Comments on: Tips for Business Analysts: Alternatives of Alternatives http://www.writingusecases.com/wordpress/index.php/archive/tips-for-business-analysts-alternatives-of-alternatives/ Tips for the Business System Analyst Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:56:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Andrew http://www.writingusecases.com/wordpress/index.php/archive/tips-for-business-analysts-alternatives-of-alternatives/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Andrew Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:52:35 +0000 http://www.writingusecases.com/wordpress/index.php/archive/tips-for-business-analysts-alternatives-of-alternatives/#comment-23 An addition to this technique that can help is to use the numbering of the alternate flows to indicate from where in the basic flow you begin to deviate. For example: Alternative: The Customer does not have a customer id would be numbers "3.1: The Customer does not have a customer id" Any othe alternate flow off of step 3 would then become 3.2 and 3.3, etc... A flow that can happen at any step is given the number 0.x, e.g. "0.1: The Customer Cancels the transaction" The advantage of this technique is that you can see from your list of alternate flows which ones are alternates of the same step, and your alternate flows are listed in the order in which they fall out of the basic flow. The "problem" with this approach is that there's extra overhead to manage numbers of your alternate flows when your basic flow numbering changes. (e.g. forgot a step) I find that unless you have just a couple of very simple alternate flows, that calling out the alternates as seperate flows makes the basic flow much easier to read. Since I almost never have simple use cases, I always pull my alternates out in this manner. An addition to this technique that can help is to use the numbering of the alternate flows to indicate from where in the basic flow you begin to deviate.

For example: Alternative: The Customer does not have a customer id
would be numbers “3.1: The Customer does not have a customer id” Any othe alternate flow off of step 3 would then become 3.2 and 3.3, etc…

A flow that can happen at any step is given the number 0.x, e.g. “0.1: The Customer Cancels the transaction”

The advantage of this technique is that you can see from your list of alternate flows which ones are alternates of the same step, and your alternate flows are listed in the order in which they fall out of the basic flow.

The “problem” with this approach is that there’s extra overhead to manage numbers of your alternate flows when your basic flow numbering changes. (e.g. forgot a step)

I find that unless you have just a couple of very simple alternate flows, that calling out the alternates as seperate flows makes the basic flow much easier to read. Since I almost never have simple use cases, I always pull my alternates out in this manner.

]]>