IT Staff reductions – QA Business Analyst

As companies in America seek to cut back on staffing levels in IT to save costs there is more expectation for multiple role Business Analysts. It was well known that BAs would often have one foot in project management and another in the BA world as it was seen as a possible natural progression that that the BA would eventually become full time Project Manager. Now the expectation has extended in a different direction.

The latest trend is to expect the Business Analyst to own the Quality Assurance (QA) part of the SDLC. Understand that this is beyond knowing how to write a test case or how to manually test and capture the result as a BA would be called on to do in the past. BAs are now expected to know how to setup and configure the current automated QA testing tools appropriate for the area they are working in. Basically the BA should be able to perform high volume testing post development rather than individual tests. Think of the BA having to know how to setup / configure / automate load tests, data validation tests, web site tests, mobile app tests etc..

This is great news if you are a Quality Assurance person wanting to move into Business Analysis. It sucks however if you are a pure BA that has focused on efficient and accurate requirement gathering or someone who has avoided becoming a QA expert because of the limited human interaction.

Moving into QA experience is also not a leg up on the career path like moving into Project Management. At best it is a sideways move that gives you access to two types of jobs (QA / BA). Personality of a good BA also does not tie in well with heavy QA work as the experts in the QA world like the fact that they deal less with the business and can focus on testing for results without interruption (think basically a lot of alone time).

This move is purely and simply about companies removing a role from the development lifecycle to save costs. Ironically, hiring companies complain about finding good testers that fail to understand the business / capture good requirements or good BAs that do not know how to setup high volume tests. It is a situation that the companies have created themselves.

If you are a seasoned BA of many years, this change is more of a push to move out of the BA role and seek more of the product owner roles as the traditional BA role dies away.

If you are just starting out as a BA or have limited experience, now would be the time to get QA experience to make yourself more marketable for BA roles.

British Government create Major Fraud Incident by using IT to save on human costs! 20+ million pounds lost.

Current benefit scam (Universal Credit) in the United Kingdom has yet again shown how any approval for money given out via online validation is risky. Since the money was provided quickly by the government, scammers jumped on the chance to coax personal information out of people and even to make up fake personal information so they could get access to the most money possible. Current estimates are that over 20 million pounds has been stolen by fraudsters.

To help gain people’s trust, scammers used social media heavily to sell the fraud. Scammers also did the online application so any warnings of what was being signed up for were not visible to the victims of the fraud.

If we look at the original honorable goal of the online application, it was to provide people with money until their benefits were reviewed / approved as the approval process was taking 5 weeks or more. Government thought it would be great to give people money (in a the form of a loan) that would be later paid for by the claimants benefits (if approved) or repaid by the claimant if not approved for benefits. This way, the claimant could avoid cash flow issues. Really, the problem was that the Government did not have enough staff to process the claims quicker. The IT solution along with the loan was a cheaper approach that was badly implemented.

What was completely missed by the IT department working for the British Government when setting up the solution was the implementing of all the rules that human employees would use to process an application. This was a complete failure on the part of the business analysts involved in this software development and has ended up costing the UK government millions.

Some of the functions a human employee would have done in processing the application:

  1. Is the applicant aware of what they are signing up for? – Scammers did the application on behalf of the applicant so the applicants never knew fully. Scammers also used social media to describe the money as coming from a grant and not a loan.
  2. Do I have confirmation that the applicant knows what they are signing up for? As the applicants were not on the web site, they never confirmed what was being done. Victims have found out after the case what was really done.
  3. Do I have some reliable proof that the claim is accurate? Scammers submitted whatever they wanted to state in the claim as the validation was done over the process of 5 weeks after the money had been sent.
  4. Does the applicant know the amount and fees (if any) associated with the claim? Scammers claimed a fee to fill in the application on behalf of the claimant but there were no fees in reality.
  5. Does the applicant know who is supposed to do the claim? Scammers jumped on the opportunity to do the claim as their was no biometric validation (as compared to being interviewed by the government employee) as it was done online.

Here are the functions that we should watch for in our projects that require special attention when we are providing money quickly based on online validation only:

  • We need to guarantee that the party receiving the money is who they say they are and they know exactly how much is their money. This could be done by ensuring they are using an already validated bank account. In this fraud, a lot of the victims actually received the money to their bank account but thought they were obligated to pay the scammers part of it as the scammers had completed the online application.
  • We need to guarantee that the applicant is the one completing the application online so that the applicants are aware of what they are doing. Any warning / informational messages associated with the claiming / providing of money as part of an online application, we have to be 100% sure that the party to receive the money (legally tied to the money) has seen them! A web page pop-up with click of “Yes” along with capturing of IP address is not enough to verify that the person who needed to see the warning / informational message actually saw them. We need to guarantee the person at the computer on the web site is the valid party involved. This is where biometric information or a chip style reader (as used in credit cards) for an identity card would come in handy. Some companies use validated phone numbers with text messaging to achieved this however if the phone number is hacked or changed by the scammer this does not work. With the current fraud, it is several weeks before the Government works out that the claimant never used the web site to complete the application and thus were not aware of what was being signed for.

In summary, the British Government got themselves into this position because they did not want to hire more staff to process claims quicker. It is the classic case of relying on Information Technology to speed up a process on the cheap without due considerations of the risks involved or the human functions being replaced by the computer. Whoever did the analysis and design of this payment solution was incompetent beyond belief.

Process improvement through nudging

As business analysts, we are called in often to look at ways to improve the current process. Measurable improvements desired by the business to justify the process improvement could be in:

  • Quality
  • Reductions in costs
  • Increase in processing per hour

Any process to be improved has a certain amount of dynamic variability to it. From a high level math perspective, the processes are looked at as “dynamic resource allocation” because of the variability factor. By controlling the variability with nudges we can improve the process.

  • NOTE: With the advent of stronger AI, in the future we will see more reliance on AI to advise as to the best way to improve a process and it will be left up to the Business Analyst to help put AI advice in place.

What is “nudging” and how is it used to improve a process?

Nudging is where we don’t force a change of process or add new processes to improve process but instead nudge the behavior of the participants in a the current processes to get the results desired. A current example of this is where financial institutions offer rewards to customers if they go paperless for their statements. Going paperless improves:

  • Percentage of outstanding statements processed per hour as smaller printing backlog.
  • Speed of delivery as they are delivered in hours instead of days.
  • Quality in the sense that the statement does not get delivered to the wrong address, does not get damaged in printing etc.
  • Cost reduction as less mailing costs.

You can see from the 4 bullet points above, that a lot can be achieved by just nudging the customer in the statement process to no longer expect a paper statement.

So the next time you are looking at improving a current set of business processes, ask yourself if you can make improvements by “nudging” the current users of the business process in a direction that would support measurable improvements for less cost than force implementing changes or building solutions that have to manage many variables.

The Data Lake – understanding the concept

June 8, 2019 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Business Analyst Skills, Data 

As data capture has grown so have some of the techniques of handling the data. For about 10 years now, the Data Lake has started to appear in the business world as part of the data capture concept.

Originally when I started out, data was distributed all over the place with business analysts having to ask for extracts from various departments to get an overall view of the company. It was time consuming.

Next came the large data warehouse accepting in data from all over the company to a central store. However it could take years to get that data into the data warehouse. At one place I worked, it was a minimum of 2 years to absorb data into the data warehouse. Delay in getting data in was caused by the need to model the data and understand it completely before it could be absorbed. Data modelers would have to work out if new tables were needed and BAs would have to justify the business cost of storing the data. Add onto this that existing reports would be expected to use the data from the data warehouse and these reports would all have to be rebuilt to use the new data structure.

As companies have evolved to produce even more data, the data warehouse wait time was increasing significantly. Waiting for centralized data however did not tie in well with corporate strategy of being able to know what is going on around the company. At this point the Data Lake concept came into being. The Data Lake is basically a collection point for all data from around a company in any type of data structure. Data does not need to be refined to end up in the Data Lake. Good and bad data is collected. Visually the Data Lake term represents departments that generate data as streams that feed the lake.

As the data collects in the Data Lake, eventually some of it will make its way into the enterprise data warehouse based on need and cost justification. By creating a Data Lake approach, it has created a one source of data for people in a company to access. Data scientists can look at what is being captured and see if any of it is of use to what they are trying to analyze.

Pros of Data Lake:

  • Centralized repository of company data which in theory makes it easier to find data.
  • Quick to capture data into as not refined in anyway.
  • Allows the data source departments to focus on supporting their applications / business and not on providing formal data extracts that have to be absorbed by a data warehouse or other team.
  • Don’t have to wait on departmental availability of resources to get access to another department’s data.

Cons of Data Lake:

  • Resources have to be hired to support the collection of data into the data lake and the sharing of it.
  • Failure to get good searchable metadata on the data being store in the Data lake would prevent the data from being discovered at a later date.
  • Resources associated with the original data generation are not part of the Data Lake team which means the personal knowledge on the Data Lake team is limited to non-existent. Data knowledge is totally reliant on the metadata captured at the time the data is stored.
  • Useful and not so useful data is captured as the focus is capturing data.
  • Dependent on cheap storage to justify the large storage costs and the resources to support the physical storage / networks etc.
  • Secure data should not end up in a Data Lake due to risk that it may be exposed.
  • Not for operational reporting where reports have to be generated in 24 hours or less of data being created.

In summary, the Data Lake concept is just a fancy way of saying centralized raw data store created from data provided via different departments in a company. A Data Warehouse can pull data from the Data Lake for storage in the Warehouse at a later date once the need for it to be stored formally has been identified.

What kind of business are you in?

The question “what kind of business are you in?” seems simple enough and is a standard question that businesses ask themselves to stay relevant and not lose sight of their market. However as we know, the answers to simple open questions can end up being complicated. Looking at an example of a wrong answer for this question: railroad company thinks of themselves as a company in the railroad business, not realizing they are in the transportation business. An extreme example of bad decision making was Kodak not realizing they were in the memory / emotion capture business and instead they focused on providing film and print material because it had made them money for over 100 years. By the time they realized what business they were in, it was too late.

You might be wondering what direction I am taking this in. I want you to consider how you would answer this question in relation to your current career as a business analyst.

As a business analysts, I consider we are there to help generate improvement of profit and or reduction of costs for the companies we work at. However most employers (who are actually our customers) don’t see that in our role but instead look upon us to be specific in what we provide them in terms of knowledge and experience. Examples would be:

  • Payment handling
  • Healthcare data processing
  • General data analytics
  • Anti money laundering
  • Utilities
  • Mobile applications development
  • etc..

This narrow role definition by our customers puts us back into the mental mode of thinking that we are in the railroad business and not in transportation. Basically our customers are not going to tell us that they plan to make us obsolete with a new solution to their business needs or that they are losing market share in their industry (leading to job losses). We have to think beyond what we immediately provide to the customer and consider at least two things in our careers.

  1. Industry trends
  2. Tools we use

Industry Trends:

  • Is the Industry that we are working in shrinking or growing in our geographic location of work? Example – think of factories that get closed or corporate mergers either of which would reduce people needed in the industry.
    • To overcome, you would either need to gain experience / knowledge in a new industry or move location to where the work is (if that is an option).
  • Are there current or future disruptions to the way the work is being done in our industry that we need to be aware of? Example – looking at the railroad, the rails, trains and railcars are just a tool used in transportation. Certainly they help the railway business make money but as the railway companies found out in America after the interstate roads were built, new options for transportation by road upset the apple cart. Money invested in trains and railcars was lost because these tools did not work on the road. Basically being only in the railroad business was going to cause a loss of market share, decline in profits and decline in employment opportunities.
    • To overcome, you need to stay aware of advancements in technology / process that could impact your industry and seek knowledge / experience with the new and even considering changing industry if the new will make your industry obsolete and or reduce its market share causing a reduction in employment.

Tools We Use

  • Are the tools required to do your job changing? Example – with the move to more Agile IT work we are expected to have used formal tools for managing user stories, backlogs etc.. Reporting is another area where tools are continually evolving.
    • To overcome, you need to monitor the tools specified in job postings prior to your next job, have a budget set aside for training, get the training and if possible work out how to get experience with the tool/s.

In summary, don’t let your current success with customers blind you to the market. Stay current with what industries are doing (growing or shrinking) and what tools you need to do your job. That way you will continue to help companies improve their profits and reduce their expenses. Plan to budget for time and money to be spent to keep yourself marketable to customers. Be prepared to ditch an industry if the future looks grim. Don’t focus on pure profit, invest in yourself to stay in line with the market otherwise you may become the next Kodak.

3 Generic Certifications that help you get IT BA interviews!

There is no getting past it that the IT BA market has become saturated. It is no longer enough to be someone who has worked as a BA for years as the market is full of that experience. So the question becomes how do you make it to the interview pile instead of the reject pile?

Today I want to focus on 3 generic IT certifications that are not tied to an industry or solution that can help move your resume into the pile to be interviewed.

#3 Certified Business Analyst Professional or equivalent: This one has been around for quite a few years now. If you have been doing BA work as long as I have, it really does not bring much value in terms of knowledge. If you have less than 10 years of experience, this one is good to add onto your resume. However its value has somewhat diminished with Agile development.

Pros:

  • Shows that you have at least been educated as a BA.
  • Great for when you have limited real world experience.

Cons:

  • Has not become a job requirement like A+ certification (for pc repair).
  • BA roles differ from company to company so some companies add more or less weight to the certification.
  • Does not carry as much weight in the Agile development world.

#2 Certified Scrum Master: You can look on this certification as selling yourself to the client as two for the price of one. For the longest time, clients have liked to put their BA’s in the role of backup Project Manager, being a Scrum Master is the new flavor that Agile development has brought to us.

Pros:

  • Shows that you understand Agile development.
  • Makes you more appealing to the client as you can now fill two roles.
  • Could increase your salary as Scrum Masters can make more money than ordinary BAs.

Cons:

  • You may end up doing more Scrum Master work than BA work.
  • Could make your life busy as you juggle two roles.
  • You may not like being a Scrum Master.
  • Only applicable to Agile development. For non Agile, you could look to taking Project Management certifications instead.

#1 Certified Product Owner: You can look on this certification as being the natural career progression of the BA involved with Agile development. Any BA that wants to stay more in the BA world should look to get this certification sooner or later. It shows a client that you understand Agile and that you understand the BA role through the Product Owner viewpoint. With the advent of the Product Owner role, certain tasks normally performed by the BA have moved to the Product Owner and this is why it is not a large step for a BA to move into this role.

Pros:

  • Shows that you understand Agile development.
  • Makes you more appealing to the client as it shows you should be able to represent what the business wants.
  • Could increase your salary as Product Owners are more involved with the money making side of the business.

Cons:

  • More applicable to Agile development but does carry over into other types of development methods.
  • May not pay as well

In summary, if you are wondering how to get more interviews as an Information Technology BA, getting at least one of these generic certifications can help you move forward. What school or method you choose to get these certifications is not as important as actually having a certification that you can add to your resume.

From a long term perspective with these certifications, you will need to decide if you want to go more on the high paying Scrum Master side (which is more like the old Project Management) or look to move into Product Ownership which is the natural next step for Business Analysts.

Business Analysts who want to become Product Owners should know these two things.

As the market changes for business analysts and more consider the move into the product owner world, the question becomes, what is the difference between the role? Product owners can sometimes just be business analysts with a new job title and in other cases they are really product owners with full authority to make decisions.

Agile development has driven the growth of the product owner role. No longer do business partners have to wait months for development to implement new features / functions, instead they can be delivered in weeks. Since business partners usually have to run the business they don’t have time to spend on agile work so they delegate business representation to the product owner.

Now, let us consider two of the key differences in the product owner role vs business analyst:

  1. Industry knowledge – with the traditional BA role, there is usually time to get up to speed in the industry being worked in (Retail, Utility, Finance, Health, Transportation etc..) as the requirements are gathered. This means that having industry knowledge is not a deal breaker to being hired. In the product owner world, you had better know the industry as decisions have to be made quickly to keep the development moving. For example glass devices are not allowed in food processing plants, so developing a product solution that uses cell phone applications would be a bad decision for any industry that goes inside food processing plants because of the glass touch screen.
  2. Metrics / research – product owners need to make decisions on the priority of features / functions to be developed. As a product owner, you need to know how to justify the decision based on real world facts. This requires an understanding of the research options / data available and metrics desired in new development. Think Google Analytics, combined with any restrictions on data that can be collected / solutions that can be delivered. Business analysts on the other hand normally get this information and direction from their business partners.

How to get the skills needed to be a product owner?

  • Industry knowledge can be gained by either working as a business analyst in the industry for a period of time or getting a job on the business side. Both options will be good to getting the necessary experience.
  • Knowing research options / metrics to justify decisions is not always needed as not all companies expect this of their product owners. However for those product owners that do need to know the information, joining external groups in the industry, reading trade publications, staying on top of trends, working on the business side etc.. can all help to build up the knowledge required to justify decisions.

Are criminals and government fines driving new requirement methods?

We all have had the business partner who never quite tells us all that we need to know when working on a project but spare a thought for those who design solutions to defeat criminals. In their case, the criminal is not sharing what he does and most design is done in reaction mode.

One area that has got recent focus is Money Laundering. Financial Institutions that end up involved with Money Laundering not only risk loss of money and reputation but fines as well imposed by their governments or even other governments. The situation of identifying money laundering has gotten so out of control that nobody really knows how to define the complete requirements to identify money laundering.

Traditional requirement methods basically do not work anymore. With traditional requirement methods, the Business Analysts identify / capture the business rule and then implement it. Unfortunately the people who make the business rules are not the ones sharing it with us.

Criminals don’t tell us that if they do X, Y & Z then they are money laundering. The criminal’s desire is to float under the radar as normal customers. Their methods for appearing as ordinary customers have gotten so good that the people trying to create the rules after the fact to identify Money Laundering can no longer keep up. This puts Financial Organizations in a bit of a pickle.

Governments have made it so that Financial Institutions cannot just ignore the problem of Money Laundering and hope for the best. After all, if a Financial Institution goes belly up, it can affect a whole country. To avoid this worst case scenario, a government may force a Financial Institution out of business if they are not confident that the institution is compliant with laws. If you want to get business owners / board members to do something about a problem, threatening their business is one solid way to go about it and the governments know this.

For Financial Institutions to get round this issue of not knowing the business rules to implement to identify Money Laundering, they are turning to Artificial Intelligence (AI) to fill in the gap of knowledge. AI will scan through large amounts of data to learn, establish, monitor and update the business rules that identify Money Laundering or Potential Money Laundering. Systems will then implement the rules on the fly to freeze accounts, recover laundered money and notify government and law enforcement agencies.

While I am not a liberty to talk about the specific data being worked with, I can discuss what this means from a Business Analyst perspective. Data scientists and AI engineers will take over the role of capturing and implementing the business rules for identification of Money Laundering into the systems. Previously this was handled by the Business Analyst. However, before you cry about the loss of another piece of work for the Business Analyst role, new opportunities will open up:

  • AI needs data and lots of it. Business Analysts will be recruited to provide data interfaces into the AI machine. At least for the next little while. Eventually, the desire is to end up with more of a Web Crawler approach where the AI establishes new sources of data with little to no human intervention.
  • While AI will be good at identifying that an action is needed it will not be good at implementing the action (at least until we build the fictional “Skynet”). Business Analysts will always be involved with ensuring that the action is communicated to where it needs to be communicated and that any automatic response within an organization is performed . With the way Companies, Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies reorganize themselves on a regular basis it is unlikely that this will ever be a static solution. Given that changing environment, this should keep Business Analysts busy for a while.

What I think will be interesting in the future will be for the Data Scientists and AI engineers to be able to explain the reasoning of the AI for its decision that a particular event is Money Laundering. Eventually it could grow beyond their understanding. I can see a future where Business Analysts will be called upon to get the AI systems to pump out human readable reasoning and maybe that will be a new job task for us all.

In summary, criminals and governments are driving the need for AI to step in and generate IT requirements on the fly. This is to ensure that the criminals are kept in check and that businesses are not shut down by governments for not keeping criminals in check. While some BA roles will be lost around business rules capturing and implementing, other new roles will open up in support of the AI infrastructure and especially the output from the AI solutions.

AI will end the need for IT Requirement Business Analysts

Will say up front that this is purely an opinion piece as I don’t plan to provide the textual references to back up the statements. Purpose is just to think about the evolution of technology that had led us to this point and the impact to the IT Requirements Business Analyst.

Historical speaking if we start at the Industrial revolution, machines were used to speed up production. Back then, the equivalent of a software programmer was a mechanical engineer who designed the levers; shafts and cogs etc.. to produce the desired result. More often than not, workers were required to keep the machines fed with raw material and to remove the finished product. You could think of the raw material as being the equivalent of data coming into a modern day data processing software and the end product being the finished use of the data such as reports / dashboards or account updates.

When the electronic computer moved into the office world in the late 40’s we started to see where the processing of data by human clerks was being replaced by the computer. The mission of the computer back in those days was to reduce the number of humans involved in processing data. At this point, businesses are not looking for the computer to give them guidance but just to allow data to be processed quicker and more cheaply. Designers of software could focus on the tasks already done by the human and create software and peripherals such as printers that replaced those tasks. This would be done by job shadowing to understand the process.

Moving into the fifties and sixties, computers became available that could be programmed with complex algorithms to allow data to be processed in a way that predictions could be made from the data. At this point, the designers are no longer thinking about replacing workers but instead leveraging the processing power of the computer to produce decisions related to business. While some of this you could argue was done in WW2 to break codes, those machines were specifically built for the task. What the more modern computers allowed was for programming languages to change the decision task to meet the current need. However the one handicap was the speed of the computer in those days. Decisions generated by the computers were not done in real time and the programming involved was complicated.

With the advent of the more powerful and useful computers that come out of the late sixties, we start to see where computers become part of real-time processing. Computing processing power and storage keeps increasing every year allowing for businesses to look at new way of saving costs / increasing investments by letting the computer streamline their processes beyond replacing people to even including the ability to expand their business. This is achieved by the development of new interfaces beyond the punch card of old. Now terminals are available that allow for direct access to the computer processor allowing for live updates of data – think airline ticket handling. In this period the designer was seeing how new tools available via technology could enhance rather than replace the current process. However even with all these advances, the use of the computer was still dependent on a designer working out the needs of the business and getting it coded. Software solutions were ridged and limited to the design parameters provided.

Even when we go into the turn of the century, the faster computers with more data handling are still moving along with limited software design that involves fixed parameters and limited interfaces for data collection.

Where we seem to make the evolutionary leap towards AI is when the processing power and data handling ability of computers crosses a threshold where it can consume non-human prepped data that is beyond just text. Previously, data processing power limited what a computer could do in real time. Now a computer can process not just plain textual data but also images, sound etc. and determine decisions based on this. It is like we have removed a prisoner from a small cell where the only thing they could see was text and their hearing / touch / sensing was deliberately disabled. Now we are in a scenario where computers can be educated to interface with humans on a natural level. All the designer needs to do is define the data streams (based on the context – driving a car for example) and the measures of success. AI can then learn to process the data.

Now before I talk about the impact of AI on the BA role, I want to break the role into two:

Role 1 is the BA that looks at business processes.

Role 2 is the BA that looks at interfacing IT with business processes.

Business process BAs (Role 1) are already heavily being replaced by the Product Owner role so while this BA will eventually not exist, the role has a chance of living on for a period of time with the advent of AI as a Product Owner. Eventually however even Product Owners will be replaced by more sophisticated AI solutions. Big risk though, is that businesses become clones of each other. An AI analyzing the marketplace may come up with the same opportunities as another business AI thus killing the market opportunity as both deliver the same solution at the same time making neither have an advantage over the other. While this happens with humans today, the occurrence is less as humans cannot deliver ideas at the 24x7x365 speed that AI can. Stock market meltdowns have already been shown to happen when multiple different stock monitoring software trigger sell decisions because a trigger event occurs. This will be the same issue when AI takes over the business Product Ownership.

Role 2 BAs that focus on requirements for IT design are most likely to be impacted in the very near term by the advent of AI. This role has already seen a significant amount of work being moved to UI designers and Data Warehousing Specialists (both of whom are at risk of being replaced by AI as well) that the amount of work left is limited. With the advent of AI, its is conceivably possible for the BA person to be replaced by an AI solution that interfaces directly with the business to produce either IT solutions or output that can be used to create IT solutions. For years this has been a dream of many companies. Easier to use software being the traditional way to limit IT expenses – think about how many business users use Excel for example without ever talking to a BA. AI will make it a reality for everybody to ditch the IT requirements BA. Instead of having to learn an interface specific to a piece of software, the AI will instead provide a sophisticated human interface that replicates what the BA does today. For the business it will be as if they are working with a BA but without the human cost. Certainly it will take time and money to develop this BA replacement AI but once it is developed it can easily be distributed and shared.

In summary, AI will be a great move forward for business but will negatively impact the Business Analyst market as we know it today. Business Analysts who focus on only IT requirements would be well advised to move into Product Owner roles or be involved with the AI development that is happening so that they can be an expert in the field.

VW a lesson in marketing versus regulations

By now you will be very aware of the VW diesel scandal where the software on the car detected when the car was being tested and controlled exhaust emissions to past the test.

Anyone that works in gathering requirements can easily see the problem here. There were two competing requirements Marketing and Regulatory and in the end the marketing side won out.

Big business is a game of cat and mouse. Laws are in place for a lot of things but for business the viewpoint of laws is the risk / cost of being caught and the benefit of not following the law. If the law is not enforced 100%, business will start to think of it as an optional law. There are numerous cases of settlements between car companies and the US government or consumers. The Titanic is a classic example of the law being met but the intent of the law being missed which was to have enough life rafts to save lives – the law had not been written in such a way as to force the life rafts to be enough to meet the number of passengers.

When gathering requirements for a solution, care must be taken to understand the implications of giving one set of requirements higher priority over another. Risk analysis is supposed to be done to ensure the VW, Titanic situation never occurs today. However profit is a powerful master and it will make people blind to that which is obvious.

Double check those requirements that fly in the face of morals to make sure you are not ignoring something that will later make you a headline.

 

Next Page »