My formal training is in mechanical engineering with a strong background in software engineering.
I served as a process engineer in many different industries, in varying physical and management environments, involving a wide range of solution architectures, for numerous different applications, in locations all over the world, almost always in the capacity of an external vendor or consultant providing highly specialized analysis and technical solutions to larger organizations.
I have studied and become certified in many of the contemporary management and problem-solving practices and have written and mentored on them extensively.
My specialty was computer simulation, which involves not only exposure to the full SDLC life cycle, but detailed analysis of what is important and what the goals and outputs should be. I designed, built, and employed both major classes of simulation (continuous and discrete-event) for many different applications, from first principles, using a variety of high-level programming languages.
Please see my website, webinars, and work with the Tampa Bay IIBA chapter.
Industries
|
|
|
The process is what we analyze and either build or change to serve customers.
The engagement is the work we do to make a change to the process.
The solution is the change we make to the process.
The environment is the physical, economic, and management context we work in.
Regardless of the structure of the engagement, the activities in each phase are carried out in an iterative fashion that continuously incorporates review, feedback, and correction both within and between phases.
Link to detailed discussion.
Link to detailed discussion.
Link to detailed discussion.
Items are tracked using a Requirements Traceability Matrix.
Omissions recognized in later phases can cause items to be created in earlier phases.
Procedural requirements may apply to each phase.
Link to detailed discussion.
The internal, logical structure of the design needs to be mapped as well.
Both forms of mapping should include all the tracked elements.
I believe that both mappings should align in the design phase, because that's what drives the work to be done.
As concepts are being tracked across the life of the engagement and within the logic of the design, they can be considered at a high level and progressively broken down into individual work items as analysis proceeds.
This breakdown can be done in conjunction with tracking across phases.
Once a system is implemented, deployed, and accepted, it may be used, maintained, and modified over a long period of time, until it is removed and possibly replaced.
Ongoing modifications to an existing system will involve engagements with an existing As Is state which may have to be "re-discovered."
Ideally, ongoing work will be integrated and linked into the original project's core documentation.
Link to detailed discussion.
Organizations are formed by people for a purpose. Although business analysis techniques can be used to analyze and address individual issues, the practice is mainly geared toward facilitating cooperative efforts involving multiple people and organizations. It thus inevitably includes communication to develop mutual understanding.
Benefits accrue to customers (who may or may not always be who you think they are), employees, owners, suppliers, and other stakeholders affected by their activities.
The managers and shareholders of these organizations should always seek improvements of the types listed. This is how value is generated for all parties.
Benefits are realized in many ways, but most include savings along the three edges of the Iron Triangle of cost, time, and quality (including features). The joke is that you can have it fast, cheap, or good, pick two. (And if you want it really, really fast, cheap, or good, pick one.)
Cost and time are similar across activities, but quality and features can vary as widely as can be imagined.
Many of the non-functional requirements can express realizable benefits. Items like reliability, modularity, clarity, maintainability, ease-of-use, and robustness all lead to savings in time, money, and human well-being.
In the end, the biggest driver of improvements is expressed in terms of money. That doesn't mean it's the only way, but it is the strongest signal we have that communicates how efficiently we are using resources to achieve society's many and competing ends. Economists' insight that the price system, which can be thought of as an ongoing global auction for all goods and services all the time, coordinates people's activities (relatively) efficiently is one of the greatest intellectual breakthroughs of all time. As such, most calculations inside an organization are made in terms of monetary costs and benefits.
For things that aren't measured in terms of money, like human well-being, having your non-profit survive and continue to be funded, getting reelected to office or growing the bureaucracy (if you're cynical), aren't based on monetary calculations directly, but they will surely fail if they aren't mindful of using resources with some kind of efficiency. The global auction includes trade-offs between all kinds of things, not just money.
Costs and benefits should be considered across the appropriate scope the activity addressed in each engagement, but the full life cycle costs and benefits should always be considered. A lot of faulty analysis comes from leaving things out.
This presentation and other information can be found at my website:
E-mail: bob@rpchurchill.com
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/robertpchurchill
Next: Approach 01: Imposed By Competition
Prev: Introduction 01: Overview
Introduction | ||
|
||
Approaches | ||
|
||
Considerations | ||
|