted in their feeling fully bought into the analysis work and championing the output. As well as being another benefit of having a clearly agreed and pragmatic template, this also really helped in achieving sign-off for the work.

Sign-Off

Whilst communicating the template and approach for documenting the analysis, I also defined and gained acceptance for a sign-off process from the managers who were acting as operational sponsors. They were the people who would be committing their resource to the project, would be receiving the change into their areas, and their approval would be the measure as to whether the analysis was fit for purpose and a success. Attitude to formal sign-off can vary greatly within organizations, even where this is part of the internal governance of project methodologies and frameworks. I really believe that without proper sign-off you don't have commitment, true buy-in or a proper baseline to manage further change by.

Reviewing the sign-off process led to a better understanding of the issues faced by sponsors, principle of which was the appearance of large documents in their inboxes with no real clarity of what they were really being asked to sign off, little understanding of impacts and insufficient time to review. The answer was a clear schedule of when each output document would be completed. The schedule had been agreed to by the BAs and TAs to ensure it was realistic but challenging, with each document being completed in three stages:

1. A final draft, quality reviewed with the document authors and work stream leads
2. A structured document walkthrough with BA and TA leads and nominated SMEs and managers
3. A final issue for sign-off by the sponsors

This proved really effective for the following reasons:

• Everyone was focused on delivering work to meet the time-scales in the schedule. Involvement in planning this and agreeing to it achieved commitment from everyone.
• The quality review sessions made sure work was a good standard, consistent across all the areas, and that there was acceptable coverage of analysis.
• The structured walkthroughs ensured all feedback was captured together and facilitated challenge and understanding of different viewpoints. You knew everyone had read the document as you were going through it with them.
• Sponsors signed off documents quickly as their direct reports were heavily involved in agreeing to them during the walkthrough sessions.

Summary

Following the approval of this phase, the project moved into development and implementation and went live over a weekend with no problems of any significance. Although it was a month late due to data migration issues, it was described as the most successful migration project undertaken by the company.

A review of lessons learned highlighted the appropriateness of the approach taken to analysis. The effectiveness of working relationships between BAs and TAs, clarity of scope, division of work across functional areas, and the actual documentation were credited as contributing to project success.

The company used the analysis approaches described above as the blueprint for a subsequent migration project that had been on the back-burner for a number of years, and without doubt, the experience of this project gave the company the confidence to undertake it.

Given the opportunity, business analysts can make a real difference to the projects they work on, and the success that follows is no accident.

Don't forget to leave your comments below

---

Ian Partridge is an experienced BA manager and business change professional. Currently working as a contractor/BA consultant, Ian has more than 12 years of experience, including media, asset management, telecommunications, banking and retail. For more information visit www.2broconsulting.com.

Ian can be reached at ian@2broconsulting.com and ianbpartridge@blueyonder.co.uk.

Why people change their work place so often?

I’ve changed my employer for three times starting from 2004. First for career advancement, then for a better working place thereafter it was all due to frustration. Some pundits say changing the workplace so often is a bad practice and will add negative points for his/her CV.

I my self accept that, but there are things which are originally out of our boundaries and control.

Consider the following case;

I’d join with a SL development centre of a UK based software firm early this year. What their local GM published on the web was “Vacancies for .NET Developers and Senior QA Engineers”.

At the interview they expressed that they are intend to recruit a SQAE but not QAL, but when it comes to the appointment letter, I’ve got to know that they have cheated me from the very beginning; instead of SQAE they have changed the designation to QAL.

Bang, they’d recruited a QAL for the salary of SQAE. Initially my expectations were very high so expected changes in the working environment. It got worst during the next couple of months. By April they sent another carrot on my way. This time the carrot came out as a result of a re-structuring process. They promoted me to the QA Manager position, but no signs in changing the package. Seems these foreigners and their local partners are still having the colonial mindset.

They are good in talking, trying to impress us by telling that; main reason for their business presence over here to get the service of quality labor force. Bullshit, their main reason to operate businesses over here to get the cheap labor. I’ve learnt one thing; people from UK and European Union are so cunning compared to their counterparts from USA. Business people from USA at least appreciate our efforts but it’s hard to obtain such an appreciation from the Europeans.

In my case,

- Corruptions at the workplace

- Visibility over day-to-day activities

- Poor management

- Dependencies over day-to-day job functions

- Technical teams with poor technical skills

- Lack of improved communication skills and facilities

- Lack of appreciation on work performed

- Unacceptable workloads

- Poor project management & scope management

- Hidden agendas and personnel adorations over certain employees

- Poor recruitment process

Leads me to change the employer.

Last couple of days, I was searching for the reasons behind the job frustration and mechanisms to minimize their occurrence at a workplace and found the followings.

Frustration is main reason workers quit their jobs

http://www.onrec.com/content2/news.asp?ID=10102

According to findings from a study by Sirota Survey Intelligence, the biggest difference between employees who continue to work for an employer and those who decide to leave voluntarily is not dissatisfaction with their immediate supervisor – or even with their pay. It is how they feel about the work itself.

The results of the Sirota study of 228,798 employees reveals:

- The biggest difference between employees who intended to leave their employer in one year or less and those who planned to remain for more than five years, was in their overall satisfaction with their employment. There is a 52% difference between the two groups. Only 33% of those intending to quit within one year gave their overall satisfaction favorable ratings, while 85% of those planning to stay five years or more were satisfied overall.

- The second biggest difference (and strongest specific reason) between employees who intended to stay or go was in their satisfaction with the type of work they do – a 39% difference. Only 45% of employees planning to quit within one year were satisfied with the type of work they do, while 84% of those intending to stay five years or more were satisfied with their work.

- Opportunities for advancement ranked in the middle as a reason to stay or go – a 34% difference between the groups. Just 20% of employees planning to quit within one year were satisfied with opportunities for advancement, while 54% of those planning to stay five years or more were satisfied with promotional opportunities.

- Differences between the groups’ satisfaction with their immediate supervisors ranked next to last – a 23% difference. 55% of workers planning to quit within one year were satisfied with their supervisors, while 78% of those intending to stay five years or more were satisfied with their immediate supervisors.

- The smallest difference between the groups was in their satisfaction with their pay – only a 19% difference between the groups. Only 28% of those intending to quit within one year were satisfied with their pay, while 47% of those planning to stay five years or more were satisfied with their pay. “Data obtained over 33 years of employee research shows a very strong correlation between an employee’s intent to stay or leave and actual turnover. Those people who say that they plan to leave shortly have a significantly stronger probability of leaving than those who say they will stay,” commented Nick Starritt, managing director, Sirota Survey Intelligence. He added: “It is not enough to conclude from the research that overall satisfaction with one’s employment is the most important determinant of staying versus leaving. While exit interviews are useful in finding out why people quit, it must be understood that what people say in these interviews is often self-serving. Comments about ‘long-term advancement opportunities,’ for example, may obfuscate the real reasons for leaving.”

David Sirota, chairman emeritus of Sirota Survey Intelligence concluded: “Each of the reasons represents a failure of organizations to create an environment of genuine partnership – where employees like the work they do, their management opportunities for promotion and their compensation. Employees’ needs for ‘achievement’ plays a critical role in whether an employee will stay at a job for any length of time.”

Why Employee Satisfaction Surveys and Employee Exit Surveys make good sense

In a competitive world with the need for businesses to be more streamlined and productive a company can often find itself with a workforce working under pressure resulting in low moral and high staff turnover. The benefits of a company having a highly motivated workforce can be considerable and the two goals of having a workforce that is both motivated and productive should not be regarded as being mutually exclusive to one another.

Left unattended employers run the risk of alienating their employees, events can cause employee frustrations to boil over resulting in employers finding themselves on the back foot, faced with a problem that cannot be ignored.

Ideally employers would take time to understand the needs of their employees and learn from their experiences of working on the front line, but employers are often themselves tied up day to day fighting their own fires.

By automating much of the intelligence gathering process and providing the findings in a format that can be readily analyzed online surveys provide employers with an efficient, effective and low cost method to help achieve a pleasant working environment, where staff satisfaction and productivity is high.

Dissatisfied & Unproductive

The are many reasons why employees may be dissatisfied with their job and more often than not staff frustration is channeled into a demand for higher salaries and less hours. Employers, who tackle these issues head on, making it all about salary and hours, will often find themselves dealing with the symptoms and not the root cause.

It’s not about Money

The following are common barriers to achieving productivity, none of which are likely to be resolved by increasing salaries or reducing hours:-

- Out of date working methods

- Lack of proper tools and equipment

- Out of touch management

- Inadequate training

Many studies have shown that salaries are rarely the number one priority of employees and providing an employer is paying market rate they would be fundamentally wrong to think that paying higher salaries is the answer to all employee problems.

Take the case of a single mother who is juggling a full time job with the need to look after two children. Out of frustration she may demand more money so that she feels that she is able to cope where a better solution, for both her and the company, may be more flexible working hours.

It is About Communication

It is important for any company to encourage communication. Company's that make communication between personnel and management difficult, or take the view that if personnel have a problem they will say something, can often delude themselves into thinking their workforce is content when it is not. It only takes one small problem and one disgruntled employee to feel aggrieved for an entire workforce to develop a destructive ‘them and us’ attitude.

Improving Communication

One to one meetings between employer and employee would be ideal but in practice only practical for very small businesses.

Regular meetings between management and worker representatives are good in theory but they often become talking shops and can begin to loose their edge as the participants become familiar with one another and the forum runs the risk of being hijacked by the more extrovert personalities.

Suggestion boxes are useful but can be viewed as token efforts by management as they wait for personnel to highlight a problem.

Newsletters can be a positive step, but their purpose is generally to inform and not discuss issues.

Keeping the Initiative

An employee satisfaction survey run on a regular basis is able to ask each employee specific questions and represents a pro-active management initiative where the whole workforce can be consulted on various issues. Surveys are able to provide a level playing field between the quieter and more vocal employees.

Consultation should not be seen as a sign of weakness, a confident manager will take counsel from all quarters before making a decision. By issuing a survey and keeping the initiative the employer is able to tackle problems from a position of strength as opposed to waiting for problems to fester and then develop out of proportion.

Small problems left unresolved can lead to a situation where a minor problem might break the camels back and the workforce mood change from positive to negative over night.

It’s Quick and Easy

For the majority of companies online surveys represent a proactive and low cost solution. They are quick to design and for many companies, where the majority of personnel have desktop computers, they are quick to deploy direct to the individual.

In situations where individuals do not have personal access to a computer there are still many options available to implement the online survey solution such as giving access to a shared computer, operator input or, as a last resort, a hardcopy survey.

Job Satisfaction

There are many elements that go towards providing an employee with job satisfaction, from the working environment, working methodology, working ethos, company ethics to having good and effective management. Job satisfaction brings benefits through improved motivation and productivity from a workforce that feels that they are treated as individuals and not a commodity item.

Inform and Educate

An online survey can also be used to educate and pass on to the workforce important information, the ‘message’ is consistently delivered and does not suffer from the Chinese whisper phenomenon where a message can be distorted as it is handed down.

An online survey can explain a difficult situation and get valuable feedback from the employees as to the best solution. It is rare in this situation that the workforce would appear negative and more likely that they will feel informed and empowered that might in itself turn a potentially negative problem into a positive challenge that unites the workforce.

Exit Surveys

Exit surveys are an excellent way of ensuring that when personnel leave an organization they are leaving for the right reasons and not due to reasons that if appreciated earlier could have been addressed and resolved by management. Although identifying a problem may not prevent a person leaving it could solve an unappreciated issue that may, if left unchecked, result in other key personnel also leaving.

Analyzing the Results

Having consulted the workforce with an online survey the results are available for instant analysis. Common and specific problems can be easily identified and brought to the attention of senior management who will then have the opportunity to address the issues that have been raised.