Comments on: Tips for Business Analysts: IT Project Success Rates

By: admin

admin — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:22:44 +0000

The blog is definitely active! This particular article was from 2007. You can find the most recent posts on the main page: http://www.writingusecases.com

Thanks for visiting!

Geri

By: Bruce Boock

Bruce Boock — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:13:21 +0000

Hi,

A member of the Orange County IIBA directed our BSA’s to this site, but it does not appear to be updated (most recent article from 2007?).

Is this site still current?

By: Vivek

Vivek — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:29:05 +0000

Whatever the respondent base maybe, the truth is that estimates should be close to deliverables. Other findings of the survey fall in line with what you generally expect from project teams.

By: David Wright

David Wright — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:22:25 +0000

Yes, pure textual specs and no change control will produce the situation where a spec does not match up to (often unstated or uncaptured) user expectations. Given that, a spec that includes graphics and is managed properly over the life of the project can very easily match to user expectations; the problem with the survey questions was it was assumed that a spec can never represent user needs.

So, if you ask someone if they prefer to get what they want, or some other thing that is stated as being not what they want, how would you answer the question?

Its about this time where one can use the quote “there’s lies, damned lies, and statistics’ or, as David Letterman says “Satistics’.

By: geri

geri — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:53:47 +0000

Hi David -

Thanks for the post!

I can only answer from my own experience, but here are some reasons why I think the spec may not meet the user needs:

1. In a large number of projects, the spec is written in English text. Many, many people find visualizing the finished product from a text description to be impossible. So while they think the spec describes what they want, when they see the product, they say it is not what they want. This is a large reason for approaches based on prototyping the user interface first, and I think also a large reason for the popularity of Agile processes, where you develop a little, demonstrate, make changes, develop more, demonstrate, and so on.

2. The spec may not be kept up-to-date as the project progresses. So as the team gets a better idea of what the stakeholders want, the software changes to match the actual needs, but the spec may not be updated. I know of a very large, very successful company that uses the spec to write test cases, then throws the requirements away, because their experience is that no one keeps the requirements specs up-to-date, but they do keep the test cases up-to-date.

Geri

By: David Wright

David Wright — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:24:14 +0000

This survey is being discussed in other forums, where I always ask why it seems to be assumed that a spec does not define the actual needs of the users, and I get no answer. I do know that Mr. Ambler equates specs with the ‘horrors’ of BRUF – Big Requirements Up Front. Frankly, BRUF describes a situation that rarely happens anymore, as i can’t recall the last time I was given multiple months to do requirements, i.e. spec… and I am not ranting against Agile, if it works for you, do it. All I want is an answer to my question.

By: Geri Winters

Geri Winters — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:07:14 +0000

Absolutely. And another great example of why the players need to keep communicating their expectations regarding the success of the project.

Thanks for the response!

By: Kevin Brennan

Kevin Brennan — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:38:45 +0000

It’s worth keeping in mind that Scott’s sample was drawn from readers of Dr. Dobb’s Magazine in general and subscribers to his Agile newsletter in particular. That will introduce a bias to the survey, because the respondents are likely to be overwhelmingly people who have found Agile methods to either be interesting to them or successful–in other words, the audience already thinks that Agile techniques work, so it’s no surprise that the survey showed that.

Now, there’s no particular reason to think that Scott’s survey is any worse in this regard than other surveys. The Standish Group, for instance, overwhelmingly targets senior executives in its survey population–which is probably one of the reasons they consistently show lower results, because that’s a group with a different definition of success. It’s just something to keep in mind.