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




Agenda


DivergentThinking

ConvergentThinking

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


DivergentThinking

ConvergentThinking

Procedure for addressing an Incident

1. State the Issue

2. Gather Incident/Problem detail

3. Evaluate for Causes/Answers

4. Confirm the Answer

Factual

information

gathering

Intuitive Answers & Analysis

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 • Basis for Effective Thinking• Components of Quality

Information Specificity Minimalistic information Hierarchy of Intelligence Collaboration with Appropriate Resources


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






expect an answer

Object Fault


Data not transferred

Sent but not received by receiving servers






expect an answer

Object Fault




Data for Large Outlets

Not received






expect an answer

Object Fault




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




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 informationcan cause confusion.

The key is to get all therelevant information only

and that is normallysubstantially less than

gathering all theInformation.”

Innovation – the FreeZoneThinking 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




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 routingSSL 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


Information Specificity Minimalistic information Hierarchy of Intelligence Collaboration with Appropriate

Resources


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


change your people

but change the

questions they are





Agenda


PAST NOW FUTURE

TECHNICAL CAUSE ANALYSIS

INCIDENT RESTORATION

ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

STANDARD

DEVIATIO

N

The Scope of Application


Current Default Root Causes

• Hardware• Software

• “Human Error”• Work Environment

Technical Cause

Root Cause


Technical Cause Analysis IS BUT

NOTWHY 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 & TestingObject E22 IP Phone

packets E21 IP Phone packets

New softwareMore users

Fault

Loc of Object

Timing

Pattern

Life Cycle

Phase of Work

Technical Cause Analysis





Fault Not executing Initializing Internet config problemIP contentions

Loc of Object

ANZ, Asia UK & USA Different platformNew class routers

Timing Jan 22 Before New and different contractorSoftware modifications made

Pattern Erratic frequency

Consistent occurrence

Internet compatibility issues

Life Cycle

During integration testing phase

Product testing Too much volumeBandwidth issue

Phase of Work

Production Development Compatibility issues






1. New software causing a compatibility issue in the Production environment


Loc of Object


2. The bandwidth in ANZ and Asia cannot handle the requirements of the new software


3. Software modifications made just before the launch, are causing temporary corruptions in certain executional files in high load periods




Life Cycle



Phase of Work







1. New software causing a compatibility issue in the Production environment


✔ ✗No, in this case it should not even initialize

Loc of Object


2. The bandwidth in ANZ and Asia cannot handle the requirements of the new software


✔ ✔ ✗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




Life Cycle



✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Phase of Work




PAST NOW FUTURE



ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

STANDARD

DEVIATIO

N



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


Resources and Scope & Definition of project


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 taskInadequate authority levels for making good decisions


Resources and Scope & Definition of project

Poor decision process and documentation for this taskInadequate standards guiding the decision makingTime Zone difficulties hampering effective decision making


Applicability of SOP and Awareness of SOP

Unrealistic time, cost and performance expectationsPoor initial estimation of resources needed for the projectPoor updated approval data making the procedure unclear

Management Management of Work and Staff Poor work guidance/coaching for correct performanceWork standards for this task is not enforcedPoor management support in getting this stask done

Measurement KPI”s and Roles & Responsibilities KPI and metrics regarding this output not clear or absentPoor feedback on this KPIDuplication and GAPS making roles and responsibilities difficult

Support Internal and External Vendor support Overuse of the SME causing sub-standard workPoor continual vendor support for this output

Communications Clarity of comms and instructions Continual interruptions in performing the taskTask performance request not properly understood

Work Environment Task Interference and consequences Work environment not conducive for the demands of the taskUnrealistic task and performance expectation for this task

Skills Complexity and applicability Not having enough experience with similar tasksNo vendor training provided for new product and or service

Testing Practices Procedures and requirements Poor risk analysis and decision pressure during testingNot 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 SolutionRequirements

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™





1. Rewrite and Improve the existing code2. Improve hardware specifications


2. No loss of Data











1. Rewrite and Improve the existing code2. Improve hardware specifications3. Optimize disk layout to accommodate all tasks4. Replace “trickle and purge” with a “constant feed” system


2. No loss of Data











1. Rewrite and Improve the existing code2. Improve hardware specifications3. Optimize disk layout to accommodate all tasks4. Replace “trickle and purge” with a “constant feed” system5. Design a good validation code6. Provide automatic back-ups7. Develop proper and comprehensive documentation for process8. Improve staff awareness through training9. Automated alerts if task not correct10. QC test for every release


2. No loss of Data











1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


2. No loss of Data






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






1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Fast as possible transfer rate 3 3

2. No loss of Data












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












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












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












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












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


3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0


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 31. 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



Templates with questions


PAST NOW FUTURE



ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

STANDARD

DEVIATIO

N



Incident RestorationFACTOR IS BUT NOT

OBJECT

FAULT

WHO

WHERE

IMPACT

PATTERN

REQUIREMENT ACTIONS TO CONSIDER



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





PC website access


Slow/freezing


Other Smart phones





WHAT TO RESTORE

WHAT PROBLEMS TO REMOVE

WHO

WHERE

TO WHAT EXTENT

FOR HOW LONG

1 2 3 4




PC website access


Slow/freezing


Other Smart phones





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


“Most incident

investigators ask

the wrong


change your people

but change the

questions they are





Agenda


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!

[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



the business analyst as a professional problem solver

Technology

dimensions singapore

thinking dimensions

dimensions global reach

appropriate resources

specificity specificity

answer basis

incident investigators

matt fourie introduction