SA re defined part 2

From UG

Revision as of 18:03, 14 December 2010

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:

• 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 or/and new staff must be hired
  • For now: Alex will do SA for Project type tasks; all other tasks (tweaks) can be forwarded to Andrei for SA

• 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 RFD type wiki
  • SA is to post/manage his work in Dev type wiki
  • See example here: Category:Acc
  • SA is to forward only dev type wiki to Architect/Developer

• • SA must help BA to finalize her section. This means potentially re-writing it or writing it together.
  • SA should avoid repeating info that was already presented in BA section

• Role of Architect to be introduced:
  • must review all Project type specs and major tweaks (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 Business Analysis
  2.1 Requirements
  2.2 Possible solutions
  2.3 RFP
3 Systems Analysis
4 Architect Review
5 Implementation Summary
6 QA Plan
7 History

• I introduce Implementation Summary section
  • needed since "Systems Analysis" section will not provide exact solution, just direction in many cases
  • to be completed by Developer. Goal: provide enough info so that QA and UAT know how to verify solution.

• 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
• Below see examples of specs that were built with new principles in mind.

Examples:

• 0002525 PI redesign