 |
|
|
| Re: The Lost Secret of Business Analysis |
|
|
Tony-
I can better see the point you are trying to make now, and I agree. Whether you use an activity diagram, use cases, or another tool to document the AS-IS state of a business process the first thing most of us do is sit down with the business users/workers. Each business user has their own limited view of the business process, and an incomplete view at that. If the analyst begins to place that information in an activity diagram or document it with use cases, several risks arise.
1) The business users perspective may be slightly inaccurate on the fringe of their are of expertise
2) The analyst may believe that their analysis is accurate and complete when they really are missing an important aspect of the business process, i.e., we don’t know what we don’t know
Analysts tend to mitigate these risks by speaking with business users from different functional areas that have overlapping expertise, but it never seems to be enough. However, I can see how documenting the data used in each business process and following that data can lead you to discover processes that may go unnoticed by many. After all, business data/information is created, tracked, and reported on because it is a vital piece of the business' operations. Otherwise, why would the data exist in the first place.
I still see value in Use Case Models and Activity Diagrams, but I agree that perhaps a major stumbling block for most project teams is creating these artifacts too soon.
One last thought, in my experience no diagram or process is ever perfect. There will always be something that is missed in the analysis process, but I find that by establishing a process that uses multiple types of artifacts, one type of artifact tends to expose missing requirements or information in another type of artifact. In a sense, by having an analysis process in place that uses artifacts that each model a different view of the system to be created, you create a "system of checks" that uncovers missing information.
Chris
Chris Adams
Core Member – ModernAnalyst.com
View Chris’ Modern Analyst Profile |
|
|
|
 | |
|
|
| Re: The Lost Secret of Business Analysis |
|
|
Adrian:
I tried to find references to force, artificial partitioning from my personal library. I found that it is not directly mentioned in "Structured Systems Analysis and Specification" by Tom DeMarco (for Yourdon Press). It must have been mentioned in the only other Yourdon Press book that I had "Mondern Systems Analysis and Design", by Ed Yourdon. Unfortunately, I no longer have that book, so I can not readily give you specific page references.
In Section 3.2.3 in "Structured Systems Analysis and Specification", DeMaroc does talk about how what he calls "brute-force" partitioning (same thing as force, artificial partitioning) is too hard. That is that is just to difficult to, as the first step, draw the the circles (ovals) and have the resulting model be complete.
Force, artificial partitioning is an important concept popularized by (discovered by?) Yourdon and Associates and (as I previously stated) their intoductory course data flow diagramming started by explaining that the primary reason data flow diagrams where invented was to help analysts avoid the overhelming temptation to engage in such partitioning.
Tony |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| Re: The Lost Secret of Business Analysis |
|
|
ajmarkos wrote
Adrian:
I tried to find references to force, artificial partitioning from my personal library. I found that it is not directly mentioned in "Structured Systems Analysis and Specification" by Tom DeMarco (for Yourdon Press). It must have been mentioned in the only other Yourdon Press book that I had "Mondern Systems Analysis and Design", by Ed Yourdon. Unfortunately, I no longer have that book, so I can not readily give you specific page references.
In Section 3.2.3 in "Structured Systems Analysis and Specification", DeMaroc does talk about how what he calls "brute-force" partitioning (same thing as force, artificial partitioning) is too hard. That is that is just to difficult to, as the first step, draw the the circles (ovals) and have the resulting model be complete.
Force, artificial partitioning is an important concept popularized by (discovered by?) Yourdon and Associates and (as I previously stated) their intoductory course data flow diagramming started by explaining that the primary reason data flow diagrams where invented was to help analysts avoid the overhelming temptation to engage in such partitioning.
Tony
|
Hi Tony,
The only resource that I know of which discusses structured systems analysis (included data flow diagram) is: Just Enough Structured Analysis a book by Ed Yourdon that discusses the Structured Analysis methodology. Structured Analysis has been around for several decades in the software development industry. This book is a revision and update of Ed Yourdon's original 1989 book Modern Structured Analysis.
Best regards,
- Adrian
Adrian Marchis
Publisher - ModernAnalyst.com
Random Thoughts of an Analysis Manager |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| Re: The Lost Secret of Business Analysis |
|
|
Adrian:
I downloaded a copy. I searched through it, but could not find any discussion of forced, artificial partitioning. Maybe Ed Yourdon has deprioritized the topic? If he is not writting about it, then, no wonder why it is the Lost Secret Of Business Analysis.
Make no mistake about it, forced, artificial partitioning used to be at the top of the list of what Yourdon and Associates taught. Was forced, artificial partitioning an imagined issue, or a issue that has somehow "gone away"? You answered that when you said that, with use cases, it is not possible to determine how many cases are necessary. Others have shared with me simular opinions. My job is to integrate across projects. I see the results of forced, artificial partitioning all the time. So, no, the problem of forced partitioning has not gone away. It is just as prevalent as ever.
Does it not seem funny that almost nobody in the IT community today is even aware of what forced artificial partitioning is - and the need to avoid playing the old connect-the-boxes game?
Tony
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
| |