The Business Analyst as a Professional Problem Solver

www.thinkingdimensions.com.sgThinking Dimensions Singapore Pte. Ltd
THE BA AS A PROFESSIONAL
PROBLEM SOLVER
Speaker Name: MATTHYS J FOURIE Ph.D
Company & Designation: THINKING DIMENSIONS - CEO

“Most incident
investigators ask
the wrong
questions, so do not
change your people
but change the
questions they’re
asking”
Matt Fourie
• Introduction
• Basis for Effective Thinking
• Components of Quality information
 Specificity
 Minimalistic information
 Hierarchy of Intelligence
 Collaboration with Appropriate Resources
• Finding Causes and Solutions
• Client outcomes
• Questions & answers
Agenda

Americas
• Canada
• Chile
• Peru
• USA
EMEA
• Germany
• Italy
• Netherlands
• Poland
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• Spain
• Turkey
• United
Kingdom
Asia Pacific
• Australia
• China
• India
• South Korea
• Thailand
• Singapore
• Baxter International
• Blue Cross Blue Shield
• Bosch
• Caltex Oil
• Carraro
• Crown Cork and Seal
• Dometic
• Electrolux
• Federal Judiciary Center
• General Dynamics IT
• Hollister,Inc
• Infineon
• BASF
• Macquarie Bank IT
• BT Financial IT
• Stihl
• Westpac IT
• Medtronic
• Maersk
• Norfolk Naval Shipyard
• Selig
• Siemens
• SITA
• SKF
Teck Resources
Thinking Dimensions’ Global reach

“Every incident has
its own unique
entry point for
analysis. The
challenge is to
find that entry
point as quickly
and as
accurately as
possible”
SOLVE ‘IT’ - Investigate
the Cause of IT
Incidents and Find
Rapid Solutions
• Introduction
 Specificity
• Client outcomes
Agenda

Divergent
Thinking
Convergent
Thinking
Procedure for addressing an Incident
1. State the Issue
2. Gather Incident/Problem detail
3. Evaluate for Causes/Answers
4. Confirm the Answer
Basis for Effective Thinking

Good Problem Solving is…
A situation where you SOLVE AN INCIDENT;
– QUICKLY [Service Restoration]
– ACCURATELY [Technical Cause]
– PERMANENTLY [Root Cause]

“The best brains
gathered around
a table is not
necessary the
most appropriate
brains to solve
an incident” Get
the DATA at
source!
Matt Fourie
• Introduction
• Components of Quality
Information
 Specificity
• Client outcomes
Agenda

Extreme Focus with “Specificity”
Specificity Rules
• One object one fault
• Single-minded &
simplistic
• Highly focused
• Must find the correct
entry point
• Ask a question –
expect an answer
Object Fault
Servers Not communicating

Specificity Rules
• Single-minded &
simplistic
• Highly focused
entry point
expect an answer
Object Fault
Data not transferred
Sent but not
received by
receiving servers

Specificity Rules
• Single-minded &
simplistic
• Highly focused
entry point
expect an answer
Object Fault
Sent but not
received by
receiving servers
Data for Large
Outlets
Not received

Specificity Rules
• Single-minded &
simplistic
• Highly focused
entry point
expect an answer
Object Fault
Sent but not
received by
receiving servers
Data for Large
Outlets
Not received
Sales turnover
numbers for Large
Outlets
Not received

“The issue getting the
most attention is
normally an effect of
something else that
happened” It is
much easier to
solve the
contributing factors
for this effect
Matt Fourie
• Introduction
Information
 Specificity
• Client outcomes
Agenda

“Minimalistic Principle”..
• Only need to analyse the information
that would be relevant to the incident
• Worked questions within a customised
“factor analysis” framework
• Get a quick factual “snapshot” of the
characteristics of the incident and then
use SME experience and gut feel to
explain the snapshot
• Test SME inputs against logic of
snapshot
“Too much information
can cause confusion.
The key is to get all the
relevant information only
and that is normally
substantially less than
gathering all the
Information.”
Innovation – the FreeZone
Thinking Experience.
by Kepner & Fourie

Factors in “Minimalistic Approach”…
Factor
What
Where
When
How
Why
Who
IS BUT NOTI Keep six honest serving-men:
(They taught me all I knew)
Their names are What and
Where and When and How and
Why and Who. I send them
over land and sea, I send them
East and West; but after they
have worked for me, I give them
all a rest.
Rudyard Kipling

“THINK…..Investigate &
Resolve”
Five minutes thinking is
worth saving 60% of
‘trial & error’ efforts
Matt Fourie
• Introduction
Information
 Specificity
• Client outcomes
Agenda

Creating Intelligence…
DATA
IS
Internet
Banking
Slow
APAC users
Started Oct 1
Continuous
INFORMATION
BUT NOT
Intranet
Banking
Freezing
USA, UK
Before
After 4pm
KNOWLEDGE
WHY NOT
Different routing
SSL handshake
Volume?
ADSL lines
New passwords
Different routing
Unexpected
Outcomes
• “BUT NOT” clarifies
the facts
• Creates a curious
“contrast”
• Looking at answers
at a “granular level”
• Stimulates deductive
reasoning

“A unique combination
of at least four in-
house actions
would provide you
with a solution to
most problem
situations”
Matt Fourie
• Introduction
Information
 Specificity
 Collaboration with Appropriate
Resources
• Client outcomes
Agenda

Stakeholder Analysis
• What do you know?
• What don’t you know?
• Who has the
information?
• How will you obtain
the missing
information?
Decision makers
ImplementersInfluencers

Information Source Selection
• What do you know?
– Object & Fault?
– Where it happened and where not?
– When happened and when not?
– Frequency of occurrences?
– In which phase of operation?
• What don’t you know?
• Who has the information?
• How will you obtain the
missing information?
“The BEST Brains is not
necessarily the most
APPROPRIATE brains
in finding the cause of
an incident!”
“SOLVE IT” – Investigate the
Cause of IT Incidents and
Find Rapid Solutions!
KEPNER/FOURIE/SAUTER

“Most incident
investigators ask
the wrong
questions, so do not
change your people
but change the
questions they are
asking”
Matt Fourie
• Introduction
 Specificity
• Client outcomes
Agenda

PAST NOW FUTURE
TECHNICAL
CAUSE ANALYSIS
INCIDENT
RESTORATION
ROOT CAUSE
ANALYSIS
STANDARD
The Scope of Application

Current Default Root Causes
• Hardware
• Software
• “Human Error”
• Work Environment
Technical Cause
Root Cause

Technical Cause Analysis
IS BUT
NOT
WHY
NOT
OBJECT
FAULT
USERS
WHERE
TIMING
PATTERN
CYCLE
OBJECT – What object and which other object(s) not?
FAULT – What fault and which other typical faults not?
USERS – Who has the problem and who does not?
WHERE – Where are these users and where could
they have been but are not?
TIMING – When did it happen first time and when not?
PATTERN – What is the pattern of faults and what
could it have been but is not?
CYCLE – In which cycle does the problem occur and
in which cycle does it not occur?

DIMENSION IS BUT NOT WHY NOT Possible Causes & Testing
Object E22 IP Phone
packets
E21 IP Phone
packets
New software
More users
Fault
Loc of
Object
Timing
Pattern
Life
Cycle
Phase
of Work

Object E22 IP Phone
packets
E21 IP Phone
packets
New software
More users
Fault Not executing Initializing Internet config
problem
IP contentions
Loc of
Object
ANZ, Asia UK & USA Different platform
New class routers
Timing Jan 22 Before New and different
contractor
Software
modifications made
Pattern Erratic
frequency
Consistent
occurrence
Internet compatibility
issues
Life
Cycle
During
integration
testing phase
Product testing Too much volume
Bandwidth issue
Phase
of Work
Production Development Compatibility issues

Object E22 IP Phone
packets
E21 IP Phone
packets
New software
More users
1. New software causing a compatibility
issue in the Production environment
problem
IP contentions
Loc of
Object
New class routers
2. The bandwidth in ANZ and Asia cannot
handle the requirements of the new software
contractor
Software
modifications made
3. Software modifications made just before
the launch, are causing temporary
corruptions in certain executional files in high
load periods
Pattern Erratic
frequency
Consistent
occurrence
issues
Life
Cycle
During
integration
testing phase
Bandwidth issue
Phase
of Work

Object E22 IP Phone
packets
E21 IP Phone
packets
New software
More users
1. New software causing a compatibility
issue in the Production environment
problem
IP contentions
✔ ✗
No, in this case it should not even initialize
Loc of
Object
New class routers
2. The bandwidth in ANZ and Asia cannot
handle the requirements of the new software
contractor
Software
modifications made
✔ ✔ ✗
No, does not explain the fact that the UK is using
same sw
3. Software modifications made just before
the launch, are causing temporary
corruptions in certain executional files in high
load periods
Pattern Erratic
frequency
Consistent
occurrence
issues
Life
Cycle
During
integration
testing phase
Bandwidth issue
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Phase
of Work

Root Cause Analysis
• Deviation Statement
• Factor Analysis
• Possible causal factors
• Testing the causal
hypotheses
• Find the underlying
reason(s) for incident
'The truth, if it
exists, is in the
details'
“Bartlett – Familiar
Quotations”

• Find the technical cause
first
• Do 5 Why’s to get to the
systemic level
• Find the root cause(s)
• Fix the incident/problem
for good
Root Cause Analysis
“One of the main reasons for
incident investigation failures
is “analysis paralysis” –
having to work with too
much information”
Infra-Structure Manager
Airline Software Platforms

DIMENSION IS BUT
NOT
APPLICATION
DEVIATION
FUNCTION
WHO
WHERE
TIMING
FREQUENCY
APPPLICATION: What application and which other
applications not?
DEVIATION: What deviation do we have and which ones
not?
FUNCTION: Which job/function/process is involved and
which ones not?
USERS: Who has the problem and who does not?
WHERE: Where are these users and where could they have
been but are not?
TIMING: When did it happen first time and when not?
FREQUENCY: How frequent is the fault occurring?
Root Cause Analysis

COMPONENT CAUSAL FACTORS CAUSAL ELEMENTS
Decision Making
Implementation
issues
Standard Operating
Procedures
Management
Measurement
Support
Communications
Work Environment
Skills
Testing Practices
Personal
Root Cause Analysis

Decision Making Process and Collaboration for inputs
Implementation
issues
Resources and Scope & Definition of
project
Standard Operating
Procedures
Applicability of SOP and Awareness
of SOP
Management Management of Work and Staff
Measurement KPI”s and Roles & Responsibilities
Support Internal and External Vendor support
Communications Clarity of comms and instructions
Work Environment Task Interference and consequences
Skills Complexity and applicability
Testing Practices Procedures and requirements
Personal Aptitude and Attitude
Root Cause Analysis

Decision Making Process and Collaboration for inputs Critical stakeholder requirements not consulted for this task
Inadequate authority levels for making good decisions
Implementation
issues
Resources and Scope & Definition of
project
Poor decision process and documentation for this task
Inadequate standards guiding the decision making
Time Zone difficulties hampering effective decision making
Standard Operating
Procedures
Applicability of SOP and Awareness
of SOP
Unrealistic time, cost and performance expectations
Poor initial estimation of resources needed for the project
Poor updated approval data making the procedure unclear
Management Management of Work and Staff Poor work guidance/coaching for correct performance
Work standards for this task is not enforced
Poor management support in getting this stask done
Measurement KPI”s and Roles & Responsibilities KPI and metrics regarding this output not clear or absent
Poor feedback on this KPI
Duplication and GAPS making roles and responsibilities
difficult
Support Internal and External Vendor support Overuse of the SME causing sub-standard work
Poor continual vendor support for this output
Communications Clarity of comms and instructions Continual interruptions in performing the task
Task performance request not properly understood
Work Environment Task Interference and consequences Work environment not conducive for the demands of the task
Unrealistic task and performance expectation for this task
Skills Complexity and applicability Not having enough experience with similar tasks
No vendor training provided for new product and or service
Testing Practices Procedures and requirements Poor risk analysis and decision pressure during testing
Not all aspects tested and the test was incomplete
Personal Aptitude and Attitude Inadequate problem solving ability for this type of task
Incumbent does not follow instructions or Standard
Procedure
Root Cause Analysis

Testing the Hypothesis
The decision making process is too
cumbersome to allow for own initiative and
then the staff member must make a choice
with given alternatives which is not most
optimal for the situation
The job incumbent did not get the
necessary support to do his job under a
pressure situation adding to task
interference
External vendor support for certain
technical decisions was not available and
that resulted in a less optimized decision
choice.
Final Conclusion and
Action Plan:
1.
2.
3.
✗

Statement: Find a way to improve “trickle & purge” for RMC application
Key Solution
Requirements
Various actions to meet key requirements
1. Fast as possible transfer rate
2. No loss of Data
3. Should not impact System
Performance
4. Do not increase resource
overheads
5. Easy to repair & maintain
6. Improve reliability
7. Ease of implementation
Finding Solutions Max4™

Key Solution
Requirements
1. Rewrite and Improve the existing code
2. Improve hardware specifications
2. No loss of Data
Performance
overheads

Key Solution
Requirements
3. Optimize disk layout to accommodate all tasks
4. Replace “trickle and purge” with a “constant
feed” system
2. No loss of Data
Performance
overheads

Key Solution
Requirements
3. Optimize disk layout to accommodate all tasks
4. Replace “trickle and purge” with a “constant
feed” system
5. Design a good validation code
6. Provide automatic back-ups
7. Develop proper and comprehensive
documentation for process
8. Improve staff awareness through training
9. Automated alerts if task not correct
10. QC test for every release
2. No loss of Data
Performance
overheads

Key Solution
Requirements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. No loss of Data
Performance
overheads
1. Rewrite and Improve the existing code. 2. Improve hardware specifications. 3. Optimize disk layout to
accommodate all tasks. 4. Replace “trickle and purge” with a “constant feed” system. 5. Design a good validation
code. 6. Provide automatic back-ups. 7. Develop proper and comprehensive documentation for process. 8. Improve
staff awareness through training. 9. Automated alerts if task not correct. 10. QC test for every release

Key Solution
Requirements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Fast as possible transfer rate 3 3
2. No loss of Data
Performance
overheads

Key Solution
Requirements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Fast as possible transfer rate 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. No loss of Data
Performance
overheads

Key Solution
Requirements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Fast as possible transfer rate 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. No loss of Data
Performance
overheads

Key Solution
Requirements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Fast as possible transfer rate 3 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. No loss of Data
Performance
overheads

Key Solution
Requirements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. No loss of Data 3 2 0 3 3 3 0 0 1 0
Performance
overheads

Key Solution
Requirements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. No loss of Data 3 2 0 3 3 3 0 0 1 0
Performance
3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0
overheads
3 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Easy to repair & maintain 2 0 0 2 2 1 3 3 2 0
6. Improve reliability 3 2 2 3 3 0 1 2 2 3
7. Ease of implementation 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 3 0 3

Templates with questions

Incident Restoration
FACTOR IS BUT NOT
OBJECT
FAULT
WHO
WHERE
IMPACT
PATTERN
REQUIREMENT ACTIONS TO CONSIDER

FACTOR IS BUT NOT
OBJECT Mobile
website
access
PC website
access
FAULT Denied – not
authorized
Slow/freezing
WHO Blackberry
users
Other Smart
phones
WHERE Asia ANZ, UK,
USA
IMPACT Customer
complaints
PATTERN Sporadic continuous

FACTOR IS BUT NOT
OBJECT Mobile
website
access
PC website
access
authorized
Slow/freezing
WHO Blackberry
users
Other Smart
phones
WHERE Asia ANZ, UK,
USA
IMPACT Customer
complaints
WHAT TO
RESTORE
WHAT
PROBLEMS TO
REMOVE
WHO
WHERE
TO WHAT
EXTENT
FOR HOW LONG
1 2 3 4

FACTOR IS BUT NOT
OBJECT Mobile
website
access
PC website
access
authorized
Slow/freezing
WHO Blackberry
users
Other Smart
phones
WHERE Asia ANZ, UK,
USA
IMPACT Customer
complaints
WHAT TO
RESTORE
3 0 0 2
WHAT
PROBLEMS TO
REMOVE
2 3 1 3
WHO 1 0 2 3
WHERE 3 2 1 0
TO WHAT
EXTENT
3 2 2 2
FOR HOW LONG 0 2 3 3
1 2 3 4

Non-tangible Results
• Much improved cross-silo collaboration
• A structured methodology on how to
approach a problem successfully
• Increased understanding of the nature of
the incident/problem situation
• Reduction of finger pointing, blame fixing
and time wasting

Lessons learned..
• You need a structure for team problem solving
• RCA is a “mental orientation” which people have to
get trained in – “does not come with experience”
• Professionals need a “thinking approach” that could
be applied in most situations
• Need to have resolutions visible to enable project
teams to record and monitor it
• Must have the potential to re-visit past decisions and
build on it
• Need a process that would guarantee SPEED

Additional Resources
“SOLVE IT” – Investigate the Cause of IT
Incidents and Find Rapid Solutions!
mat-thys@thinkingdimensions.com
sloo@stevenson.com.sg

The Business Analyst as a Professional Problem Solver

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (12)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to The Business Analyst as a Professional Problem Solver

Similar to The Business Analyst as a Professional Problem Solver (20)

More from NUS-ISS

More from NUS-ISS (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Business Analyst as a Professional Problem Solver

Editor's Notes