Where to put the Business Analysts?

A common question that needs to be answered during agile transitions is, "Where do we put the Business Analysts?"

In a traditional project organization, it's quite common that they receive orders from Product / Project Management, create solution designs and hand these over to development teams, this is a poor approach for agile organizations.

Avoid: BA working for PM

We often see that the BA is a go-between for users and Agile Teams, or even for Product Management and Agile Team, both of which are done in the name of efficiency at the expense of quality.

There are numerous highly dysfunctional antipatterns associated with this approach, i.e. things that cause more problems than they solve, including, without limitation:

Antipattern

Problem

Works as Requested

When users ask for something suboptimal, that's what they'll get, because developers are unaware of the user's real need, and the Product Owner also lacks the necessary information to acknowledge alternate solution proposals.

Works as Designed

When Business Analysts make invalid assumptions about the technical solution, developers will strugge to implement based on their design, since developers are not in a position to challenge the underlying assumptions.

Dysfunctional PO

When a PO gets prioritized, "must-do", fully analyzed designs that need to be implemented, their role becomes dysfunctional. All they can do is "push tickets" and fill in templates of work. The PO's main function is invalidated. 
Product Owners struggle to find purpose and meaning in their work, and in such a setup, it's no loss to eliminate them entirely.

Telephone Game

The amount of information lost when users talk to analysts who talk to product owners who talk to developers is staggering. The amount of communication overhead and productivity loss caused by this setup potentially outweighs the benefits of doing business analysis outside the team.

Bottleneck

Separating the BA out as a special function typically makes them a bottleneck. When push comes to shove, incomplete designs are handed to development in a hurry, which often causes more trouble later than the amount of work the BA wasn't able to complete.

Try: BA is part of the Agile Team

An alternative, significantly more agile, approach is to make the BA part of the agile team they're doing analysis for. 
In this setup, the BA is a dedicated member of the Agile Team they're working with - figuring out both the customer needs in the solution, and the developer needs in the design. Their accountability is being a member of the Development Team, contributing towards the Team Goals. 

In this setup, their job isn't "Done" when a design document is written, but when the user's need is successfully met.

From this position, the Business Analyst supports the refinement and elaboration of business value, interacting with users, not as a go-between, but as a facilitator for developers and users.

Business Analysts also support the decisions of the Product Owner, ensuring that backlog items are "Ready" both quantitatively and qualitatively when there is development capacity to pull these items.

This approach to Business Analysis in an agile setup makes BA expertise equally, and potentially even more, important to the success of development as in a traditional setup, without creating any of the above-mentioned antipatterns.

The HR issue

The main challenge that has to be addressed when talking about the new role of the BA is an HR issue:
From a practical perspective, the BA gets "degraded" from being pretty high in the hierarchy of the organization all the way "down to" team member. This often causes resistance, making it look like the way of least resistance is to opt for the prior choice, which creates irreconcilable conflict within the development organization.

As such, there are multiple items to clarify before we can make the BA as valuable as possible in an agile setting:

Focus area

Problem

HR

Address potential HR impediments that make it within a BA's own best interests to not be part of an agile team, but rather outside. Such impediments include salary, career progession and other incentives set by the organization.

Line Organization

In organizations where BA itself is a separate silo, work with the BA's manager to ascertain them that making the BA's part of the Agile Team does not diminish their importance or influence. The main thing that needs to change is that BA's now receive their work from the team.

BA Individuals

Work with the BA's themselves to ascertain them that being part of an Agile Team is, in fact, not a degradation and to discover and resolve the personal issues they have with the new, different ways of working.

How to resolve the Planning Conflict

There's a seeming conflict that might become apparent: On the one hand, "delivering early and often" is an Agile principle - and on the other hand, "deferred commitment"  is a Lean principle. This might create a planning conflict. How do you resolve it?

Planning purpose

First, we must realize that there are different reasons for planning. 

Within the team / development organization, the purpose of planning is to make sure that we have a realistic goal and we all understand what we need to do.

Towards our customers, the purpose of planning is different. They don't care who does what, and when. They care when they'll get what.

Towards other stakeholders in our organization, the purpose of planning is again different. They need to know when they're expected to contribute, and when they can get a contribution from us.

Defer commitment?

First thing to realize here is: "Who are we committing towards?" Are we committing inside the teams to maximize value - or are we committing a certain date or scope to our customers or stakeholders?

Customers and stakeholders plan their actions based on our commitment, so in this regard, we shouldn't commit anything that we can't keep, because otherwise, we may be creating significant, non-value-adding re-planning and organizational overhead. Broken customer commitments will damage our trust, If you can deliver without having to give a commitment, that's better, and even when you need to commit so that others can plan, try to commit as late as possible.

The trust issue

"Deferred commitment" requires trust. 

• Trust in the team, that they do the best they possibly can. 
• Trust in the organization, that they enable the team to succeed.
• Trust in the customers and stakeholders, that they want the team to succeed.

Asking for early commitment hints at a lack of trust. The solution is not to enforce strict commitment, but to build trust. In a trustful relationship, deferred commitment shouldn't be an issue for anyone.

Deliver early?

Inside our team, we plan to deliver as much value as early as possible, because "you got what you got". To minimize risk and to avoid falling for Parkinson's Law, we should avoid keeping activity buffers that allow us to "do extra work", and we should remember that early delivery is our feedback and learning trigger.

Resolving the conflict

There is no conflict.

We work towards two separate events: 

The team's first point of feedback, and the point of business completion.

• The first date is the earliest point in time when we can get feedback. It allows us to validate our assumptions and to verify our product. There is no guarantee of completion or finality. For internal planning, we look for earliest possible dates, so that we can reduce risk and deliver value quickly.
• The second date is the latest point in time when we can complete a topic. We communicate this date as late as possible and try to avoid having to lock it in if we can. This minimizes the danger of expectation mismatch. For external communication, we look for latest feasible dates, so that other people's decisions don't rely on our unvalidated assumptions.

Addendum

Based on the feedback that "deferred commitment" in a Lean context is referring to decisions:

The statement "Scope X will be completed at date Y" consists of two decisions made today: a decision about what, as well as a decision about when. If there is no need to decide this today, we should not.

We try to avoid locking in a decision that has a significant risk of being wrong.

That is not the same as "we won't deliver any value until some undefined date in the future." It means, "we can't guarantee you the value until we know more."

Why you shouldn't set Predictability targets

While predictability is pretty important for management, and having an agile team/organization deliver in a predictable manner is certainly aspirable, setting targets for predictability is a terrible idea. And here's why:

Blue lines are reinforcing, red lines negative reinforcement, orange items are under the teams' control.

As soon as we set Predictability as a target, we create a reinforcement loop that rewards teams for spending more time planning and less time actually developing. The same reinforcement loop also destroys the very thing called "agility", i.e. the flexibility of "responding to change over following a plan."

As a consequence of both reinforcement loops initiated by setting a predictability target, we reduce the ability to actually deliver business value. As such:

Developers who work towards a Predictability objective do so at the expense of Business Objectives.

If that's not yet clear enough, let me put it bluntly:

Predictability targets hurt your company's bottom line.

 

Hence, I will strongly advise to resist the urge of using predictability as a KPI and setting predictability targets on software development.

Dependencies aren't created equal

We often hear the proposal that dependencies are bad, and we should work to remove them.
Is that true? Well - it ... depends. Pun intended.

First and foremost, "dependency" can mean many things, and some of these are good, others bad, and some conditionally good or bad - and yet others, simultaneously good and bad.

Before I get into that, let me define what I mean with "good" and bad:

Economic perspective

(You can skip this section if you can simply live with the terms "Net Benefit", "ROI" and "TCO".)

Looking from an economic perspective, anything we do or decide results in an outcome.
This outcome has a benefit - the Return on Invest (ROI).
The way to reach this outcome, its maintenance and failures on the way all have a cost - the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).

From that, we can determin the Net Benefit: ROI - TCO.

Whether we measure that in Currency (Dollars/Euros) or in whatever unit we see fit (e.g. time, opportunities, satisfaction etc.) is irrelevant. Every outcome we get has such a net benefit.

As such, we can always compare two alternatives based on their net benefit. The outcome with the "better" net benefit is the preferable option.

For example:

Either we can:

1. do the yard work this Saturday, and have a clean yard.
   Net benefit = clean yard.
   
   
2. hire a gardener at $500 to do the yard work, and go to see the Playoffs.
   Net benefit = clean yard + seen playoffs - $500. 

Now, whether you prefer option 1 or 2 depends on whether you value attending the playoffs more than the $500, so often, the Net Benefit may have some subjective component that's hard to quantify in money. Regardless, a rational mind would choose whatever option has the highest subjective net benefit.

Why do I bring up this example?
Because option 1 has no dependencies, and option 2 has a hard dependency on the gardener and on the money. If you prefer option 2, you deliberately choose to have a dependency in order to increase your benefit.

Good and bad dependencies

With the concept of net benefit on our hand, let us opt for two generic alternatives:
Option A, which has dependencies and Net Benefit A as "ROI A" - "TCO A".
Option B, which no dependencies and Net Benefit B as "ROI B" - "TCO B".
To at least keep it somewhat simple, we'll assume "risk" (of whatever type) is part of the TCO.
This gives us a proper basis for discussion.

Type

What

Example

Bad dependency

Net Benefit A < Net Benefit B,
TCO A > TCO B and
ROI A < ROI B.

Being unable to meet market demands
because a component vendor can't keep up.

Good dependency

Net Benefit A > Net Benefit B and
TCO A < TCO B.

Software company buying servers
instead of building chipsets from raw silicone.

Potentially good dependency

Net Benefit A > Net Benefit B but
ROI A  < ROI B.

Letting a business partner serve a market segment
you're not an expert in.

Potentially bad dependency

TCO A < TCO B but
Net Benefit A < Net Benefit.

Preferred Supplier process that simplifies procurement
but means you can't get everything you need.

Mixed dependency

Net Benefit A > Net Benefit B and
TCO A > TCO B.

Outsourcing sales to an agency
that takes a commission.

That clarified, we definitely want to avoid or eliminate "bad dependencies", but we may actively look for "good dependencies".

What happens in practice, though, is bias: we inflate ROI and discount TCO to make dependencies look more rosy than they are. We do this by making overly optimistic assumptions about potential payoffs (ROI) and dismissing negative factors that don't meet our concept. Of course, that is a trap we easily fall victim of and we should make sure we draw a realistic image on both ROI and TCO, preferrably erring on the side of caution.

Now, let's take a look and interpret those dependencies:

Bad Dependencies

A bad dependency is definitely something you want to eliminate. You win by removing it, hands down.

Good Dependencies

Don't be fooled, good dependencies are both everywhere and at the same time rarer than you think!

Our specialized service society is full of them. They help you make the best value of your own scarce resources, first and foremost, time. We could hardly live if we wanted to have no such good dependencies. You depend on a farmer to produce food, you depend on cars or public transportation which you haven't built, and so on. The modern world wouldn't be able to exist without them.

To eliminate such good dependencies would throw us back into the Stone Age.

After this, let's take off the rosy glasses and face reality: willfully induced good dependencies can turn sour any time. To use an illustrative example, let's say you're a non-tech company who decided to outsource their IT to an IT Service provider. Then, the market turns and your most profitable segment becomes online sales - all of a sudden, your ability to meet market demands depends on an external agent who now dictates the rate at which you're earning money!

Potentially Good Dependencies

The world isn't simply black and white, and TANSTAAFL. Partnerships are a great example of a potentially, though not universally, good dependency. In our above example, the dependency is good if you partner with someone who relieves you of some burden to allow you to achieve more. The dependency is bad if you partner with someone who allows you to achieve more, but at a price you can't really afford.

(An extreme example here might be a model who becomes rich and famous through a casting show, but is forced into a contract that ultimately makes them sacrifice family relationships and health.)

Potentially Bad Dependencies

When you can have something simple cheaper than something better, that's good if you are content with the outcome. It's bad if you aren't. Since most of the time, people want the best possible outcome, these types of dependency are usually bad.

Mixed Dependencies

These increase your business risk, and are a gambit. The bet is that by taking the dependency, you will get a better outcome. If the bet wins, this dependency is good. On the other hand, if the bet loses, this dependency is bad. Sometimes, it's both good and bad at the same time.

Taking our example of a sales outsourcing, you earn less money from your core business that is now running via agency, and you earn more money from business you otherwise couldn't have acquired. So, it's a good dependency as long as you have more extra business than the commissions, and a bad dependency otherwise.

How does all of that map to "Agile"?

Great question. All of these are business decisions. Oftentimes, it's business people who bring dependencies into a process in an attempt to optimize something. Take, for example, customer service introducing ZenDesk, or Marketing deciding to run Salesforce. Or a manager who decides to offshore the development for some of the systems integrated into a complex IT landscape.

In any of these scenarios, all of a sudden, you end up with dependencies outside your sphere of control. The question, "how do we best create the business outcome" becomes "how do we deal with the technical dependencies?"

If we leave the local optimization goggles of pure Software Development, there may be tangible business benefits which make the induction of these dependencies not just plausible, but a genuine, positive business case. 

For argument's sake, let's ignore the fact that most business cases look better than reality and deal with the fact that all of a sudden, there's a dependency.

While certain Agile framework proponents religiously advocate the removal of dependencies, the case isn't as clear-cut as it may seem.

Simply exposing a dependency doesn't mean we can, or even should, remove it.

We have to make a clear case that a discovered dependency is bad.

When we can provide transparent evidence of a bad dependency, removal should be the only logical conclusion.

If, in our investigations, we discover that from a systemic perspective, that a dependency is actually good, we would be optimizing locally in an attempt to remove it. Managing it becomes inevitable.

And that's where tools like SAFe's dependency map are more helpful than the Agile dogma of "dependencies are bad."