by Karl Wiegers | Sep 3, 2014 | Business Analysis, Uncategorized |
Written by Karl Wiegers and Joy Beatty The leader of a corporate requirements organization once posed a problem. “I’m experiencing issues in gaining agreement from some of our developers to participate in requirements development,” she said. “Can you please direct me to any documentation available on how developers should be engaged in the requirements process so I can help them understand the value of their participation?” In another organization, a BA experienced a clash between developers seeking detailed input for an accounting system and an IT manager who simply wanted to brainstorm requirements without using any specific elicitation techniques. “Do readers of your book risk cultural conflict?” this BA asked. These questions exemplify the challenges that can arise when trying to engage BAs, developers, and customers in a collaborative requirements partnership. You’d think it would be obvious to a user that providing requirements input makes it more likely that he’ll get what he needs. Developers ought to recognize that participating in the process will make their lives easier than being hit on the head by whatever requirements document flies over the proverbial wall. Obviously, not everyone is as excited about requirements as you are; if they were, they’d probably all become business analysts! Culture clashes frequently arise when teams are working on requirements. There are those who recognize the many risks associated with trying to develop software based on minimal or telepathically communicated requirements. Then there are those who think requirements are unnecessary. It can be tough to gain business-side cooperation on projects like legacy-system replacement if users see this as unrelated to their own business problems and not...
by John Parker | Feb 3, 2014 | Business Analysis, Uncategorized |
By proactively identifying and eliminating or remedying poorly performing application assets, Application Portfolio Rationalization helps companies to: Reduce costs, Target efforts to the areas of highest return, and Maximize the business value of their application portfolios. Globalization and changing business requirements impose significant challenges on technology leaders who are under constant pressure to both innovate and reduce costs. These demands to do more with less have been exacerbated by business leaders hearing about prospective savings from use of the Cloud without understanding the impact of transition. Many organizations are electing to combine their initiatives for application rationalization and migration to the cloud. IT leaders are forced to accelerate the rollout of new systems and technologies to support the business without compromising the performance of existing applications. They must address key issues, such as balancing cost, complexity, and capacity, and also deliver business value by applying continuous improvement methodologies. Application portfolio rationalization helps organizations turn these challenges into benefits in terms of reduced costs and more value delivered to the business. Application portfolio rationalization is an important and continuous exercise for evaluating and controlling IT costs. Application portfolio rationalization involves focusing on the application portfolio looking for redundant applications, one-off technologies, applications with few users, and applications with a high cost/user ratio. With a complete understanding of the current environment, the next step is to consider what should be done to move from current to the ideal. Gartner Group research confirms that a focused application rationalization effort will typically result in substantial cost savings while improving support for the lines of business. These savings are too large to ignore. Additional...
by George Casey | Jan 21, 2014 | Business Analysis, Uncategorized |
A business model outlining and explaining how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value is used to launch new ideas or readjust the practices of an existing company. A comprehensive business model encourages strategic thinking and holistic design. In Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers, Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur describe the importance of developing and revisiting an organization’s business models. They assert that to stay healthy, you should continually reassess your business model’s current viability and future promise. The modeling process is improved when it is performed on a recurring basis and there is an honest and comprehensive vetting of ideas. Because almost all business models eventually become obsolete, proactive companies actively conceive and pursue new models. Doing this helps business leaders question long-held assumptions and make better decisions for their companies. To define a business model, the authors outline nine interrelated parts that cover a company’s customers, offer, infrastructure, and financial viability. For a thorough approach to new ideas or new ways of doing business, ample time and energy must be given to examining each component. Customer segments – Identify one or more types of customers. Mass markets and niche markets require different approaches. Your organization may have multi-sided platforms in which you sell different services to two or more different groups of customers. Value propositions – Determine which benefits lead customers to your company rather than to your competitors. Your organization may offer something new, perform better, or be designed to meet specific needs. Capture that information succinctly. Channels – Select the best customer touch points to communicate value and to...
by George Casey | Jan 20, 2014 | Uncategorized |
In evaluating business performance, business analysts, requirements management experts, and business leaders are all looking at the ROI. When bringing in consultants for new projects and processes, the focus on ROI stays in place. As clients, businesses are seeking tangible improvements in ROI. In return, consultants are becoming more and more prepared to demonstrate their impact. Both clients and consultants want to see the effect on the bottom line – before they sign on the dotted line. Jack Phillips explores this topic in “The Consultant’s Scorecard — Tracking Results and Bottom-Line Impact of Consulting Projects.” He underscores the point that not tracking ROI can be hazardous for both businesses and hired consultants: Wasted resources – When not focusing on the results that count, too much money can be wasted on interventions that are not defined and measured. Burned-up staff time – Phillips reminds us that consultants often have to consume a significant amount of staff time to provide them information and bring them up to speed. Negative effect on staff morale – This wasting of employees’ time affects morale. Because consultants report back to management, employees don’t see their contributions and only seem consultants as taking up time and creating work. Poor advice – When not tracking to ROI, consultants can give poor advice that results in reduced profits and increased expenses. Damaged careers – Supporting the wrong consultants can be detrimental to a manager’s career. With this much at stake, it’s imperative to have a solid ROI assessment in place that clarifies That various stakeholder groups can respond to the consultant at timeframes throughout the project Whether specified...
by George Casey | Nov 11, 2013 | Business Analysis, Uncategorized |
Every year companies lose money in staff time and resources by hosting poorly planned and organized conference calls. Starting late, tangents, and lack of follow-up all distract from successful meetings. Byron Van Arsdale led a great webinar for Enfocus Solutions. In “No More Lame Conference Calls,” Van Arsdale revealed several tips to taking control of conference calls and virtual meetings, keeping everyone engaged, and ending on time. The speaker quickly outlined the problem. In 2010, there were over 6.2 million conference calls held each week. TeleSpan Publishing Corp reported that in the same year consumers spent 9.3 billion minutes on free conference calls and 45.3 billion minutes on paid conference calls. Van Arsdale said the business cost in terms of lost productivity, wasted time, and lost sales opportunities when conference calls are inefficient or unproductive is astronomical. Van Arsdale explained that companies and organizations continue to waste precious resources on “lame” conference calls for one reason: Everyone thinks they lead great conference calls and are not inclined to take responsibility for any calls that do not go well. To address the challenges in leading conference calls, Van Arsdale offers several points: Remember you are a unique leader. Most people learn to lead conference calls based on what they learned from other professionals. Yet often their attempts to be like their role models go to far, and they end up not being themselves as they lead calls. Van Arsdale asserts you should develop your own style, based on your own strengths and qualities, so that you appear real and authentic. Make an agenda and distribute it well in advance of...
