Now, more than ever, the business world seems like a hectic, fast-moving and sometimes volatile place. Businesses operate within fast-moving environments and the rate of change can be phenomenally high.  Data flows around organisations, and in many organisations decision makers can see more and more data about their business and its environment than ever before.  Emerging technology means that previously unimaginable things become plausible, and societal changes and trends mean that customers expect better and better service.

It is an exciting time to be alive, and as business analysts we are front and centre of this ever-changing world.  I suspect many people reading this article will be working on some type of initiative that is responding to (or pre-empting) an external change—perhaps a competitive force, a regulatory edict, or a change in customer need.

Yet with such a fast-moving environment, we risk being a generation of knee-jerk decision makers. With so much information and data zooming around an organisation, it is easy to perceive a trend—to see urgency—when we are actually looking at a “blip” or outlier.  Or if a trend is emerging, it is easy to make a tacit assumption as to the causation. You can imagine a Sales Manager demanding to know why sales from the website are down 30% in the last few weeks, asking for an urgent analysis of the technology (as she fears the server must have been down). This might lead to a whole “infrastructure refresh” programme and significant levels of investment.  But perhaps the real reason (and the bigger problem) is a new competitor has emerged, or an existing competitor ran a temporary promotion.  Jumping straight to solution—without appropriately and holistically thinking through the problem—can be a recipe for wasted effort.

This is where business analysis is essential.  Of course, I could write about pre-project problem analysis and strategic business analysis techniques—but instead I want to discuss something ‘softer’ that is often overlooked. Namely, our ability as professional change agents to create space.

Making Space and Stopping the Storm

It may surprise some readers to know that, although I am from the UK, I spent part of my life growing up in the USA.  I have fond memories of Rochester, Minnesota which was the place where I learned what “winter” really means (the British view of what constitutes ‘snowfall’ is very different to a Minnesotan’s).  I enjoyed learning about the cultural differences, and learned a lot about how quirky British people really are.  Being outside of my own national culture made me realise how over-politeness and an obsession with ‘fair play’ and queuing really does typify the British psyche.

It was a fantastic opportunity, and I enjoyed studying at a US school.  The curriculum was different and when I moved up to the next grade at an age of ten or eleven years, there was an increased focus on learning music.  I remember, vividly, speaking to one of my trusted classmates who told me:

“This year you have to choose an instrument, and get good at it.  If you don’t choose an instrument, you have to join the choir”.

Shock! Panic!

A Common Response: “Choosing the Best of a Bad Lot”

Say the word ‘strategy’, and many people will respond with a glazed look and a sigh. Seen as a Dilbert-esque ‘corporate’ buzzword, people throughout organisations often disengage, seeing strategic thinking as something for those in a ‘corner office’ or an ivory tower. It is often seen as disconnected from the real-world, with bland internally-focussed vision statements and strategic plans festering away twenty-six links deep on a corporate intranet.

Yet as business analysts, we know that pursuing change and innovation without a cohesive set of strategic principles is like setting sail without a planned destination, a compass or a map. All important change requires co-ordinated effort, and this cohesion can be achieved with a clear, crisp, concise strategy. Done well, this ensures we have a laser-like focus on delivering products and services in a way that our customers love.  Yet a question that we might often ask is what actually is “strategy”, and what is our role (as BAs) in relation to strategy?

Strategy: A Definition

There are many useful definitions of strategy out there (For example, Michael Porter has written some very useful material on competitive strategy).  Yet, the definition I come back to time and time again is from a 2011 book ‘Good Strategy Bad Strategy…*’.  By Richard Rumelt.  In this book, Rumelt describes strategy as:

Value is an important concept in business analysis, and an important part of conducting business analysis is gaining a common understanding of the types of value that our stakeholders are trying to attain with a particular project or initiative.    Indeed, ‘Value’ is a one of the focal points in the Business Analysis Core Competency Model (BACCM™) in the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge Guide (BABOK®), which defines value from the perspective of business analysis as:

“The worth, importance or usefulness of something to a stakeholder or in a context”

This is clearly only one possible definition of value, but it is worth pausing and reflecting on.  It implies an important distinction that we, as practitioners, instinctively know but rarely talk about.  What is considered ‘valuable’ varies depending on who you ask and the context in which we are operating in.  In fact, what is considered ‘valuable’ may vary over time, and this has an impact on what we do as analysts and how we do it.

Defining Value: Trickier Than it Might Appear

It is easy to over-simplify the definition of value.  We might (quite understandably) think that it is for the sponsor to decide what is valuable.  Whilst there is a strong element of truth in this statement, and certainly the sponsor should define the strategically aligned outcomes they are seeking, success often involves balancing the needs of multiple stakeholders and groups—so of whom have no direct power on the project that we are working on.  It is important that we bring this view to the fore so that conscious decisions can be made.

Let’s imagine we are implementing a change project which will improve the processes in the contact centre of an insurance company’s claims department.  The sponsor may value “efficiency” and may have a specific amount of saving that she or he is looking to attain.  Of course, this could be better elaborated with a problem statement and a set of critical success factors and key performance indicators.

Yet, even if we have a clear metric we are aiming for, there will be many other stakeholders in this picture.  We ignore their perceptions of value at our peril! For example:

Imagine the scene:  You’re waiting at a coach-station, about to embark on a long (and expensive) trip.  It’s 4am in the morning, it’s dark and raining so the visibility is poor—meaning you can’t read any of the timetables or travel information.   You’re expecting a coach will arrive soon.  And, after a short wait, it does.

However, the front of the coach has a route number but no destination name, so you aren’t sure whether the coach is heading in the right direction.  You scan the coach station and see a variety of other people and members of staff mulling around.   What would you do? 

If you are like many people, I suspect you would ask a member of staff, a fellow passenger or the driver to confirm which destination this coach was headed towards.  You might also ask for information about the route it is taking, the cost, and when it is due to arrive.  Yet, whilst cost and time will be important to you – getting to the right destination is the key.  A cheap, quick coach ride in the opposite direction will likely be a bad thing—you’d end up further from where you want to be!

Agreeing the destination is crucial

This focus on destination is important on business initiatives and projects too.  When initiating a project or initiative, an organisation wants to get somewhere; there is a desired outcome that our stakeholders are seeking.   Yet often, when time is short (as is so often the case), there is a temptation to skip over (or race through) discussions which refine the outcome.  Indeed, as BAs and change practitioners we may find our stakeholders press for estimates, requirements and solutions first.

Yet a trap awaits organisations and teams that do not spend time concisely and precisely agreeing the outcomes that they are seeking.   So often there can be tacit agreement on project outcomes—on the surface it appears that everyone agrees.  Yet, when we get into the detail of the project we discover very different perspectives on what should be delivered.  This difference may have bubbled beneath the surface for weeks or months, and by this point may be costly to resolve.  If it had been resolved up front it would have saved time and effort.

Take this theoretical example.  Imagine two senior stakeholders on a project in an insurance company:

I am certain that many people reading this will have come across the traditional Eisenhower matrix.  This useful prioritisation tool helps us assess tasks, activities or even projects based on their relative importance and urgency.  One version of the diagram is shown below:

If there is one quadrant on this matrix that we are all familiar with, it is the “important and urgent” quadrant.  I suspect many of us spend our working lives in this quadrant, working judiciously to hit the relevant project deadline, and doing everything that we can to progress the most important and urgent projects.   There are probably some very long days, late nights and an element of pressure when working in this quadrant; everything is time critical.  And this often results in a lot of pressure, and it may sometimes feel like we are fire-fighting.

Yet, the reality is that when a task, project or problem, is both important and urgent, often the options available for undertaking/solving it are limited.  We may well find that we are placing metaphorical sticking plasters over large, systemic issues—we never seem to have time to “do the thing right”.  In an extreme case, it may feel like we are blundering from crisis to crisis; as soon as one fire is damped down we move straight on to the next.  But we never actually find out the root cause—we never find the person with the matches who is starting the fires!

Procuring solutions from third party vendors can be a beneficial way of implementing change without having to build a solution from scratch. When in need of a specific system or IT based solution, an organisation might investigate procuring an ‘off-the-shelf’ solution from a specialist vendor or managed service provider (MSP). When in need of a new capability, they may choose to outsource specific business processes to a trusted third party. Looking externally can help an organisation to avoid having to ‘re-invent the wheel’, and can enable them to utilise the expertise of teams that have implemented similar solutions many times before.

However, procurement of this type—particularly on large scale initiatives—can be tricky. It will often involve a formal vendor assessment phase where the client organisation will liaise with a range of potential suppliers and will assess which solution is a best fit for their needs. It is likely that they’ll run an Invitation to Tender (ITT) or a Request for Information (RFI) and Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Third party vendors will respond and will bid for the business, and the client will make their selection based on the vendors’ proposals.

This initial phase is normally run on a very tight timescale. The client is (understandably) keen to ‘hit the ground running, and they will quite rightly issue a tight deadline to the vendors. Each vendor will put together a team to assemble a proposal and pitch to the client and will be keen to ensure they are offering the right solution to the client, and will be keen to give the opportunity to showcase their solution’s features. The client will be keen to ensure that their requirements are understood, and each vendor will be keen to showcase the alignment of their solution to the client’s needs (as well as highlighting any unique selling points).