The Community Blog for Business Analysts


What do you do when the client isn’t focused on the business outcome?

One of the values that we bring is that we can help our clients to decide what scope to cut by providing them with a framework that links quantifiable business objectives to specific features. We create an objective chain to do this and it helps to spotlight features that don’t feed into the core business purpose. Typically our stakeholders are able to cut a minimum of 10% of features and as much as 90% while achieving their objectives.

What we are finding though is that it is sometimes a challenge because the features that are good for the company are not necessarily good at making the lives of the people using the software easier or better.

We have recently run into a case (I’m changing the dollar values and the features for confidentiality reasons) where the business side of our client had identified $50 million in potential savings each year in an area of the business related to giving discounts. The issue was that the discounts were being calculated manually and there was the serious possibility that customers were claiming millions in discounts twice. The discounting system and rules are very complex with overlapping effectivity dates, products, regions and discount rules.

The business was confident in the $50 million number based on industry studies that showed that typical companies were giving away 5% more than they needed to in improperly calculated discounts. However, no one could identify specific types of problems that might be leading to double payment. We did a little research and analysis and decided that the biggest risk area was multiple overlapping discounts and so made that the focus.

There were several issues that came up. The most critical was that the users of the system and the business team while acknowledging the problem with overlapping discount agreements, were basing their decisions on the efficiency of the team. The calculating team is an offshore team with 8 people focused on this portion of the process. The company had done a study to show that full automation could reduce headcount from 8 to 2 people.

However our view was that the savings associatied with reducing headcount from 8 to 2 people was so minimal that it wasn’t worth the effort in the beginning when we were faced with such a large amount in overpayments. Instead we felt that focusing on the features that would automate detection of overlapping agreements were absolutely critical. Deploying those features as quickly as possible was paramount because of the massive revenue leak associated with the problem. Leaving a majority of the process manual would actually be ok if the system had the ability to determine when multiple discounts were being applied to the same purchase and thus eliminate the lost dollars.

It turns out that the business simply didn’t want to fund the project unless their work was decreased, even though in the overall scheme the cost savings was minimal. In the end they approved funding for a first phase that has full automation but does not actually focus on detection of the business case driving error conditions. The detection of the error conditions will come in later phases, so ultimately they will get the business value.

We see this often where at the level of individual features, the subject matter experts have mandatory features that will make their life easier but don’t necessarily contribute to the business case for the project. These features create a death by a thousand cuts situation. Our methodology can identify the “unnecessary” features, but ultimately it is up to the client to decide if the business case is really the highest priority.

Want to see other blog posts? Check us out here:

This entry was published on Aug 17, 2010 / Seilevel. Posted in Project Management, Business Analysis, Analytical and Problem Solving Skills, Leadership & Management. Bookmark the Permalink or E-mail it to a friend.
Like this article:
  7 members liked this article

Related Articles


Marc Thibault posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 12:21 PM
This really puts an accent on the need to get a very clear understanding of the actual client's actual objective.

The client had a higher level objective that wasn't captured, that led to surprising the analysts by prioritizing the automation over loss prevention. What the analysts thought "was paramount" wasn't at all. It seems like the analysts were so focused on their "solution" that they neglected to ask some important questions about the problem.

There's no clue in this article about what the real objective was, but if I had been involved, I'd be more than curious to find out.
Marc Thibault
Only registered users may post comments.

Modern Analyst Blog Latests

As we start a new year many of us will take the time to reflect on our accomplishments from 2012 and plan our goals for 2013. We can set small or large goals. goals that will be accomplished quickly or could take several years. For 2013, I think Business Analysts should look to go beyond our traditional boundaries and set audacious goals. Merriam-...
Recently, I was asked by the IIBA to present a talk at one of their chapter meetings. I am reprinting here my response to that invitation in the hope that it will begin a conversation with fellow EEPs and BAs about an area of great concern to the profession. Hi xx …. Regarding the IIBA talk, there is another issue that I am considering. It's p...
Continuing the ABC series for Business Analysts, Howard Podeswa created the next installment titled "BA ABCs: “C” is for Class Diagram" as an article rather than a blog post. You can find the article here: BA ABCs: “C” is for Class Diagram Here are the previous two posts: BA ABCs: “A” is for Activity Diagram BA ABCs: “B” is for BPMN


Blog Information

» What is the Community Blog and what are the Benefits of Contributing?

» Review our Blog Posting Guidelines.

» I am looking for the original Modern Analyst blog posts.


Copyright 2006-2024 by Modern Analyst Media LLC