The inspiration for this comes partly from a Dilbert cartoon strip and partly from recent experiences in the world of collaboration with the business representative.
To start of with the Dilbert quote:
"Why did you add this button to the user interface?"
"You told me to. You always suggest random changes to create the illusion of added value."
"Well, remove that button."
"It's only on your copy."
- The Boss and Dilbert
Is this a real scenario, do we actually as business analyst* "bend" the facts in order to get on with the work, or are we really so pure at heart, that we take everything to the business representative. I would like to believe that the latter is true, but must also admit that I am tempted in doing the first sometimes.
The more detailed and "nitty-gritty" the problems become, the harder they usually get for the business representative to even understand, mostly because they are rooted in some half-technical issue which is quite far from the high level requirement posted by the business representative.
These issues often represent some remote possibility of something happening, and it should be considered how much energy to put into them. I know; 20 percent of the solution takes 80 % of the time, and I also know Murphy's Law, so don't get me wrong, we do of course need to take care of these issues.
The question is at what detail level do the business representative need to review and comment on the solution?
As a business analyst you will inevitably gain some detailed knowledge about the very detailed operation of the solution and the inherited problems herein. Would it be feasible to let the business analyst decide the best course of action, for some of these remote probability issues, and let the business representative focus on the major part of the solution?
The business analyst is of course welcome to seek advice with the business representative, but in many cases one guess is as good as another.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to argue withholding information from the business representatives or anything like that, but there has to be a mutual understanding between the business analyst and the business representative regarding in what areas the business analyst can work at his/her own discretion and where the business representative should be involved.
There is no clear cut answer on how to do this, as it very much depends on the business knowledge and experience of the business analyst, as well of the nature of the project.
In a project based in regulatory / legislative changes the business representative(s) might need to be more closely involved than in other projects.
And in projects more concerned with infrastructure the business analyst might have more freedom to interpret the solution on behalf of the business.
* In this article the concept of "Business Analyst" is used in a broad sense, and could include related areas of project work, e.g. solution architects and others.
