Requirements, tests, training, help files – the connection?

Part one What would you like sir

Part two Requirements,tests, training, help files

Part three Why no project exists onin isolation-whwat should be done

Part four Business rules, Process rules, Process, Data, different viewpoints

Part five Testing requirements is not optional

Part six Requirements strategy can make or break your project

 Really! – Have you seen this new stuff? 

This could easily have been Mick Jagger and Keith Richards after their first successful gig. In the modern world, it is more likely to be a hard working CTO talking to a COO about his systems needs.

Systems are not like any other purchase. You can go to a tailor today and he will do almost the identical things that a tailor did for Julius Ceaser.  You can call an architect and his approach will differ little from that of Hiram Abif apart from the time taken to produce drawings.  When it comes to systems though, it is more like medicine. Patients differ, you only hear what they tell you and you don’t really understand anything you have not personally experienced, you have to tease it out using your instinct and experience and play the numbers game.

There are techniques for flushing out the problems and verifying them and for getting the medicine accepted, but ultimately every doctor likes to deal with life threatening situations. If he succeeds for whatever reason, he’s a hero and if not, well, he did his best.
Apart from a lucky few, most of us in the software industry have to earn a living by delivering value in the real world through cost savings, or competitive advantage and that’s a tall order.
It calls for a mixture of calculated risk taking and good fall back positions and it requires an insight that combines real understanding of the business domain with leading edge technological ability. It doesn’t matter whether this is done by a committee or a genius as long as it gets done

The requirements challenge

So how do you meet a business person, listen to his/her needs and six, nine or thirty six months later get a well done, thank you response?

There isn’t a really good answer to this. If it is six months, you are in with a chance. If it is nine you are still in there, at thirty six, the likelihood is that before you deliver this, a much better solution will have been invented, or the problem will have been replaced by a new one.

There is a considerable number of methodologies out there, most of them geared up to coax you into paying for expensive training courses and few aimed at really bridging the divide between what a business needs and what technology can deliver with reasonable reliability.   A methodology that really works has to be able to understand business needs, translate it into process and match this with the best possible technical solution.

Defining the problem

This is not as simple as it sounds. If you read my business case blogs, you will probably remember the way I recommend tying corporate objectives in a direct and accountable way to the benefits delivered by the business case.  That makes perfect sense of course, because a good business sets a plan and then works to deliver on it.
There are other scenarios however that need to be taken into account, this example will hopefully help to illustrate the point.
Suppose we approach an Amazon tribe still living in the traditional way, tell them that we would like to give them some gifts and ask them about the problems they would most like to solve and the things that might give them the most satisfaction.  Problems and exciters. The likelihood is that having seen bright steel machetes amongst the crew, they might suggest a steel spear to make fishing more productive. We might then suggest that rather than give them a spear, we can give them a monofilament net. This way they can catch enough for the whole tribe in an hour instead of having to fish all day.Here we have seen a classic example of the two cardinal sins of analysis:

 1.       Asking a question that the object of the question can’t possibly be expected to answer well.

2.       Answering with a solution rather than a problem.

The interviewee in this example can’t be expected to know how to manage this process, so the entire responsibility lies with the interviewer. By the way, that includes the many occasions when the interviewee believes she knows exactly what she wants and is driving.
The responsibility of the analyst extends to making sure that the interviewee has explored and understood the problem and has a sufficient understanding of it and of the desired outcomes to start either designing or verifying the solution.
I include verifying here, because an increasing number of business people believe themselves to be tech wizards and arrive with fait accomplis and a budget wanting a technically trained fellow to make her vision happen.  In these cases, instead of designing a solution, the analyst goes through a process of verifying the problem, the requirements and the solution.  If these three don’t match and the sponsor doesn’t see it then it is up to the individual analyst’s conscience  and professional intergityas to what he/she should do next.

In Summary

In this part we have talked about three key issues:

1.       The unique challenge facing a systems professional in getting to the real problem before starting on the solution.

2.       Educating the client about possibilities in order to truly understand what the problem is.

3.       Tempering the part time inventor with a little pragmatism without dampening his/her enthusiasm.

The next part will get much deeper into the language and culture of requirements and and discuss different methods of achieving a reliable result.
 

 

 

 

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Testing requirements is not optional

Part one – What would you like sir
Part two – Requirements,tests, training, help files
Part three – Why no project exists onin isolation-whwat should be done
Part four – Business rules, Process rules, Process, Data, different viewpoints
Part five – Testing requirements is not optional
Part six  -Requirements strategy can make or break your project

Yes you read it right. If you are one of those people who believes that testing begins when the supplier drops the system in your lap, then you have missed the point entirely. Testing starts when you build a business case and you test it to make sure that the solution is feasible and the figures are sound etc.
The next important test comes when the requirements are deemed to be complete.
Here’s the summary of a good requirements definition. Depending on the size of the project this could be one document or one per viewpoint. The thing that is important is that the right problems have been addressed and the problems have been identified and described clearly to the suppliers or developers in a way that makes it easy for them to get it right first time.

Business case — Tested via a Business case review, or Stage gate review.
User requirements – Tested via user and stakeholder review. (The problem)
Functional requirements – Describe the functionality that the system will provide in order to meet user requirements. (The solution)
Non Functional requirements – Describe all the constraints like speed of operation, reliability etc.
Data requirements – Describe in detail the inputs and outputs of the system and cover both the validation of human input and the specification of machine interfaces
Business Process – Describe the time phased rules that govern how the business goes about achieving it’s goal with the system. 

Business case review

Has the scope expanded, or the costs changed, or has the timeline been impacted in such a way to negatively impact the business case.
Has the level of complexity shed any doubt on the organisation’s ability to deliver.
Does the bsuiness case still stack up

Business process review

  • Do the processes join up to deliver a result
  • Does each process receive the required inputs
  • Do they handle all exceptions sufficiently
  • Are processes efficient
  • Will new processes deliver the expected benefits
  • Are the risks managed
  • Are the assumptions sound

User requirement review

  • The aim is to discover problems like ambiguous requirements, missing requirements, inconsistent requirements
  • Check against process models to ensure that nothing has been missed.
  • Check against the ten commandments

Functional requirement review

  • Traceability to user requirements
  • Design agnostic
  • Achievable
  • Complete

Non functional requirement review

  • Measurable
  • Explainable
  • Traceable to a business requirement

Data requirements review

  • Complete
  • Clear definition of types, mandatory fields, sizes,

Prioritisation of functional requirements

Armed with best guess estimates of time, cost, risk and benefits propritise them a number scale ar a scale like MoSCoW

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Business rules, Process rules, Process, Data, different viewpoints on requirements.

Part one – What would you like sir
Part two – Requirements,tests, training, help files
Part three – Why no project exists onin isolation-whwat should be done
Part four – Business rules, Process rules, Process, Data, different viewpoints
Part five – Testing requirements is not optional
Part six  -Requirements strategy can make or break your project

Requirements look harmless enough once they have been defined and it can be difficult to imagine the amount of work that may have gone into defining them. Sometimes the issues are simple and requirements are easy to define. More often the business can be very complex and the requirements can be very tricky to define. Often the consequences of getting it wrong are very serious and other times they are easily surmountable. On average more than 60% of all software defects are created in the requirements specification.

To fully understand requirements it is necessary to break them down and consider each on it’s own merit. First of all requirements come from different viewpoints and these angles must be fully considered.
The key viewpoints to consider are: Business rules, Processes, Process rules, Data rules and models, Operating environment internal and external, Culture, Skills, Adaptability.

Business rules

The key to understanding the nature of Business rules is to understand that whatever the business, there are certain rules the business must follow in order to win business, meet legislation, deliver value , get paid and make a profit. These are generally described as Business rules and sometimes they are thought of as business strategy and TOGAF often refers to them as principals..

The importance of business rules can not be overstated, because they provide the flexibility for process to adapt and alter within safe boundaries. A great example of strategy and rules being used in place of process is a football game.  Apart form a few set pieces that can be rehearsed, the bulk of any game is far too fluid to be governed by a process, instead a team of highly motivated people with deep understanding of the strategy and rules adapt and evolve their performance continuously to maximise results.

When we begin a process improvement project, we are doing exactly what that footballer does in every game, we are adapting behaviour to the circumstances while remaining within the stated rules and strategy.

A word of caution about strategy and business rules.
Most organisations fail to upgrade strategy and business rules, but allow senior people to evolve it, often in a very informal way and therefore it is necessary to valiate the current best practice against these rules and update them when necessary via consultation

Often these business rules will be referred to at a high level as the business model, though business rules for our purposes will generally exist at a level one step deeper into the detail and be much broader than  just a business model.
A business rule in a broker model might be that the business only submits to a client, candidate products that match the client’s stated requirements 100%. This might then lead to many more rules that help to better define the high level rule. These rules will most likely be implicit in documents and procedures as opposed to carefully recorded under the heading business rules.

A simple business rule might be that the business charges vat at 17.5% on all sales. Another example might be that the business never offers credit to first time customers, or that it must inspect all of it’s properties at least once a year and provide safety certificates.
A more complex rule might be that all it’s businesses must be visited by a mystery shopper on a Saturday between 12 and 3.pm at least three times a year but no closer than two months apart.

These business rules are not always cast in stone, but they tend to form part of the culture in the business and they often contribute to understanding the capabilities or lack thereof in the organisation. They also reflect the strategies and direction set by the business. Some would say that these business rules are fundamental to what differentiates and defines the business. One way or another they are critical to requirements engineering.

It is also very important to the analyst hoping to deliver well received improvements in how the business runs to understand the consequences of attempting to make changes to these rules. Challenging and changing these rules requires high level sponsorship, deep understanding, tact and respect for the organisation, its people and its essence. It should never be avoided though, when there is a clear opportunity in sight.

Process rules

Process rules are a different entity altogether, but play an equally important role in how a business gets from point A to point B. Process rules are more flexible , less strategic and more tuned into the abilities and preferences of individuals within the organisations. Process rules say as much, or even more about the past where they were born as they do about the future they are intended to support.

A process rule might say that an individual product has to be signed off by the Quality manager before leaving the premises, or that a specific type of purchase is checked individually before being added to inventory.

Complex process rules might suggest that a detailed survey must be produced before a plan of action is presented and only after sign – off by three senior managers can a project begin.

The difference between Business rules and process rules is that Business rules set a strategy for the business, while process rules are one way of delivering on that strategy, but not necessarily the only or the best way.
The power of good process is that while people quickly forget why they do it, they do it without thinking and the process hopefully results in good consistent performance. The downside is that for the same reasons stated above, people continue to follow process blindly long after it has ceased to offer value. This is especially true when that process is enshrined in a system that is inflexible. This fact also makes a very strong case for taking extra care with the design and validation of process, not just in terms of performing well right now, but providing both resilience and adaptability.
The way in which any idea including a process is made reusable is through abstraction and this is a key element in the process modelling element of requirement engineering.
Use cases are the commonest way of abstracting requirements because they are reusable descriptions of things that must be done in a way that is technology and even functionality agnostic.

Requirements

As described in detail in When is a business case not a business case, the Business requirements are the starting point for a project and provide the motivation for proceeding to the next step. They describe clearly what the business objectives are and they make a first attempt at defining the KPIs that will indicate success. They also describe other constraints such as time to market, ROI, etc that may be very important to the project.

User requirements /Use cases

Business requirements are all well and good, but the next level of understanding involves describing in detail the cases in which people will use a product or system, the goals they will be seeking to fulfil and the constraints on each of these user requirements or use cases. Typically a constraint might involve the time it takes to achieve something, or the level of accuracy.

E.G. A business requirement may be that all paper work is eliminated in the “enquiry to payment“ workflow.

This requirement can easily be measured via a number of valuable KPIs and now a whole list of use cases will emerge such as:

  1. A user must be able to record the details of a new order.

a. A user must be able to check that the stock exists

i. If it is not in stock, user must be able to order it

  1. A user must be able to get an ETA on delivery.

  2. A user must be able to retrieve an instant progress report.

  3. Etc.

You will notice that there is no attempt to describe functionality, just to describe the activities users need to carry out and the goals they need to reach.
The second thing worth noting is that we are not burning daylight hours worrying about the order in which these things happen or who does them and all the other aspects that would complicate a traditional process map.
The difference between use cases and process maps is that use cases are written as building blocks that can be used in any order to build a new efficient process as opposed to an existing process that has to be wrenched from it’s owners and painfully changed amidst powerful opposition. The answer you receive in any area of life will depend heavily on the way he way the question is asked and the context in which it is asked. This is key to the success of the business process designer and the and the use case approach lends itself to more objective questions and more accurate answers.

In addition to this, it is often folly to assume that everything is a process. In reality there is not necessarily any time or order dimension in the way many of these events occur and it is more valuable to look upon the business as a series of events to which users must react with use cases.

In my view a process describes a situation where each activity causes the next decision or step to happen immediately. Process is required to understand the functions that will support many of these use cases, but necessarily to join together, or to explain them.

As-is/To-be

An old and respected technique for achieving this understanding of process is to model the “as-is” processes and then to design improvements based on any combination of the capabilities of the new technologies and changes to the business as a whole.

As previously discussed, Use cases pay no attention to the order in which things happen or the decisions about what comes next. This is the main attraction of use cases as a clean sheet on which to design better processes as opposed to mapping “as-is”, (about to be dumped) processes in great detail before then re-designing them in the face of resistance and contention.

The problem is that an analyst must start somewhere and the approach needs to bring along business stakeholders who may have their own ideas and preconceptions.

Our preference is to define this requirements engineering approach in advance bearing in mind whether the task is closest to a new blue sky system, some process improvements, or solving a business problem.
In the latter case, the AS-is and To-Be approach is likely to be most acceptable while a blue sky project will be more successful starting from use cases and using them to design new processes.

The key ingredient in designing or even just recording process is the complete co-operation and enthusiasm of the stakeholders involved, therefore intelligent and tactful consulting combined with open and understandable methodology that stakeholders can feel part of and buy into is an absolute prerequisite.

There no right and wrong processes, there are processes that are used well and those that are rejected

Consultants dilemna

Consulting is not a job for egotists or perfectionist. Every analyst will have seen the same problem tackled in extremely different ways at different organisations and been dismayed at having to ignore hard won experience in favour of what the current client feels comfortable with. This is a fact of life and one of the biggest stumbling blocks for consultants in every walk of life.
In most cases, as-is modelling will be seen fairly quickly to contribute mainly to actually understanding and recording use cases and the time element will be seen as less important. The critical thing is to find a way of recording this information in a format that promotes discussions and input from stakeholders.

This brings us to the last aspect of user requirements. Acceptance criteria.

Acceptance criteria.

As in all things, you need to start out by defining some sort of success criteria.

No goal posts, no goals.

It’s not rocket science, but success criteria is far too often neglected.

Process that has not been verified is a dangerous base on which to design a solution and likewise the suitability of the process to the people who will need to execute it will need a level of verification.

The only way to achieve this is to agree in advance how this verification will be carried out and how the decision will be made.

Functional requirements

Functional requirements are the next level of abstraction, not the solution. Many people are under the illusion that this is a software specification, but nothing could be less accurate. The Functional specification is a bridge between the totally abstract user requirements and the very detailed technical specifications..

This is the critical time when the technical experts get involved to explain to you the possibilities you had not considered and show how your requirements can be met using existing infrastructure.

To demonstrate this, let’s return to the example we used in previous articles.

The business wants to win more new customers through leveraging the internet to keep in touch with people who are in the market for their products.

Having resisted the “Ok let’s build a website” response, we define some user requirements.

Customer users need to be able to:

  1. Study the benefits of our product at their leisure without feeling that they will be pestered

  2. Compare our offering to the other major options in the market place

  3. Do a price comparison

  4. Ask questions about the product

Marketing users need to be able to:
5. Make new collateral available to customers within an hour of proof reading it

  1. Know which collateral is most helpful to the customer

  2. Know the customer’s stage in the buying process when she finally say’s hello and reveals herself.

Turning user requirements into functional requirementsRequirement 1 is up for discussion and the options are laid out, we can have PDFs and faxes cued up ready to auto respond to an anonymous request by the customer.
We can build a website with this information.
We can find a way to attract them to a tool they need when making this decision, give it to them free and make sure it keeps our information in front of them.
Etc, Etc

The recommendations will be influenced by the infrastructure already in place and what the stakeholders and the market are most likely to feel comfortable with.

At the end of this exercise we will have a list of functional requirements that sounds like:

  1. The system will provide a way to publish collateral via webpage, MMS, PDF and mail shot in any combination by a creating a single document.
    A good functional requirement will also list the user requirements it meets or contributes to and will include constraints.

What you have hopefully noticed is that this functionality, although crystal clear, makes no mention yet of the actual technology that will be used. That will be left to technical architects.

Data requirementsAnother common aspect of the functional specification is data requirements. These provide yet another abstract view of the business that presents vital detail to the systems architect without placing too many constraints on him/her.

Data requirements will be driven by required outcomes including legislative requirements such as accounting data to KPIs and operational reporting. Data requirements will often reach far beyond the organisation to embrace sharing and integration with partners, supply chains, customers and others as well as obeying conventions and standards that facilitate benchmarking, look-ups and other collaborative uses of data.
Last but by no means least, Data requirements will define the interfaces with existing applications that make the integration work smoothly.
A set of data requirements may include things like:

Data catalogue that gives clear unambiguous naming conventions and rules for how to collect, validate and store data as well as the daa that is required in every process,.
Data Flow Diagram (DFD) that describes how data flows in the system or business.
Entity diagrams that describe the key entities and their relationships.
Yourdon diagrams that show inputs, processes and outputs.Each method has it’s own merits and it’s own uses.
Sophisticated process design methods like six sigma measure the inputs and outputs of small processes to gauge the health of the overall system. Systems integration demands vey detailed and accurate data catalogues in order to get systems working together.

Usability

Only by carrying out usability tests early on can you avoid the expensive mistakes that alienate users and waste lots of time and hence money for the organisation.
My earliest introduction to the potential pilaffs occurred when I rolled out a cutting edge online CRM system that I had designed and built from scratch for a major utility company. It was first and best of breed, we had put a lot of effort into pulling information out of systems of every conceivable type to create a single view and we had done a pretty good job. We had also presented prototypes to the user base, but we had not paid enough attention or asked the right questions.

On roll-out day, none of the risks came to fruition and everything flowed smoothly, but the union representative on the call centre floor called the rollout to a halt pending her problem being resolved.

The problem was this, all users at developed a way of using speed keys to enter data very quickly while handling inbound calls. This meant that they were able to met targets and earn bonuses worth up to 20% extra on their base pay. With the new browser based system, the speed keys were not available and the bonuses were gone. Staff were threatening to leave and a strike was just 24 hours away.

Eventually we negotiated around this, but it took the gloss off an otherwise successful launch and it taught e a lesson that I’m not going to forget in a hurry. You must carry out well orchestrated usability tests on good prototypes in near perfect replications of the end user environment and go the extra yard to find out the problems from the viewpoint of real users.
Once these constraints have been encompassed into requirements and verified in UAT, you will be in a much more solid position to roll out a winning system.

 

Part two Requirements, tests, training, help files

Part three Why no project exists in isolation-what should be done

Part four Business rules, Process rules, Process, Data, different viewpoints

Part five Testing requirements is not optional

Part six Requirements strategy can make or break your project

Requirements look harmless enough once they have been defined and it can be difficult to imagine the amount of work that may have gone into defining them. Sometimes the issues are simple and requirements are easy to define. More often the business can be very complex and the requirements can be very tricky to define. Often the consequences of getting it wrong are very serious and other times they are easily surmountable

To fully understand requirements it is necessary to break them down and consider each on it’s own merit. First of all requirements come from different viewpoints and these angles must be fully considered.
The key viewpoints to consider are: Business rules, Processes, Process rules, Data rules and models, Operating environment internal and external, Culture, Skills, Adaptability.

Business rules

The key to understanding the nature of Business rules is to understand that whatever the business, there are certain rules the business must follow in order to win business, meet legislation, deliver value , get paid and make a profit. These are generally described as Business rules.

Often these business rules will be referred to at a high level as the business model, though business rules for our purposes will generally exist at a level one step deeper into the detail.
A business rule in a broker model might be that the business only submits to a client, candidate products that match the client’s stated requirements 100%. This might then lead to many more rules that help to better define the high level rule. These rules will most likely be implicit in documents and procedures as opposed to carefully recorded under the heading business rules.

A simple business rule might be that the business charges vat at 17.5% on all sales. Another example might be that the business never offers credit to first time customers, or that it must inspect all of it’s properties at least once a year and provide safety certificates.
A more complex rule might be that all it’s businesses must be visited by a mystery shopper on a Saturday between 12 and 3.pm at least three times a year but no closer than two months apart.

These business rules are not always cast in stone, but they tend to form part of the culture in the business and they often contribute to understanding the capabilities or lack thereof in the organisation. They also reflect the strategies and direction set by the business. Some would say that these business rules are fundamental to what differentiates and defines the business. One way or another they are critical to requirements engineering.

It is also very important to the analyst hoping to deliver well received improvements in how the business runs to understand the consequences of attempting to make changes to these rules. Challenging and changing these rules requires high level sponsorship, deep understanding, tact and respect for the organisation, its people and its essence.

Process rules

Process rules are a different entity altogether, but play an equally important role in how a business gets from point A to point B. Process rules are more flexible , less strategic and more tuned into the abilities and preferences of individuals within the organisations. Process rules say as much, or even more about the past where they were born as they do about the future they are intended to support.

A process rule might say that an individual product has to be signed off by the Quality manager before leaving the premises, or that a specific type of purchase is checked individually before being added to inventory.

Complex process rules might suggest that a detailed survey must be produced before a plan of action is presented and only after sign – off by three senior managers can a project begin.

The difference between Business rules and process rules is that Business rules set a strategy for the business, while process rules are one way of delivering on that strategy, but not necessarily the only or the best way.
The power of good process is that while people quickly forget why they do it, they do it without thinking and the process hopefully results in good consistent performance. The downside is that for the same reasons stated above, people continue to follow process blindly long after it has ceased to offer value. This is especially true when that process is enshrined in a system that is inflexible. This fact also makes a very strong case for taking extra care with the design and validation of process, not just in terms of performing well right now, but providing both resilience and adaptability.
The way in which any idea including a process is made reusable is through abstraction and this is a key element in the process modelling element of requirement engineering.
Use cases are the commonest way of abstracting requirements because they are reusable descriptions of things that must be done in a way that is technology and even functionality agnostic.

Requirements

As described in detail in When is a business case not a business case, the Business requirements are the starting point for a project and provide the motivation for proceeding to the next step. They describe clearly what the business objectives are and they make a first attempt at defining the KPIs that will indicate success. They also describe other constraints such as time to market, ROI, etc that may be very important to the project.

User requirements /Use cases

Business requirements are all well and good, but the next level of understanding involves describing in detail the cases in which people will use a product or system, the goals they will be seeking to fulfil and the constraints on each of these user requirements or use cases. Typically a constraint might involve the time it takes to achieve something, or the level of accuracy.

E.G. A business requirement may be that all paper work is eliminated in the “enquiry to payment“ workflow.

This requirement can easily be measured via a number of valuable KPIs and now a whole list of use cases will emerge such as:

  1. A user must be able to record the details of a new order.

a. A user must be able to check that the stock exists

i. If it is not in stock, user must be able to order it

  1. A user must be able to get an ETA on delivery.

  2. A user must be able to retrieve an instant progress report.

  3. Etc.

You will notice that there is no attempt to describe functionality, just to describe the activities users need to carry out and the goals they need to reach.
The second thing worth noting is that we are not burning daylight hours worrying about the order in which these things happen or who does them and all the other aspects that would complicate a traditional process map.
The difference between use cases and process maps is that use cases are written as building blocks that can be used in any order to build a new efficient process as opposed to an existing process that has to be wrenched from it’s owners and painfully changed amidst powerful opposition. The answer you receive in any area of life will depend heavily on the way he way the question is asked and the context in which it is asked. This is key to the success of the business process designer and the and the use case approach lends itself to more objective questions and more accurate answers.

In addition to this, it is often folly to assume that everything is a process. In reality there is not necessarily any time or order dimension in the way many of these events occur and it is more valuable to look upon the business as a series of events to which users must react with use cases.

In my view a process describes a situation where each activity causes the next decision or step to happen immediately. Process is required to understand the functions that will support many of these use cases, but necessarily to join together, or to explain them.

As-is/To-be

An old and respected technique for achieving this understanding of process is to model the “as-is” processes and then to design improvements based on any combination of the capabilities of the new technologies and changes to the business as a whole.

As previously discussed, Use cases pay no attention to the order in which things happen or the decisions about what comes next. This is the main attraction of use cases as a clean sheet on which to design better processes as opposed to mapping “as-is”, (about to be dumped) processes in great detail before then re-designing them in the face of resistance and contention.

The problem is that an analyst must start somewhere and the approach needs to bring along business stakeholders who may have their own ideas and preconceptions.

Our preference is to define this requirements engineering approach in advance bearing in mind whether the task is closest to a new blue sky system, some process improvements, or solving a business problem.
In the latter case, the AS-is and To-Be approach is likely to be most acceptable while a blue sky project will be more successful starting from use cases and using them to design new processes.

The key ingredient in designing or even just recording process is the complete co-operation and enthusiasm of the stakeholders involved, therefore intelligent and tactful consulting combined with open and understandable methodology that stakeholders can feel part of and buy into is an absolute prerequisite.

There no right and wrong processes, there are processes that are used well and those that are rejected

Consultants dilemna

Consulting is not a job for egotists or perfectionist. Every analyst will have seen the same problem tackled in extremely different ways at different organisations and been dismayed at having to ignore hard won experience in favour of what the current client feels comfortable with. This is a fact of life and one of the biggest stumbling blocks for consultants in every walk of life.
In most cases, as-is modelling will be seen fairly quickly to contribute mainly to actually understanding and recording use cases and the time element will be seen as less important. The critical thing is to find a way of recording this information in a format that promotes discussions and input from stakeholders.

This brings us to the last aspect of user requirements. Acceptance criteria.

Acceptance criteria.

As in all things, you need to start out by defining some sort of success criteria.

No goal posts, no goals.

It’s not rocket science, but success criteria is far too often neglected.

Process that has not been verified is a dangerous base on which to design a solution and likewise the suitability of the process to the people who will need to execute it will need a level of verification.

The only way to achieve this is to agree in advance how this verification will be carried out and how the decision will be made.

Functional requirements

Functional requirements are the next level of abstraction, not the solution. Many people are under the illusion that this is a software specification, but nothing could be less accurate. The Functional specification is a bridge between the totally abstract user requirements and the very detailed technical specifications..

This is the critical time when the technical experts get involved to explain to you the possibilities you had not considered and show how your requirements can be met using existing infrastructure.

To demonstrate this, let’s return to the example we used in previous articles.

The business wants to win more new customers through leveraging the internet to keep in touch with people who are in the market for their products.

Having resisted the “Ok let’s build a website” response, we define some user requirements.

Customer users need to be able to:

  1. Study the benefits of our product at their leisure without feeling that they will be pestered

  2. Compare our offering to the other major options in the market place

  3. Do a price comparison

  4. Ask questions about the product

Marketing users need to be able to:
5. Make new collateral available to customers within an hour of proof reading it

  1. Know which collateral is most helpful to the customer

  2. Know the customer’s stage in the buying process when she finally say’s hello and reveals herself.

Turning user requirements into functional requirementsRequirement 1 is up for discussion and the options are laid out, we can have PDFs and faxes cued up ready to auto respond to an anonymous request by the customer.
We can build a website with this information.
We can find a way to attract them to a tool they need when making this decision, give it to them free and make sure it keeps our information in front of them.
Etc, Etc

The recommendations will be influenced by the infrastructure already in place and what the stakeholders and the market are most likely to feel comfortable with.

At the end of this exercise we will have a list of functional requirements that sounds like:

  1. The system will provide a way to publish collateral via webpage, MMS, PDF and mail shot in any combination by a creating a single document.
    A good functional requirement will also list the user requirements it meets or contributes to and will include constraints.

What you have hopefully noticed is that this functionality, although crystal clear, makes no mention yet of the actual technology that will be used. That will be left to technical architects.

Data requirementsAnother common aspect of the functional specification is data requirements. These provide yet another abstract view of the business that presents vital detail to the systems architect without placing too many constraints on him/her.

Data requirements will be driven by required outcomes including legislative requirements such as accounting data to KPIs and operational reporting. Data requirements will often reach far beyond the organisation to embrace sharing and integration with partners, supply chains, customers and others as well as obeying conventions and standards that facilitate benchmarking, look-ups and other collaborative uses of data.
Last but by no means least, Data requirements will define the interfaces with existing applications that make the integration work smoothly.
A set of data requirements may include things like:

Data catalogue that gives clear unambiguous naming conventions and rules for how to collect, validate and store data as well as the daa that is required in every process,.
Data Flow Diagram (DFD) that describes how data flows in the system or business.
Entity diagrams that describe the key entities and their relationships.
Yourdon diagrams that show inputs, processes and outputs.Each method has it’s own merits and it’s own uses.
Sophisticated process design methods like six sigma measure the inputs and outputs of small processes to gauge the health of the overall system. Systems integration demands vey detailed and accurate data catalogues in order to get systems working together.

Usability

Only by carrying out usability tests early on can you avoid the expensive mistakes that alienate users and waste lots of time and hence money for the organisation.
My earliest introduction to the potential pilaffs occurred when I rolled out a cutting edge online CRM system that I had designed and built from scratch for a major utility company. It was first and best of breed, we had put a lot of effort into pulling information out of systems of every conceivable type to create a single view and we had done a pretty good job. We had also presented prototypes to the user base, but we had not paid enough attention or asked the right questions.

On roll-out day, none of the risks came to fruition and everything flowed smoothly, but the union representative on the call centre floor called the rollout to a halt pending her problem being resolved.

The problem was this, all users at developed a way of using speed keys to enter data very quickly while handling inbound calls. This meant that they were able to met targets and earn bonuses worth up to 20% extra on their base pay. With the new browser based system, the speed keys were not available and the bonuses were gone. Staff were threatening to leave and a strike was just 24 hours away.

Eventually we negotiated around this, but it took the gloss off an otherwise successful launch and it taught e a lesson that I’m not going to forget in a hurry. You must carry out well orchestrated usability tests on good prototypes in near perfect replications of the end user environment and go the extra yard to find out the problems from the viewpoint of real users.
Once these constraints have been encompassed into requirements and verified in UAT, you will be in a much more solid position to roll out a winning system.

Ed Taaffe is a Senior Consultant in the areas of Improving business through use of technology and hi-tech Product Management

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Why no project should exist in isolation and what needs to be done

Part one – What would you like sir
Part two – Requirements,tests, training, help files
Part three – Why no project exists onin isolation-whwat should be done
Part four – Business rules, Process rules, Process, Data, different viewpoints
Part five – Testing requirements is not optional
Part six  -Requirements strategy can make or break your project

How requirements language can contribute to the solution

The very thing that brought about the project as a business entity can also be it’s worst enemy, especially when it comes to technology. The project isolates the goal from the rest of the business by providing it’s own governance and budget and treating like a mini company with a project board in place of the board and a Project manager in place of the CEO. The stakeholders take the role of shareholders and the sponsor that of Chairman.
Project structure is necessary in order to get important tasks completed quickly without having to fall in line with all of the political and process barriers that would otherwise smother it. The problem however is that this isolation often leads to forgetting to ask simple sensible questions like ; “Do we have something already that can do this?”.

I once was engaged by a large public sector organisation to look for a solution to their string of failed web projects. In the course of initial investigations I discovered that they had no less than 6 content management systems any one of which could have provided for all 100 plus websites that they managed. Each project had been considered in isolation and nobody had considered whether more software was needed.

How requirements language could have solved this problem.

The reason things happened the way they did is that nobody said “We need to deliver our messages 24/7 on demand”.
Nobody said “We need a way to encourage feedback from our audience” etc etc.

Nobody said “we need John to be able to publish stuff instantly and get it reviewed and in front of our customers within 30 minutes”.
The reason nobody said these things is because nobody asked them, or at least nobody asked them the right questions, or asked them in the right way.

Here’s how it works best.

The Business person says: “ I need to influence the market to purchase more of our products”
Here we have a business requirement/business problem/probortunity. The terms you choose depend on your viewpoint. In this example it could any of the three. The key is that this is the goal which kicks off the business case and which is ultimately measured in the KPIs you define for benefits realisation.

The Business Analyst then adds some deeper definition like ballpark estimates at timescales, size of increase and other key constraints.

The Business Analyst then speaks with Marketing people who tell him:

“We need to reach these segments.
We need to deliver these messages, we need to make these things available at these points in the buying cycle on a 24/7 basis.
We need to encourage them to approach us in these ways.”

Business analyst then brainstorms with technical people, designers marketers and everyone with a stake and they decide on a high level plan of how this goal can best be achieved.

At this point we have high level requirements. I prefer to refer to them as high level process requirements just in case anyone starts designing systems yet, but they have not developed beyond business requirements and are dealing with “how” rather than with “what” we want to achieve.

The Business analyst then draws use cases from these requirements that provide some detail on the everyday activities of users and the systems they need in order to support them. He/she does this iteratively, continuously checking back with business stakeholders until he/she has a clear understanding of everyone’s role and what they will need to achieve/do (use cases) in order to deliver on the high level requirements.

The Business analyst gathers high level costs and timescales and organises a scoping session when the team make a first draft at deciding how much of this they can afford and which bits will give the best returns for lowest risk.

Verifying the detail behind the more complex use cases is beyond the scope of this blog, yet it is critical to at least acknowledge that this verification must be done to bring time, place, and sequence to these simple use cases and to get an understanding of the processes required and how they differ from, or add to, those which exist and equally importantly, how they can reuse existing processes.

At this point the business analyst converts the use cases, business rules, models and scribbles into a formal set of requirements written down in a straightforward requirements language and taking great care not to define the solution at this point, simply to define the requirements so that a technical team can decide how best to meet these requirements technically, while taking into account the tools they already have.

The rules for writing good requirements

Below is a simple list of 10 rules that you can use to test your requirements once you have written them.

Value – Traces directly back to a business requirement in the business case, i.e. it adds value
Clarity – Give it some thought, be aware of your audience and don’t use three words where two will get the job done. Above all don’t use jargon including company jargon and if it is absolutely necessary to use technical terms add an explanatory footnote.
Design Free – This is by far the most important rule. Don’t even hint at the design. Stick strictly to outcomes. How it is delivered is down to the specification.
Achievable – There’s no point in asking for things that can’t be done technically, are beyond the budget, or are not going to be accepted in the user culture. This last part has been the downfall of many CRM implementations. If the culture is not ready, then don’t do it yet.
Complete – The requirement must give the reader sufficient information to work form the document without your standing beside him/her.
Consistent – Language and style always depends on individuals, the most critical thing is to be consistent so that the reader can learn your style and be confident in understanding your meanings.
Unambiguous– Don’t be woolly and don’t be coward. Spell it out clearly. Words like nice, fast good have no place in requirements. Define what will be nice or fast or good and make it measurable.
Verifiable – Assume that you will also have to write the test cases and test scripts and ask yourself how you will test this requirement. If the requirement doesn’t give enough information for this , then it is not verifiable and not complete.
Atomic – Take your requirement down to the smallest unit you can. Always ask, could this be broken into two requirements. If the answer is yes, do it.
User experience – This one applies mostly to products, but increasingly it is important in business change scenarios. Ultimately your user will feel an emotion or reaction when using your product. This the ultimate test for your product, the one where it wins or loses. This is where you describe the reaction you are trying to produce.

The last and very important step in requirements definition

Now that you have a requirements list, and assuming that all the context of this project has been communicated to the recipient of your list, the next step is to take this list to your supplier.

Regardless of whether the supplier sits at the next desk or is Microsoft Corporation, the same rules apply.

Add an extra 5 empty columns to your requirements list with the following headings: OTB (Out of the box), CON (Configurable), CU (Customisation required) New (New feature needed) note (Here they enter the number of any footnote they need to include.

My personal preference is to ask for ballpark time, cost and risk estimates alongside of any new code or customisations

This simple exercise will give you an immediate heads up on how much new code, new systems and other effort, risk and expense will be involved and it will take you one step closer to defining the final scope of your project and/or choosing the best supplier.

Today we talked about the issues of language and viewpoint when setting out to define system requirements and we defined the Ten Commandments of writing good requirements.

We did however gloss over a very complex and important area in terms of exploring, defining and verifying process, rules and business rules in order to write requirements that you can feel confident about.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Product or Internal System why it is important to make a distinction

When do you need a BA and when do you need a Product manager? why is it critical to get it right?
Whenever I write about anything connected to product development or systems implementation, I am acutely aware of the amount of critically important stuff that I have to gloss over or ignore in order to stay readable and this is no exception.

In broad terms, it is very easy to make a distinction between a product and an internal system. The internal system is being rolled out to the workforce and there is not normally much option about whether it can be adopted and used by the target audience, that is, unless it fails to deliver.
The product, on the other hand has to be launched to a public audience who must be sufficiently convinced that it meets a compelling need or solves a pressing problem, to part with their cash and use the product.

There’s a world of difference between investigating a business problem, creating a business case and designing a solution to this problem and identifying a market sized need, establishing a product problem and designing a compelling solution with confidence that you will have a success on your hands.
The stages we go through are remarkably similar and almost interchangeable, but the big difference is in how we engineer and verify requirements.

Although many products begin as an idea in the mind of a director and are driven forward by this vision, at some point a professional product manager has to establish a strategy for verifying these requirements with the intended purchasers and developing a compelling value proposition that will sell the product.
Faced with defining requirements that will motivate users to pay for your new product, you will need a lot of new consultation and communication techniques that are generally well beyond the scope of a Business Analyst, you will also need deep knowledge of the marketplace to assess not only how well your product may be received, but how the competition will compare and how they will react to your offering.

It is remarkable how often this fundamental truth is ignored by government and public agencies who believe or assume that they have a captive audience for their brainwave, when in fact the public often remain unimpressed and find alternatives or ignore it altogether. A simple product management methodology and the use of more appropriate skill sets could save many of the costly blunders in e-government and deliver dramatically more benefits for most of the remainder.

Ed Taaffe

Managing requirement scope

Sometimes the definition of requirements and management of their delivery is described as Scope management.  Scope management is composed of five distinct phases:

  1. Scope initiation
  2. Scope planning
  3. Scope definition
  4. Scope verification
  5. Scope change control

Scope initiation refers to the justification phase. This is when a Product management team create Market requirements and Product requirements documents or a  corporate change team will create a Project mandate and produce a Feasibility study.  It is high level, but it is critical to establish clearly that there is a need or justification and to understand the early boundaries.

Scope Planning is a lot more than it sounds and the danger in glib descriptions like this one is that they can easily lead to not taking the work seriously enough.  This is the time when the established high level need at strategic level or market level is translated into a clear product definition with features that hopefully trace right back to the benfits put forward in the outline business case.
This phase is where the real requirements engineering happens and where the product  design ideation and design phase product development will happen.

You may well be sitting there saying yes, but I only wrote down requirements for a simple off the shelf system and purchased it. Well if that was the case, going through the motions of making sure you understood the  benefits and that the product would really be able to deliver them will have been quick and easy.
 In my personal experience, the purchase of a cheap printer can be fraught with problems unless you go out with a clear scope in mind.

Scope definition.

This is where you either define work packages for the various teams of developers or suppliers, or you place and manage a procurement contract.  Without a sound plan and careful management, the best possible plans and designs can come apart very quickly at this stage as requirements are misinterpreted, deliverables fail to deliver and tests fail to impress.

Scope verification.

This is best started at the earliest possible time. Ideally it starts as soon as there is a single deliverable that can be tested alone.  This is the process of verifying that the deliverable performs, that it meets performance specifications and finally that the end product is capable of delivering the benefits.

Scope management.

This is another part of the project that can continue right through the process. It is the positive act of keeping  everything form the earliest designs to the final deliverables within the scope that was agreed and signed-off and just occasionally invoking a change request procedure to accommodate a truly great idea or a serious oversight.

These five activities applied judiciously to the definition and delivery of a product of any kind will greatly increase the likelihood of success and reduce the risk of failures.

Ed Taaffe