SA re defined part 2

From UG

Revision as of 23:46, 19 December 2010 by Alex (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

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
  • 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

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 must 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

Examples of specs that were built with new principles in mind

Personal tools