Every small web development agency is unique in some way, this is usually what gives them some kind of competitive advantage. Part of that uniqueness is the process they use to convert what a client wants into reality (e.g. a website). This article discusses that process in a big picture kind way, the main focus is on roles - or who does what.
I've seen a few versions of this process at different companies I've worked at, but they mostly involve the same players each time (e.g. a sales rep, a project manager, etc).
Most small web agencies could say their work is divided into two arenas: small web projects and custom development. Small web projects would be basic websites such a business web presence. A custom software build covers all other scenarios (e.g. where a lot of code is written to account for the client’s unique business rules).
The processes described in this article are most relevant to the small web projects stream, mainly because this kind of work is generally the same thing over and over again (e.g. client: "I would like an about us page, and a contact page...").
The players – before we begin the discussion in earnest, we should establish the roles in the process, or 'who does what'. Job responsibilities often go hand-in-hand with a job title, but not always. So, lets introduce the players:
In the first approach, which I like to call the split-role approach, the process unfolds as follows:
- BDM sells web solution to client.
- Business Analyst contacts the client to take-down their requirements (and then hands that over to the Project Manager)
- The Project Manager organises production resources.
The alternative method is called the dual-role approach, which looks like this:
- BDM sells web solution to client.
- BDM gathers requirements from client and hands it over to the Project Manager.
- PM/BA reviews requirements (and often asks BDM to gather a few more details).
- PM organises resources and ensures delivery
I should mention that I specifically haven’t represented the iterative nature of development in either diagram (for the sake of simplifying the diagram).
Each approach has certain strengths and weaknesses. The most obvious difference between the two structures is that the dual-role approach combines the jobs of a Business Analyst and PM into one individual. The benefit of this is it cuts out one communication channel. The downside is it can be hard to find an employee with evenly matched business analysis and project management skills.
The dual-role approach also requires that the BDM have business analyst-like abilities, not as refined as a true business Analyst, but pretty savvy none-the-less. The fact that the BDM is capturing basic requirements takes a load off the PM/BA combined role, allowing them to effectively manage more concurrent projects.
Since the BDM is acting as a watered-down Business Analyst, its likely that the Project Manager/Business Analyst will often need to get clarifications on the requirements which have been gathered. For instance, the BDM may write down: "the client wants to put their products online", to which the PM/BA may say "does the client want to sell their products online, or do they just want an online product catalogue?"
The biggest concern for the BDM/BA combined role is that the skills needed to be a good BDM and a good Business Analyst aren't the same. Most BDMs aren't as structured in their thinking (which is needed to gather solid requirements), but then again most BAs don’t have the soft-skills a BDM generally has.
Pricing considerations - since we are dealing with basic website builds here, it is fine for a BDM to provide a client with a ball-park estimate at the initial client meeting. The final pricing does need to be settled by a proper Business Analyst though, they are the only ones that can cost the project with the least amount of risk.
There is also the issue of up-selling and business re-engineering. On the one-hand, a Business Analyst consulting directly with a client may improve the technology solution by making useful suggestions (split-role approach). The flip side would be a BDM is more likely to get a greater budgetary commitment from the client, due to their selling expertise (the dual-role solution).
Personally I prefer the duel-role approach since it reduces the number of communication channels (or 'integration points'). The more communication channels, the greater the risk of losing information or misinterpretations. In addition, small companies generally can't afford to hire specialists (i.e. a specific person for a Business Analyst role, another person for the PM role). I can however appreciate that the split-role approach offers some degree of scalability since there is more division of labour.
Special thanks to members of the Stack Overflow community for their contributions towards this article.
Subscribe to RSS Feed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.