SA re defined part 2
From UG
(Difference between revisions)
(→Spec will have the following structure) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | [[Category:News]] | ||
| + | |||
== Intro == | == Intro == | ||
Revision as of 15:54, 23 December 2010
Intro
Subject: New directives to streamline SA (and BA) work
From: CT2 Project Manager
To: CT2 Team
This is a continuation of an effort to streamline SA (and BA) work. Fist article is here: SA re defined
Due to additional negative feedback about recently submitted designs/specifications I introduce the following directives:
Directives
We need to bring Systems Analysis on a new professional level
- It is a critical activity and must be done by a professional with appropriate level of technical training, experience and proven abilities
- core skills: excellent technical skills (details TBD), excellent communication skills, excellent documentation skills (Systems Analysis section and Proposal)
- existing staff must be re-trained and new staff must be hired
- For now: Alex will do SA for impact=ihigh type tasks; impact=ilow can be forwarded to Andrei for SA; impact=imed to Andrei or Alex.
We need to continue to improve BAs work
- continue to train BAs to bring their skills and experience to acceptable level
- skills that are critical for BA role: writing, analytical thinking, interviewing
- BA should provide as detailed info as possible about problems/needs including background info, existing workflows, etc
To improve BA to SA cooperation
- BA is to post/manage her info in RFSA wiki and to forward this to SA
- SA is to post/manage his work in RFD wiki and to forward this to Developer (subject to review by Architect in some cases).
- RFSA wikis are in: Category:RFSA
- example of naming convention: 2211 rfsa
- RFD wikis are in: Category:RFD
- example of naming convention: 2211 rfd
- RFSA wikis are for SAs only! Use special background color to make sure developers/architects do not get confused:
[div style="background-color:wheat"] .... [/div]
I am adding impact mantis field
- With values: {ihigh, imed, ilow}
- This value indicates a level of impact of particular task on entire system deign
- tasks with impact = ihigh/imed must be reviewed by Architect before coding or even SA phase
- tasks with impact = ilow could be assigned directly to Developer
Role of Architect to be introduced
- tasks with impact = ihigh/imed must be reviewed by Architect (after BA and SA sections are completed)
- must post Architect comments into "Architect Review" section
- If Architect rejects solution then it must be returned to SA (not BA)
- If solution is accepted then developer must be assigned and task forwarded for estimation
- Kostya will play this role
Spec will have the following structure
- template is here Spec Example)
1 Info 2 Requirements and Solutions 3 Architect Review 4 Implementation Notes 5 QA Plan 6 History
- I introduce Implementation Summary section
- It is optional but needed IF "Requirements and Solutions" section does not provide exact solution, just direction
- to be completed by Developer. Goal: provide enough info so that QA and UAT know how to verify solution.
- SA must first to discuss solution/requirements with Architect/Developer if he feels that request is "not simple and could be translated into alternative non-standard solutions, etc
- Not discussing might result in: a) a very lengthy spec; b) rejection of solution later
- Architect / Developer must always find time to talk to SA
Keep spec simple and short
- keep it simple
- keep it short
- do not say same thing twice
- if not sure about something then discuss it first (over mantis,email, Skype) before writing about it in spec
