Timeline for How can I get our BAs to provide business requirements, and stop confusing them with implementation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 2012 at 16:26 | comment | added | CaffGeek | I do, just like I don't take offense when a problem is found in the application after I write it and release to QA. Mistakes happen. The issue I have is when the mistake found in QA was nothing I could have prevented with the information provided. And despite trying to get better information provided up front so I can produce better work, I keep getting system requirements without business requirements. Implementing them, and then having to heavily modify the application after getting business requirements myself, which were never fulfilled because I didn't know what they were upfront. | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 16:06 | comment | added | David Espina | It is like a manufacturing assembly line, where a component of a machine begins to produce defects that are approaching or exceeding tolerances. Eventually, someone hits the red button that stops the line and the component issue is addressed. You have to escalate in a non emotional way and report the issues and risks the defective component is causing. | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 16:01 | history | edited | David Espina | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 649 characters in body
|
| Feb 9, 2012 at 16:01 | comment | added | CaffGeek | That's what I keep doing. I keep sending it back. However, he doesn't take criticism well. He takes it personally. And I'm once again, staring at an email saying "Describe general steps which will occur in this logic, so that I can update my business rules" ... failing to grasp that how we implement is NOT THE BUSINESS RULES. | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 15:57 | comment | added | David Espina | Oh.... Well, are you able to go to his superior? Can you "kick back" his work, i.e., reject in the inputs like you would raw materials that are defective? Else, you may have no choice but to do 1/2 of his job by reinterpreting his requirements into the way they are supposed to read. Not ideal but it is a workaround. | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 15:55 | comment | added | CaffGeek | Sadly, I'm not his superior, or he'd have been gone months ago. I do however, unfortunately, have to work with the crap requirements provided. It would be nice to just once, get requirements that allow me to code, without tearing them apart, getting involved in a second round of meetings, because the wrong questions were asked in the first, and then redoing everything he did in the first place, just so I can start doing my job. | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 15:51 | history | answered | David Espina | CC BY-SA 3.0 |