what are the general question should be asked to stockholders for requirement gathering about the problem
Well if your question is for stockholders, I'd ask: Do you have an investment strategy? what is in your portfolio today? When do you plan to retire? What is the amount of disposable income? Do you undertand that investment capital should be considered lost moeny?
Now if this questions is for stakeholders on a project, your question is very very broad. I would ask who the sponsors are, who the primary stakeholders are, what each stakeholders role in the organization and project is, what each stakeholder's interest is in the project, if each stakeholder is dedicated to the project, what the project is about, how the project is funded, what the expectations of the project are, what the GOAL of the project is, and most importantly WHY? Why to everything!
If you can narrow the context of your original question, I think you will get more concise and valuable answers.
Thanks
DougGtheBA
DougGtheBA:
A recent article on this site drew about 36 comments (see home page). Most (all?) had to do with the need for and how to do as-is modeling. Several indiviuals stated basically that as-is modeling is a waste of time, and that what needs to be done requirements wise is for the BA to go directly to the top-level stakeholders and, through a series of questions, elicite a to-be model.
Do you feel that getting that nailing down a to-be model with the stakeholders - before any contact with the system users - is a big part of the questions to be asked of these individuals?
Tony
Hey Tony:
I weighed in on that too, and I have to say that the whole discussion really opened my eyes. If you are the same Tony that was posting in that, while I don't necessarily agree with all your points, I REALLY appreciate you standing up for what you belief in and holding your own in the argument.
I'm not so sure that I would call AS-IS a waste of time, but I do think that it's taken less prominence in my own thought process than what it did just a few weeks ago. In fact my thoughts on lots of things are being challenged and I'm trying to come to grips with it all. The AS-IS/TO-BE debate is one. I was always a big believer in one knowing where they are so there is an understanding of how to go to the destination, and I was a fan of using a travel map as an analogy. However, this debate is a little different. The exec/org already knows where it is and has made the decision to go somewhere else. It's up to the analyst to figure out how to get there, and it appears that the most efficient way is to define the destination and work backwards on how to get to that point. This whole thing really has my head spinning.
I think I'm going to try to implement this approach and see what happens. After all, I can argue about it all day, but the proof is in the pudding, eh? I expect that what I will find is that I must, at minimum, define the general tenets of AS-IS as a baseline without the analysis. We shall see.
That as is vs to be conversation whizzed by me...
I would have said that the main benefit of doing an as-is analysis is buying credibility.
Consultants do it because they come in without local knowledge. It's a way of saying "Hi, here we are amd we understand what your problems are."
In a context where everyone understand the business you can establish that trust in other ways.
brought to you by enabling practitioners & organizations to achieve their goals using: