Information
Requirements gathering – without asking about information requirements
Over the years, I’ve tended to find that
asking any individual or group the question “What data/information do you want?” gets one of two responses:
“I
don’t know.” Or;
“What
do you mean by that?”
End of discussion, meeting over, pack up
go home, nobody is any the wiser. Result? IT makes up the requirements based on
what they think the business should want, the business gets all huffy because
IT doesn’t understand what they need, and general disappointment and resentment
ensues.
Clearly for Information Management, Business Intelligence and Analytics solutions, this is not a good thing.
So I’ve stopped asking the question.
Instead, when doing requirements gathering for an information project, I go
through a workshop process that follows the following outline agenda:
Context
setting: Why information management / Business
Intelligence / Analytics / Data Governance* is generally perceived to be a “good
thing”. This is essentially a very quick prĂ©cis of the BI project mandate, and
should aim at putting people at ease by answering the question “What exactly
are we all doing here?”
(*Delete as appropriate).
Business
Function & Process discovery: What do people do in their jobs –
functions & tasks? If you can get them to explain why they do those
things - i.e. to what end purpose or
outcome - so much the better (though this can be a stretch for many.)
Challenges: what
problems or issues do they currently face in their endeavours? What prevents
them from succeeding in their jobs? What would they do differently if they had
the opportunity to do so?
Opportunities: What
is currently good? Existing capabilities (systems, processes, resources) are in
place that could be developed further or re-used/re-purposed to help achieve
the desired outcomes?
Desired
Actions: What should happen next?
As a consultant, I see it as part of my
role to inject ideas into the workshop dialogue too, using a couple of question
forms specifically designed to provoke a
response:
“What would happen if…X”
“Have you thought about…Y”
“Why do you do/want…Z”.
Notice that as the workshop discussion
proceeds, the participants will naturally start to explore aspects that relate
to later parts of the agenda – this is entirely ok. The agenda is there to
provide a framework for the discussion, not a constraint. We want people to
open up and spill their guts, not clam up. (Although beware of the “rambler” who
just won’t shut up but never gets to the point…)
Notice also that not once have we actively explored the “D” or “I” words. That’s
because as you explore the agenda, any information requirements will either
naturally fall out of the discussion as it proceed, or else you can infer the
information requirements arising based on the other aspects of the discussion.
As the workshop attendees explore the
different aspects of the session, you will find that the discussion will touch
upon a number of different themes, which you can categorise and capture
on-the-fly (I tend to do this on sheets of butchers paper tacked to the walls,
so that the findings are shared and visible to all participants.). Comments
will typically fall into the following broad categories:
- Functions: Things that people do as part of doing business.
- Stakeholders: people who are involved (including helpful people elsewhere in the organisation – follow up with them!)
- Inhibitors: Things that currently prevent progress (these either become immediate scope-change items if they are show-stoppers for the current initiative, or else they form additional future project opportunities to raise with management)
- Enablers: Resources to make use of (e.g. data sets that another team hold, which aren’t currently shared)
- Constraints: “non-negotiable” aspects that must be taken into account. (Note: I tend to find that all constraints are actually negotiable and can be overcome if there is enough desire, money and political will.)
- Considerations: Things to be aware of that may have an influence somewhere along the line.
- Source systems: places where data comes from
- Information requirements: The outputs that people really want.
e.g.
ADD: “What does your team do?”
Workshop
Victim Participant #1: “Well, we’re trying to reconcile the customer
account balances with the individual transactions.”
ADD:
And why do you wan to do that?
Workshop
Victim Participant #2: “We think there’s a discrepancy in the warehouse stock
balances, compared with what’s been shipped to customers. The sales guys keep
their own database of customer contracts and orders and Jim’s already given us
dump of the data, while finance run the accounts receivables process. But Sally
the Accounts Clerk doesn’t let the numbers out under any circumstances, so
basically we’re screwed."
CAPTURED THEMES:
- Functions: Sales Processing, Contract Management, Order Fulfilment, Stock Management, Accounts Receivable.
- Stakeholders: Warehouse team, Sales team (Jim), Finance team.
- Inhibitors: Finance don’t collaborate.
- Enablers: Jim is helpful.
- Source Systems: Stock System, Customer Database, Order Management, Finance System.
- Information Requirements: Orders (Quantity & Price by Customer, by Salesman, by Stock Item), Dispatches (Quantity & Price by Customer, by Salesman, by Warehouse Clerk, by Stock Item), Financial Transactions (Value by Customer, by Order Ref)
You will also probably end up with the
attendees identifying a number of immediate self-assigned actions arising from the discussion – good ideas that either
haven’t occurred to them before or have sat on the “To-Do” list. (Note that all actions should have an agreed Due Date). That’s your
workshop “value add” right there….
e.g. Workshop
Victim Participant #1: “I could go and speak to the Financial Controller
about getting access to the finance data. He’s more amenable to working
together than Sally, who just does what she’s told.”
- ACTION: WP#1: Discuss data access with Fin. Controller by end of week.
Happy information requirements gathering!
EPILOGUE:
In response to a number of recent enquiries including this exchange on LinkedIn, I have prepared an example Data Specification and Information Requirements Framework, including a number of supporting templates.
The links to download the Framework can be found on my Resources and Downloads page.
Great summary Alan. To add to that. Data profiling can uncover data issues or patterns that become very clear requirements when presented to business. They very quickly agree whether something is a rule or an issue when they can see it in context.
ReplyDeleteThanks Gary - totally agree. The same goes, that the DQ Profiling results need to be presented in business terms - sometimes almost without referring to the data...!
DeleteInformation Week suggests "what should we do with our data" is another bad question:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.informationweek.com/big-data/big-data-analytics/big-data-has-exhaust-problem/d/d-id/1278765
I've been asked whether I think this approach was suitable for 1-to-1 interviews as well as workshops.
ReplyDeleteI think you have to gauge it based on who you're interviewing. In general terms, I've found my suggested agenda to be a pretty good framework for both workshop-style sessions and 1-to-1 interviews. Clearly, if you've got an executive who is familiar with Business Intelligence as a concept, you can rein in on the "what's this all about" bit.
But in all honesty, I tend to find that many (most?) aren't actually that up-to-speed, and that the level of digital literacy and evidence-based decision-making is generally pretty low. (This point of view borne out by a recent McKinsey analysis: http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/07/boards-still-dont-see-the-value-of-digital/ ).
We need to be operating on the basis of the *audience's* level of understanding and familiarity, not your own. Plus, attention spans are short, and getting shorter. That means ensuring that we bring everyone with you and assume nothing. It's constant reinforcement, revision and re-education of what BI/Analytics is all about - "sell", not "tell". (Even if that can get pretty wearing at times!) Also, I find that it's sometimes worthwhile covering less ground in one session but ensuring that everyone stays on the same page, rather than racing ahead too quickly and losing people because they're not getting it.
It's worth noting too that what I'm proposing is a *framework*, not an an agenda - it's an overall set of inter-connected areas to explore during the discussion, rather than a linear step-by-step approach.