Tag Archives: Change

What kind of Business Analyst are you?

sarah-cockrill_head_jpg

 

 

Sarah Cockrill
Business Systems Analyst
Coventry University
Member of UCISA-PCMG

Day Two

The keynote speaker on day two of the Business Analysis Conference 2016 was Bjarte Bogsnes from Statoil  who gave an interesting talk titled Beyond budgeting – An Agile Management Model for the New Business and People Realities. The premise of his talk was how, if we remove the concept of budgets in the workplace and empower people with their own spending power, they would take greater ownership. Transparency was a key part of this process which encouraged people to make smarter spending decisions. While I found this an engaging talk and interesting idea I don’t feel many UK HE institutions are ready for this as yet.

Next up was Adrian Reed, President of the UK chapter of the International Instituteadrian-reed-_blog_1_image4 of Business Analysis  who gave a fun talk on what Business Analysts can learn from the world of magic. The talk even included a couple of successfully pulled off magic tricks from Adrian himself. Adrian questioned whether as Business Analysts we too often focus our efforts on reaching the end goal successfully and forget about the journey we take both ourselves and our stakeholders on to get there. He asked us to consider the whole performance and not just the “wow” of the trick at the end. If we involve our stakeholders in the journey every step of the way, then we will reach the end together, and even if the end isn’t quite as planned, the stakeholders will be comfortable with the process and come back to work with us time and time again. He reminded us of this by saying, “You can deliver the best system in the world but if you deliver it in a bad way then users will hate it forever.”

To iiba-bcs_blog_1_image5finish the morning off, I attended a talk from Allianz on the IT BA and Business BA.  The speakers discussed how, at Allianz, the IT and Business BAs successfully worked together to eliver solutions. During the lunch session Lucy Ireland from the British Computer Society and Stephen Ashworth from the IIBA gave a fireside chat on how the BCS and IIBA want to work together in the future. One of the main questions from the floor was how as Business Analysts we decide on which, out of the qualifications they both offer, we should do, and whether we see a time when they will bring the two together? The response was that they felt both offered and suited a different set of skills and experiences, that for the time being they would stay on separate paths, and that you, as a Business Analyst, would have to decide which route to take.

nigel-risner_blog_1_image6

Nigel Risner kicked off the afternoon session with a very lively presentation titled How to create massive impact and be an effective zookeeper.  Nigel’s presentation style was a cross between Michael McIntyre and Alan Sugar. It certainly revitalized the audience and woke us up for the last afternoon of the conference. Nigel gave two key pieces of advice:

1) If you are in the room be in the room. Give whoever you are speaking to your full attention as, for that moment in time, they are the most important person in your life.

2) You can spend all the time in the world analysing who you are and what type of person you are but in business it doesn’t really matter. What matters is walking into a room of stakeholders and quickly being able to recognise what type of person they are and how to communicate with them in a style that will suit them.

Nigel breaks people down into four categories;

  • The visionary, single-minded lion
  • The playful, extroverted monkey
  • The careful, analytical elephant
  • The caring, supportive dolphin

Next up was Ryan Folster from Britehouseryan-folster_blog_1_image7 who talked about being The indispensable BA This was another talk about how as Business Analysts we often reach for solutions without fully understanding the requirements, which just goes to show what an important topic it is for the community.

 

To finish off the conference I attended a talk by Simon Lynch from Aviva Health on Impact Mapping.  Simon’s talk was agile focused, explaining how before creating your epics and then breaking those down into stories, you should start with a session impact mapping. The impact maps should show why you want to do something, how it will impact a stakeholder and what you want to achieve. Simon explained that while this had taken them awhile to get the hang of, it has really helped them when creating the epics and user stories to consider all aspects of the impact.

And that was the end of my first ever IIBA Business Analysis conference. I have thoroughly enjoyed the whole experience of attending the conference from meeting other Business Analysts to hearing all the interesting and somewhat rather lively presentations. I can thoroughly recommend attending this conference to any fellow Business Analyst, and if you get the chance to apply for the UCISA Bursary, it is well worth the effort. I hope I will be able to attend in future years and may even pluck up the courage to speak and share a story of my own to a future audience.

Listening to customer need

sarah-cockrill_head_jpg

 

Sarah Cockrill
Business Systems Analyst
Coventry University
Member of UCISA-PCMG

Day One

As a UCISA bursary winner for 2016 I attended the Business Analysis Conference 2016 hosted by IRM. The conference was attended by over three hundred and fifty Business Analysts from a diverse range of industries: there was a mixture of experienced Business Analysts and people fresh to the industry. As a Business Analyst with over ten years’ experience in the HE sector, I often get to meet colleagues from other institutions to share knowledge, different experiences and best practice. This conference, however, gave me a chance to meet analysts from outside my peer group. I really enjoyed hearing about the projects they were working on and what they consider to be their best practices, as well as the usual horror stories of being bought onto a project too late in the day and customers’ requirements changing part way through a project. The benefits from these opportunities to chat with other attendees between sessions are hard to quantify, but I personally find them one of these best parts of attending a conference.

The conference was opened by keynote speaker Gavin Esler.gavin-esler_blog_1_image1
Gavin is an award-winning broadcaster, author and journalist and gave an engaging speech about ‘trust’. Trust is something we give to people every day, whether it be in our personal or professional lives. We place trust in leaders who tell us what is in our best interests using facts and figures to back up their arguments. The question is why do we place our trust in some people and not in others? Why as Business Analysts should we expect our customers to trust us when presenting our results and analysis? As Gavin said, “If facts were king, then Spock would have been captain of the Enterprise.” How we deliver a message is just as important as the analysis and facts of our case. As great leaders have shown us we need to become storytellers when presenting our case to the business, so we connect with our audience and gain their trust.

Virgin Media presented the next session titled Share Knowledge, Perform Stronger, Better Together – Evolving a BA practice. They explained how they had developed their BA practice over the years and survived several organisational restructures and rebrands. They had developed a BA toolkit which included templates, tools and techniques that supported their delivery framework as well as also utilising the SFIA capability model for developing their team.

mohamed-bray_blog_1_image2Next up was Mohamed Bray from Saratoga Software who came all the way from South Africa. Mohamed’s talk was titled Think like an Analyst, Act like a Consultant.  Mohamed was an engaging speaker who told us a real life story of when he failed to think about the customer needs first; how he had assumed what they wanted and what he had learned from this experience. As Business Analysts we often fall into the trap of thinking of solutions before we really understand what the problem is and what the customers’ needs are. Often we jump to a technology that we think will solve a problem when technology should only ever be the enabler of a solution, and not the solution itself. If we fail to listen to our customers and truly understand their problem, we will fail to engage them in our solutions. By actively listening to their problem the customer will become the co-creator of the solution taking ownership of the change and become the catalyst driving it forward in the organisatkim-bray_blog_1_image3ion.

After a very tasty lunch, we were welcomed to the afternoon session by a keynote from Kim Bray from Nationwide. Kim took us through her thirty-year career as a Business Analyst. Kim explained how she may not have always held the job title of Business Analyst, but that did not stop her from undertaking business analysis activities for her organisation. Kim described herself as being ‘professionally nosey’ and at the start of her career her naturally inquisitive nature meant she was capturing information on issues and analysing the data before presenting solutions to her organisation without even knowing what a Business Analyst role was. However, one of the key messages Kim left me with was ‘You don’t get something if you don’t ask.’ How often in both our professional and personal lives do we not pluck up the courage to ask for something we want or need simply because we are scared of hearing the answer ‘No!’

The afternoon session was, for me, dominated by Agile.  I attended a talk from Ashley Watson of the NHS Blood Transplant service and Menaka Priya Shanmugavadivelu from Aviva. Ashley talked about UAT and Menaka talked about delivering Agile development when your customers, business, Business Analysts and developers are spread across the globe. Menaka stressed the importance of visiting your dispersed teams to get to know them and build relationships, finding common ground and continuing to build on the relationship after your return back to base.

 

Network for Change and Continuous Innovation Conference

rachel_m

 

Rachel McAssey
Head of Process Improvement
The University of Sheffield
(Joint Vice-Chair Project and Change Management Group)

 

 

 

 

Day 3

 

The final day of the conference and it has not been a disappointment

First session of the day was “Using Balanced Scorecards, Lean and Liberating Structures to Accelerate Strategic Planning and Implementation” with Ruth Johnson, Associate Vice-President, and Jeff Fillmore, Senior Organizational Analyst both from University of Washington

This was a very motivational. For more information about liberating structures as a change approach go to the website. Liberating Structures in combination with lean processes have helped the University of Washington to actively engage staff with understanding and implementing the strategic plan. It was a very important methodology for helping the institution change and innovate. I think we all came away wanting to liberate some structures!

Next, a really informative session from three people from Institutions in California “Taking the Mystery out of Managing Change”. They had received change management training from ©Prosci and I was very grateful that they provided us with lots of tools to take away. In my opinion the most useful visual tool was one for measuring strength of sponsor, project management and change management in a project – so that the project team can agree what mitigations need to be taken. Very simple yet incredibly effective and useful. Among the many takeaways also included a really useful checklist tool for project sponsors – I’ll be amending this and use it with my project sponsors.

The final keynote address was wonderful. Allison Vaillancort, Vice President, Human Resources and Institutional Effectiveness, University of Arizona gave a visually pleasing presentation. She challenged the group to look beyond incremental change to respond to the changes in HE, and identify where and when a rebellion would be helpful. Her slides gave us a how to guide about how to ensure that bold change can be actively delivered within our institutions. I tweeted a copy of one of the slides about change sabotage and lots of followers on twitter recognised the behaviours.

The final session of the conference “Leading from Inside the Whirlwind: Creating the New Vision for Public Ed” University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
This was a really interesting case study of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire who along with the rest of the institutions in the state received a multi-million dollar budget drop. It followed the change steps the institution took from the moment the news broke in January 2015 to current period. The staff had chosen to thrive rather than just survive, it was a fascinating case study about the opportunity change can bring (most dramatically the decision to undertake 8 change projects simultaneously) and how a difficult situation can lead to beneficial improvements for an institution (markedly better student retention and increased enrolments)

It was a wonderful opportunity to attend the NCCI conference. I met so many interesting people and had some very insightful conversation about managing change projects in higher education. My heartfelt thanks to UCISA and my own institution for allowing me to have this opportunity. I’ve got so many ideas for things I can try now that I’m back in the UK.

Change and Continuous Innovation

rachel_m

 

Rachel McAssey
Head of Process Improvement
The University of Sheffield
(Joint Vice-Chair Project and Change Management Group)

 

 

 

 

 

Day two of the Network for Change and Continuous Innovation in HE conference.

A slight downside of the day was the very sporadic Wi-Fi access in the conference hotel. I was only able to reliably tweet until mid-morning. Hopefully it will be better for day 3…

The keynote this morning was very inspiring: Professor Maxi from McGill University “Besieged and Beleaguered, Down but not out: Planned Change at Universities in 21st Century”. The keynote addressed the drivers for change in universities (funding, internationalisation, multiple purposes of mission) and spoke about ways of addressing and supporting the changes. His message about being consultative, using data to identify appropriate changes and measuring impact subsequently was well received.

Next up, I went to implementing a Lean Shared Services Operation. Very quickly, I realised that the challenges we face at the University of Sheffield when thinking about shared services are very different to many American colleges who have multiple campuses, and often very separate technologies to support the administrative work.. I was a little worried about how relevant the session would be. However, the very practical advice about:

  • Establishing a benchmark prior to undertaking the change
  • Have discussions to better understand what good looked like
  • Share the message that no. 1 private organisations are customer focused
  • Focus on process simplification and automation
  • Identify the common and routine services (stop being all things to all people)
  • Identify root causes
  • These are all transferable concepts to managing change.

There was an interesting discussion about gaining trust – a key informal theme that has been running through the conference. The discussion identified that lack of trust can lead to lack of standardisation and work-a-rounds. Gaining and maintaining trust is key to successfully managing change.

After lunch, I want to an excellent panel discussion: three women who had received the Leaders of Change Award from the conference. It was a really interesting opportunity for us to question the panel about how they had successfully implemented lean in order to make major changes and improvements at their universities. Key themes from the session were integrity, resilience, identify champions in certain areas and maximise this potential. Each approach had been slightly different, and for me the learning was about understanding the needs and challenges of your own organisation and address this, rather than implement a one size fits all approach.

Two more sessions in the afternoon: “Using Customer satisfaction and Employee Climate data to drive impactful decisions”. This session demonstrated how the University of California is using its staff and student survey data to identify changes and subsequently measure and manage the changes. The team that support this are incredibly proactive with their support for data analysis, rather than just providing the raw data to departments, this rigorous and methodical approach is a useful way of ensuring that institutions have standard ways of identifying and prioritising changes, and then monitoring the level of success.

The final session had lemon jellybeans – so gave me a well-needed sugar boost “From lemons to Culture Change: moving from a SACS Monitoring Report to a Culture of Continuous Improvement”. The key message is if something is a problem, do not try to deny that it is a problem, recognise it then recast it to identify what opportunities the problem can offer.

Enterprise Architecture and language

ian-ellery-head-small

 

 

Ian Ellery
Head of IT Architecture
Canterbury Christ Church University

 

 

 

 

Mark Heseltine was the next speaker I heard; talking about enterprise architecture for innovation and change, linking EA with Lean and Agile concepts. He made a really interesting observation early on in his talk: the very language of enterprise architecture causes problems. EA is based on an architectural metaphor, but because the people who are listening to us have physical, building architecture as their mental starting point there is a danger that they will (unconsciously) conflate the analogy with reality. A point I will certainly consider when talking to those outside IT.

The other interesting aspect of his talk for me was discussion around technical debt. He showed a slide of a four quadrant model for technical debt and used a financial debt metaphor for dealing with it. There is the interest we pay on technical debt – the effort in managing it – which has to be balanced against paying off the debt, in other words removing or replacing technology.

I also spotted a tweet which quoted another speaker in a parallel session: “don’t aspire to be the best airline in the world at recovering lost luggage”. I think this is something many organisations, and departments within those organisations are guilty of. We need to have appropriate goals. Let’s not be the IT department who are brilliant at fixing things when they break, let’s be the IT department who deliver services which don’t break.

The final two sessions I chose to attend were probably the least useful. The first was from the Swedish national electricity grid, and the second from the UK national air traffic control service. Both had huge problems and were undergoing massive change and transition programs. However, the very scale what they were trying to achieve made it difficult for me to see anything applicable to, or transferable to HE. The only comment I did like was from the Swedish speaker who pointed out that a target architecture is a direction of travel not “The Truth”. Something it’s easy to forget when it’s been through endless committees and gained the rubber stamp of SMT approval.

Overall, a very useful and enjoyable two days. This is not a cheap conference, so I am very grateful for UCISA funding my place. Would I recommend other HE architects to attend? Yes I would. Getting out of our own sector is always useful and the commercial challenges of disagreeing business units, limited funding, and pressure to deliver are no different to HE.

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

Enterprise Architecture and the Double Diamond model

ian-ellery-head-small

 

 

Ian Ellery
Head of IT Architecture
Canterbury Christ Church University

 

 

 

 

The next talk I went to was entitled “from 0 to EA” and was about trying to use enterprise architecture in a small business undergoing radical transformation after being bought by a private equity company. They used a “double diamond” model, with ideas diverging and then converging on a solution. Another insight was thinking ahead and asking where did they want to be in the IT change cycle when “X” happens? We should specifically design timelines to meet external events. A couple of things resonated with me: firstly, true EA success is embedded and invisible, but changes everything. Secondly, be careful not to solve problems for people and tell them that EA is always right. It’s difficult to gain a seat at the table, but easy to lose it again.

I struggled to get much from the next talk from Andrew Swindell. He was describing a concept called “line of sight”, but with very busy sides, I lost sight of his concept. He showed lots and lots of alternative models, and my overwhelming impression was it was all simply too much. One to consider on rereading slides later perhaps.

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

Enterprise Architecture – using a chess analogy

ian-ellery-head-small

 

 

Ian Ellery
Head of IT Architecture
Canterbury Christ Church University

 

 

 

 

This morning’s opening keynote is one I’ve been looking forward to – Gerben Wierda, author of “Chess and the Art of Enterprise Architecture”. The book was recommended to me, but I never got round to buying it. He is also creator of the well-known YouTube animation of “hairball architecture”.

His view is that EA has been generally unsuccessful. We do EA to try and make sense of complexity and prevent chaos. However, while this works in theory, chaos still remains. In many organisations there is significant churn of EA functions, and the business remain unconvinced. Why? In his view because the decisions, the action, takes place in projects and not at the higher EA level.

To make EA work, we should use a chess analogy. In chess each move is to make things better, to improve the current state, but with no specific end state in mind. So, he reasons, EA future state plans are a waste of time. The rules of chess are descriptive not prescriptive, and similarly he argues that EA principles can be toxic as they prevent any discussion leading to a “comply or explain” culture.

He also talks about ensuring that EA does not leave out relevant detail. This led to, for me, a lightbulb moment: oversimplification is as bad as over complexity. If as architects we produce a very simple picture for our senior teams – usually to try and help them understand – they will think that the problem is simple. They will then wonder what all the fuss is about trying to solve this apparently simple problem. There were several other phrases and points which made me consider just what I am trying to do with architecture. Overall, this talk was a really good challenge to the status quo of enterprise architecture. And yes, I will now be buying the book.

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

EA – making a first assessment

ian-ellery-head-small

 

Ian Ellery
Head of IT Architecture
Canterbury Christ Church University

 

 

 

 

 

The next session  I went to at the IRM enterprise architecture conference was from the Head of Architecture and a solution architect from Cambridge Assessment: the examinations and marking offshoot of Cambridge University. To start architecture, you should always look at what is failing. When the new head of architecture joined, he sat in IT operations and observed what was happening. He realised that things were breaking constantly, but being fixed instantly before user impact by a very dedicated team. Poor architecture was being hidden by passionate staff.

There is a balance to be made between architecture for operations and architecture for the users. In the former it’s about reliability, the latter for example about moving away from pure infrastructure (“how many data outlets do we need?”) to asking questions about the users experience in a new building. They finished by describing architecture as a set of services with outcomes aligned to decisions. And compared all EA Frameworks to the labours of Sisyphus – forever pushing a boulder up a hill for no benefit at all.

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

EA for managing change

ian-ellery-head-small

 

Ian Ellery
Head of IT Architecture
Canterbury Christ Church University

 

 

 

 

 

 

And so, here I am at the IRM enterprise architecture conference  . The opening introduction promised a mixture of talks about the theoretic as well from those who have actually done it. We were also told that there were representatives from over 30 countries and all continents (except Antarctica!). A glance at the delegate list showed that I am the only person from a UK university, with just three other university representatives. This is reflected in the talks, with lots of emphasis on product delivery, profit margins and managing a business across multiple international locations. However, there was very little that I didn’t feel could be translated into the UK higher education sector in some way.

The opening keynote was from Ashley Braganza, a professor at Brunel Business School. He spoke passionately and length about the fact that, when it comes down to it, everything is about change. Business process management leads to enterprise architecture which leads to project and portfolio management: but all of these are really about managing change.

Theoretically, everything that is being done should link back to organisational strategy, but in practice it rarely does. He used an excellent analogy of the strategy being a mirror. When SMT look in the mirror, they see their strategy reflected back at them. But the mirror is then broken apart and each SMT member takes away a piece that reflects their part of the strategy. The mirror is then broken down again and again until every individual in the organisation has their own piece of the mirror reflecting their objectives. But the big picture, the reflection of SMT’s real vision, has been lost. And unfortunately, it is the enterprise architects who are usually called on to fix things! My reflection on this (pun definitely intended) is that either we fight this and try and get a coherent strategic vision, or alternatively, perhaps we embrace it and welcome the fact that EA is the place where corporate strategy becomes visible.

To finish, Ashley reflected on different change models, which he felt were all lacking. He was especially vitriolic about Kotter’s eight steps to change . Finally, one of the phrases of the day which totally resonated with me: the problems, in his view, are that we have 21st century models and methodologies, working within 20th century organisations led by people with 19th century mindsets. By the latter he meant a Dickensian obsession with counting things. Budgets, REF, TEF… sound familiar?

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

Motivation and the Nobel Prize

michelleMichelle Griffiths
ITS Project Manager
IT Services
University of Oxford
Member of UCISA-PCMG

A keynote presentation at Educause

In The Cascade Effect – How small wins can transform your organization, Daniel Pink began by discussing motivation from a perspective of science. He said that everyone in the room was an expert in motivation but they might just not realize it! He explained that we also have an explicit knowledge in physics, even though we may not have studied it as our major.

He invited the audience to consider: “When do you reward good and bad behaviour?” and asked us “Does this change behaviour?”  He added that if a larger reward is provided it leads to a poorer performance, according to research, quipping that “this could not happen in the USA but maybe in France!”

Key points

  • Controlling the contingent record: – If, Then, Else
  • Rewards ensure performance, they also get our attention
  • Even for rudimentary cognitive skill, larger reward led to poorer performance
  • Pay people fairly and pay people well

Daniel then cited the following Gallop statistics: three in ten Americans are engaged in their jobs; five in ten are not engaged in their jobs and two in ten are actively disengaged in their jobs.

Key points

  • Engage by being self-driven not by being managed or controlled
  • Traits of a good manager 1. High Standards, 2. Autonomy, 2. Expertise

Outside the day job
Daniel went on to discuss a case study focusing on Graphene which is a material developed by the University of Manchester that is lighter but stronger than steel (it recently won the Nobel prize in Physics). The product was developed not in people’s day jobs but as part of Friday evening experiment time. Staff were advised that do anything they wanted to as long as it wasn’t boring!

He suggested that management teams need to look at putting some time aside. Even if it’s just an hour per week that the staff are away from the ‘phones, they can develop new strategies/improvements in working.

He added: “An email a day keeps the micromanagement away” and advised us to log the progress we make each day as it important to keep our motivation up.

He advised that we schedule weekly 1-2-1 sessions with our staff and vary what we cover, with topics such as:

  • What are you working on?
  • What do you need?
  • What barriers are you facing?
  • What is your long term career goal?