Skip to main content

BA Watch

We don't have any business analysts at our place but I'm interested in the role and the potential insights a BA can bring to software development. Historically, I've wanted my testing to be concerned with more than whether the desired scope was implemented: I want it to wonder whether that scope is targeting the right problem and, if it is, whether some other scopes could solve it too, and what the relative merits of each are.

I think this kind of work overlaps with the things a BA might do, but perhaps with sharper tools, and I perceive that there's crossover in the skill set too. To give my thoughts some more grounding I looked for an intro book and chose Business Analysis Agility by James Robertson and Suzanne Robertson.

Why that one? Because it talks end-to-end about software development in contemporary environments, because it's got worked examples, and because I liked what Johanna Rothman's five-star review on Amazon said about it:
This book builds on Gottesdiener's "Discover to Deliver" and Patton's "User Story Mapping." Both those books talk about iterating over the planning and requirements. This book specifically talks about safe-to-fail probes. Note the wording. Not just safe-to-fail, but probes. (I did a little happy dance with that.)
And I agree that there's much to like in the book, not least nuggets like these that smack of experience:
Part of the problem we set out to address is to dispel the notion that “anything upfront” is bad. Without some upfront analysis, projects have no scope and are simply shooting in the dark. The trick is to make anything upfront as short and effective as possible. We can show you how to do that. (Kindle location 296-298) 
The problem is that we often don’t know what the problem is. (471-472) 
A common problem with silos is that teams often feel constrained to deliver a solution contained within their own silo. (4140-4141)
My confirmation bias does its own little happy dance when I read this kind of thing:
Your solution must solve the right business problem. There is no other way to deliver value. (335-335) 
Performing an analysis does not mean that we want to delay delivering a solution. It means we want to deliver the right solution. (586-588) 
Note that the value propositions are technologically agnostic. You are describing an outcome, not how something is to be done. (1175-1176)
As the title suggests, much of the content revolves around agile practices. Boiling it down, the book promotes iterative cycles of plan-do-check-act at appropriate granularities, and often embedded within one another. Readers who've been around software development may find little new in large chunks of it, but I don't mind that so much: the material places the BA role in a wider context and each reader is different.

To reiterate that last point, although context diagrams are common currency in some fields the name was new to me. The idea of putting the system under development in a black box to help to understand the inputs and outputs of business events while remaining agnostic about the implementation is compelling and something I've only done informally in the past.

Where I felt less satisfied was in the conversation around value. The worked examples provoke discussion about value and impact and the importance of understanding those things. Here's a few quotes:
Value comes in many forms, but it must be a real value. If it is real, it is also measurable. (1218-1218)  
Value is delivered when your solution enables your customer to do something useful or pleasurable that he could not do before. (1215-1216)  
You should be able to look at your value proposition and assess the impact it has on the target audience. (1251-1251)  
Without an impact, the solution is unlikely to deliver much value. (1242-1242)  
A value proposition describes the value the customer receives when you solve his problem. (1156-1157)   
a combination of questions would tell you if you have delivered the required value. (1223-1223)  
if there are enough subjective questions, those serve to make the value measurable. (1231-1232) 
But I didn't find the worked examples took me anywhere near far enough through a lifelike scenario where an understanding the potential value(s) was gained, let alone measured, or compared.

To be fair, I've been around the block enough times to understand that a concept like value can be a movable feast. However, I've also spent much time teasing out my own understanding of terms fundamental to my work, such as testing, value, and quality, and I'd have liked to have seen something less vague here.

Weinberg famously collapses the quality of a thing down to a statement about value:
Quality is value to some person.
and then further collapses value to be the amount that that person would be prepared to pay to get the thing.

This, while perhaps seeming reductionist or even crude, has the benefit of transparency and makes feature X for customer segment Y directly comparable with feature A for customer segment B in an important respect.

The book does also cover quality, or rather qualities ("the usability, the security, the look & feel, the performance, and so on"), in particular with reference to acceptance criteria.
In short, provided the functionality is met, it is the qualities that determine the acceptance or rejection of your product. (3554-3554) 
The quality needs at some stage become part of your acceptance criteria. This means that you must be able to measure them if acceptance testing is to have any meaning. While a look & feel quality can legitimately be “stylish and attractive,” it must have a measurement if it is to be tested. (3650-3652)  
So you can measure whether the product meets its quality needs with a fit criterion: 60% of customers return to the site within 3 months. If this is achieved, the product is considered to be “stylish and attractive.” (3663-3666)
Reading this last quote, I find myself asking Really? and wondering  about construct validity. There are any number of reasons why customers might return to a site that they do not consider stylish and attractive, terms which are in any case intrinsically subjective.

The interesting thing for me here is that I share the strong desire to understand whether or not some feature fulfils a customer or business need. I also desire to try to closely couple success criteria and the way in which they are to be measured (or be clear about the extent to which the metric is a proxy).

But perhaps that's telling me that there's no so much crossover between business analysis and testing as I thought. In fact I felt somewhat seen, and laughed out loud, when I read this:
We find that most business analysts are not great testers, but they’re great at writing acceptance criteria. (3401-3402) 
Despite my quibbles I'm still happy that I bought the book but I'd love to see a much deeper dive into ways to assess, measure, and compare the value of disparate options. Any recommendations?

P.S. The authors offer various templates for helping with the kinds of business analysis that they describe: Volere.
Image: Amazon

Edit: John Cutler suggested Cost of Delay as a possible approach over on Twitter.


  1. It sounds as though the book is worth a (critical) read. I am not an BA, but over a couple of last years I bumped several times into Jobs to be done approach, which may be one way to help determine what the real value is.

  2. Cost of delay (divided by duration) can be really enlightening when planning. See from about 35 minutes in

    Also context for the system is the top level diagram in


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Ideal Test Plan

A colleague pinged me the other day, asking about an "ideal test plan" and wondering whether I could suggest something. Not without a bit more information, I said. OK, they said. Who needs the plan, for what purpose? I asked. Their response: it's for internal use, to improve documentation, and provide a standard structure. We work in a medical context and have strict compliance requirements, so I wondered aloud whether the plan is needed for audit, or to show to customers? It's not, they replied, it's just for the team. Smiling now, I stopped asking questions and delivered the good news that I had what they were looking for. Yes? they asked, in anticipation. Naturally I paused for dramatic effect and to enhance the appearance of deep wisdom, before saying: the ideal plan is one that works for you. Which is great and all that, but not heavy on practical advice. --00-- I am currently running a project at the Association for Software Testing and there is a plan for

Notes on Testing Notes

Ben Dowen pinged me and others on Twitter last week , asking for "a nice concise resource to link to for a blog post - about taking good Testing notes." I didn't have one so I thought I'd write a few words on how I'm doing it at the moment for my work at Ada Health, alongside Ben. You may have read previously that I use a script to upload Markdown-based text files to Confluence . Here's the template that I start from: # Date + Title # Mission # Summary WIP! # Notes Then I fill out what I plan to do. The Mission can be as high or low level as I want it to be. Sometimes, if deeper context might be valuable I'll add a Background subsection to it. I don't fill in the Summary section until the end. It's a high-level overview of what I did, what I found, risks identified, value provided, and so on. Between the Mission and Summary I hope that a reader can see what I initially intended and what actually

69.3%, OK?

The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "What percentage of our test cases are automated?" There's a lot wrapped up in that question, particularly when it's a metric for monitoring the state of testing. It's not the first time I've been asked either. In my

Why Do They Test Software?

My friend Rachel Kibler asked me the other day "do you have a blog post about why we test software?" and I was surprised to find that, despite having touched on the topic many times, I haven't. So then I thought I'd write one. And then I thought it might be fun to crowdsource so I asked in the Association for Software Testing member's Slack, on LinkedIn , and on Twitter for reasons, one sentence each. And it was fun!  Here are the varied answers, a couple lightly edited, with thanks to everyone who contributed. Edit: I did a bit of analysis of the responses in Reasons to be Cheerful, Part 2 . --00-- Software is complicated, and the people that use it are even worse. — Andy Hird Because there is what software does, what people say it does, and what other people want it to do, and those are often not the same. — Andy Hird Because someone asked/told us to — Lee Hawkins To learn, and identify risks — Louise Perold sometimes: reducing the risk of harming people —

Testing is Knowledge Work

  The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "We need some productivity metrics from testers" OK. I'd like to help you meet your need if I can but to do that I'll need to ask a few questions. Let's start with these: Who needs the metrics? Is there a particular pr

My Favourite Tool

Last week I did a presentation to a software testing course at EC Utbildning in Sweden titled Exploring with Automation where I demoed ways in which I use software tools to help me to test. Following up later, one of the students asked whether I had a favourite tool. A favourite tool? Wow, so simple but sooo deep!  Asking for a favourite tool could make a great interview question, to understand the breadth and depth of a candidate's knowledge about tools, how they think about an apparently basic request with deep complexity beneath (favourite for what task, on what basis, in what contexts, over what timescale?  what is a tool anyway?) and how they formulate a response to take all of that into account. I could truthfully but unhelpfully answer this question with a curt Yes or No. Or I could try and give something more nuanced. I went for the latter. At an extremely meta level I would echo Jerry Weinberg in Perfect Software : The number one te

Trying to be CEWT

I attend, enjoy, hopefully contribute to, and get a lot from, the local tester meetups and Lean Coffee  in Cambridge. But I'd had the thought kicking around for a long time that I'd like to try a peer workshop inspired by MEWT , DEWT , LEWT and the like. I finally asked a few others, including the local meetup organisers, and got mostly positive noises, so I decided to give it a go. I wrote a short statement to frame the idea, based on LEWT's: CEWT ( Cambirdge Exploratory Workshop on Testing ) is an exploratory peer workshop. We take the view that discussions are more interesting than lectures. We enjoy diverse ideas, and limit some activities in order to work with more ideas. and proposed a mission for an initial attempt to validate it locally on a small scale. Other local testers helped to refine the details in usual the testing ways - you know: criticism, questions, thought experiments, challenges, comparisons, mockery and the rest - and a list of potential at

Fail Here or Fail There

The First Law of Systems-Survival, according to John Gall, is this: A SYSTEM THAT IGNORES FEEDBACK HAS ALREADY BEGUN THE PROCESS OF TERMINAL INSTABILITY Laws are all-caps in Systemantics . Not just laws, but also theorems, axioms, and corollaries. There are many of them so here's another (location 2393-2394): JUST CALLING IT “FEEDBACK” DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY FED BACK There was a point when I realised, as the capitalised aphorisms rolled by, that I was sinking into the warm and sweetly-scented comforting foamy bathwater of confirmatory bias. Seen, seen, seen! Tick, tick, tick! I took the opportunity to let myself know that I'd been caught in the act, and that I needed to get out of the tub and start to challenge the content.  Intervening at that moment was congruent: I was in a context where I would accept it and prepared to change because of it. Of course, I enjoyed the deep irony of nodding along with Gall when he talked about

Testing and Words

  The other day I got tagged on a Twitter thread started by Wicked Witch of the Test about people with a background in linguistics who’ve ended up in testing. That prompted me to think about the language concepts I've found valuable in my day job, then I started listing them, and then realised how many of them I've mentioned here over the years .   This post is one of an occasional series collecting some of those thoughts.  --00-- In The Complete Plain Words , Ernest Gowers notes, acidly, that: What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas. It surely sounds trite to say it but our choice of words can make a significant difference to how well our message is understood, and how we are judged. We choose from amongst those words we know, our lexicons . The more my lexicon agrees with yours, the greater our chance of us achieving a shared understanding when we converse. But lexic

Use the Force Multiplier

On Fridays I pair with doctors from Ada 's medical quality team. It's a fun and productive collaboration where I gain deeper insight into the way that diagnostic information is encoded in our product and they get to see a testing perspective unhindered by domain knowledge. We meet at the same time each week and decide late on our focus, choosing something that one of us is working on that's in a state where it can be shared. This week we picked up a task that I'd been hoping to get to for a while: exploring an API which takes a list of symptoms and returns a list of potential medical conditions that are consistent with those symptoms.  I was interested to know whether I could find small input differences that led to large output differences. Without domain knowledge, though, I wasn't really sure what "small" and "large" might mean. I prepared an input payload and wrote a simple shell script which did the following: make a