Joint Requirements Planning (JRP) is a technique which involves the use of structured facilitated workshops to gather and/or review information during a project. JRP enables communication problems to be overcome by ensuring all interested parties are given an opportunity to take part in the definition of requirements and the setting of project objectives and scope. The JRP normally takes the form of a one or two day workshop and will be managed and run by a skilled independent facilitator. The key attributes and role of the facilitator are covered in the paper ‘The Gentle Art of Facilitation’. The purpose of this section is to define the way in which JRPs are planned, run and documented.
JRP can be used in many different situations and many different types of projects. The agenda, deliverables and inputs for each JRP type will be different, but the planning and facilitation processes will be the same. All JRP types require careful and thorough planning and preparation before they can be successful. A typical JRP life-cycle consists of the following stages:
1. JRP Initiation, where we determine the workshop objectives, identify the participants and schedule the workshop.
2. Research and Preparation, where we create the agenda, brief the participants, create our inputs, schedule our resources and set-up the session rooms.
3. JRP Workshop, where we manage the session, produce the agreed outputs and record all actions and issues.
4. Closing Ceremony, where we review the outputs, review all actions and issues and close the JRP.
5. Document JRP, where we refine and consolidate the workshop outputs, distribute the documentation and schedule a review session.
6. Review Outputs, where we bring the team back together to review and agree outputs, and check progress of actions.
The stages outlined are relevant to all JRP types. There is often a temptation to cut back on the amount of time allocated to planning and preparation for the JRP. This is false economy. It may save a few man days of effort before the JRP, but it will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on the productivity achieved during the JRP itself.
Structure is the key to successful JRPs. The right structure will allow the participants to focus on the required deliverables within a framework process. The structure will depend on the type of JRP and its objectives. A large part of the planning process is geared towards identifying the right structure for the JRP, which will be expressed through a formal agenda. The structure will be built around appropriate techniques, which are in turn driven by the deliverables which are required as outputs from the JRP. Structured techniques, such as data modelling and project planning, provide a framework process which will drive the JRP. It is therefore important that the facilitator has a clear view of the deliverables which will be produced, and how they will be produced.
The facilitator must enter the JRP with a clear view of the overall process which is going to be used to achieve the workshop objectives. A number of general information gathering techniques, such as ‘brainstorming’, may be used alongside structured techniques such as data modelling. The facilitator must plan which techniques will be used, how the session will be managed, and what the output deliverables will be. A formal agenda should be created which will provide a timetable and an overview of the processes which are being used. Without this level of formal planning and preparation the JRP is unlikely to succeed.
The JRP Life Cycle.
The JRP Life Cycle provides a structure which can be used for the planning, preparation and delivery of JRPs. It is a repeatable process which will increase the chances of success. Throughout the life cycle a number of control documents are used to document the life cycle stages. These documents can be subject to quality control, ensuring the facilitator is working within site standards. As an experienced facilitator, I still use these control documents, ensuring that I am following the optimum route through the process and dealing with issues as appropriate.
JRP Initiation.
The initiation phase is vital to the success of the JRP, as it is here that the objectives for the workshop will be established. The facilitator, project manager and senior user should work together to establish the objectives and to decide who needs to attend in order to achieve the objectives. The control form ‘JRP: Participant Checklist’ should be raised at this point, and the control form ‘JRP: Overall Checklist’ should also be started. The objectives of the workshop should be clearly stated on the Participant Checklist form, and will be used as a guide when the agenda is constructed as well as throughout the workshop.
Each potential participant is identified by name and job role, and the reason for their attendance is also clearly stated. At this point the number of active participants, i.e. those who will take part in the workshop discussions, should be limited to eight if possible. Larger groups are very difficult to manage, and results will be affected accordingly.
A date for the JRP is also set at this time, although it is likely that a number of alternative dates will need to be suggested in order to succeed in gathering together the right participants. The invitation to attend the JRP should be sent out at this time. The facilitator should ensure that the issuing of invitations, planning and preparation etc. are tasks which are allocated to someone, not left to chance. The initiation phase should ideally take place at least two weeks before the JRP date to allow adequate time for planning and preparation.
It may be difficult to establish clear objectives for the workshop, in which case a preliminary workshop may be necessary. This preliminary workshop should be attended by the project sponsor and senior users, and should be formally facilitated. As an alternative the facilitator may interview proposed participants in order to get their views on what the objectives should be. Until a clear view of the objectives has been obtained no further planning should be carried out. These objectives need to be owned by the JRP sponsor, not by the facilitator, who is simply assisting in the process of objectives definition.
Objectives definition is a vital part of the process. The objectives determine what topics will be covered and what deliverables will be produced. They also provide a mechanism for the facilitator to keep discussions relevant during the JRP, by asking the question ‘how is this discussion helping us achieve our objectives?’.
Research and Preparation.
Once the objectives of the workshop have been established a number of other activities can take place. There are a number of key deliverables from this phase, including the agenda. Three further control forms should now be raised: ‘JRP: Facilities and Resources Checklist’, ‘JRP: Agenda and Deliverables Checklist’ and ‘JRP: Input Documentation Checklist’.
Creating the Agenda.
Much of the success of the JRP will depend on the attention given to research and preparation. The creation of a formal agenda will drive this process. A number of questions will need to be answered before the agenda can be created:
- How much time has been allowed?
- What are the JRP objectives?
- What techniques and processes will be used?
- What input documentation is available?
- What deliverables will be produced?
- Who will be attending the workshop?
So the overall structure and mode of operation of the JRP will be decided in parallel with the creation of the agenda. Once created, the agenda will provide the key mechanism used by the facilitator to manage the workshop. Some facilitators use an extended or annotated agenda to assist them during the running of the workshop. This can be particularly useful for an inexperienced facilitator. The extended agenda contains detailed notes describing how a particular agenda item will be executed. For example, the production of a context diagram could be annotated as follows:
‘The Context Diagram (sometimes called the Level 0 DFD) shows the external interfaces for the business area to be analysed. The purpose of this exercise is to break the ice with a brainstorming session and get them used to the way the JRP works. Create two Context Diagrams: one which shows the business interfaces, and one which shows the system interfaces. The diagram is created by........’
This ensures the facilitator understands why the activity is taking place and how it will be done. The extended agenda is purely for the use of the facilitator, and will not be shown to participants. The standard agenda should be distributed to the participants at least one week before the JRP.
Briefing the Participants.
The proposed participants need to be interviewed by the facilitator for a number of reasons. The most important reason is to ensure that the individuals concerned understand why their presence is required and what they are being asked to contribute. At this stage a number of proposed participants may want to appoint another person to take their place, which may be acceptable. However, this sometimes has more to do with lack of commitment than a genuine belief that someone else has more to contribute. Managers often want to send along a member of staff in their place, having ‘empowered’ the replacement to act for them. In my experience, empowerment very rarely works, and the manager will still want to retain the right of veto. Sometimes this is unavoidable, and may not have a significant detrimental effect on the outcome of the workshop. On other occasions the workshop will be pointless without the manager’s participation.
An important part of the briefing process is to explain the deliverables which are being produced to each participant. This is of particular importance where ‘technical’ deliverables, such as data models, are being produced during the workshop. The aim is not to turn participants into experts in the techniques, but rather to ensure they understand the terminology which is being used and what the deliverable will represent.
The facilitator should also take this opportunity to review the agenda with the participant. I also ask each participant if they have any views on which areas of the JRP scope are most important, or if there are any particular issues they feel should be raised. This may lead to restructuring of the agenda, and may even affect the objectives of the workshop. This will also give the facilitator the opportunity to assess the participants in terms of their likely behaviour during the JRP.
Sometimes the briefing can be carried out as a group activity, which may have the added benefit of allowing group members to meet if they haven’t already done so. The final part of the briefing is to run through the ground rules with each of the participants, and to brief them on the way in which the workshop will be run, with particular emphasis on the role of facilitator. A suggested set of ground rules are outlined in the paper ‘The Gentle Art of Facilitation’.
Create Input Deliverables.
Most JRPs will take place at a point in the project where some work has already been carried out, and information is available for use as input to the JRP. It is important that this work is not ignored. Nothing infuriates users more than being asked to go over the same ground many times, which is precisely what we are trying to avoid by running JRPs.. All known information should be gathered together and put into a form which will enable it be used as an input to the JRP. This may involve analysis or project planning work. Some JRPs have specific objectives which make it imperative that inputs are available to the process e.g. a project planning JRP.
Many of these input deliverables will have been created during the project work that has already been carried out, but others may have to be created especially as inputs to the JRP. I have found from experience that it is often better to have inputs available for discussion (or as ‘Aunt Sallys’) rather than trying to produce everything from scratch during the JRP. These inputs can be created by traditional methods, such as talking to users, or by investigating existing systems or working practices.
Schedule Resources.
This is a simple administration activity which is often forgotten, usually because everyone thinks someone else is doing it! A room needs to be booked and refreshments arranged. In addition, purchase orders may need to be raised in order to book external resources, particularly if the JRP is taking place off-site.
Set-up Session Rooms.
The set-up of the session room is an important part of the workshop preparation. The location of the room can have a significant impact on the outcome of the JRP. If the room is located close to participant’s normal workplace the risk of interruptions is greatly increased. The workshop should ideally be located away from the participant’s normal working location, either in a company training centre or in an external facility such as a hotel or conference centre. This will, of course, potentially increase the workshop costs, but it will enable the participants to work with the minimum of interruption.
The workshop room should not contain a telephone. Agreement should be reached with the participants that messages will be passed on during breaks, rather than allowing the session to be interrupted. Of course, allowance has to be made to ensure important messages get through, particularly if they are of a personal nature.
The room should be large enough to accommodate participants in comfort, and well equipped with whiteboards and flipcharts. It is the responsibility of the facilitator to ensure good supplies of pens and presentation materials are available if appropriate.
The layout of the room is also important. Most facilitators prefer the room to be set out in a ‘U-shape’ with the facilitator at the front of the room, enabling him to see all the participants at all times.
The JRP Workshop.
The workshop is the culmination of the effort that has gone into the planning and preparation stages. By the time the workshop starts the group will have a clear view of what they are trying to achieve and how it will be achieved. The role of the facilitator is, of course, crucial to the success of the workshop, as is the willingness of participants to take part in a constructive way.
Managing the Session.
Key aspects of workshop management, such as group dynamics, are dealt with in the section ‘The Gentle Art of Facilitation’. In that section it is explained that each workshop will go through a definite set of stages: Combining, Rebelling, Settling and Excelling. The job of the facilitator is to steer the group towards a productive mode of working as quickly as possible. The opening of the workshop will be important in creating the right environment, which will have a friendly but focused atmosphere.
The agenda will depend largely on the objectives of the JRP and where it fits in the project, but there are some aspects which are common to all JRPs. The facilitator should begin by running through administration details, ensuring the delegates know what refreshment facilities are available, working hours and the location of cloakrooms. The next stage is to run through the introductions, with the facilitator starting the ball rolling. Many facilitator’s use ‘ice-breakers’ at this stage, and I have found them very useful in helping to create a relaxed environment for the workshop. (It is OK for people to enjoy themselves during the JRP!).
A key aspect of managing the session is the use of the agenda, which should now be reviewed and discussed. It is important that all participants feel comfortable with agenda, and understand the deliverables which will be produced during the workshop. However, it may be necessary to review the agenda during the course of the workshop, particularly with regard to timings. The facilitator needs to continually monitor the progress of the workshop, and change the process being used if things are not going well. The ground rules should also be reviewed at this stage, ensuring that all participants understand the way in which the session will be managed.
The final part of the introduction is the review of the business objectives. I usually ask the project sponsor to give a brief overview of the business objectives which lie behind the project, providing a context for the discussions which follow.
Produce the Agreed Deliverables.
This part of the workshop is entirely dependent on the type of JRP and the agenda. It is imperative that the facilitator is skilled in the techniques being used to create the deliverables e.g. data modelling. As a general rule it is not an objective to produce semantically correct deliverables during the JRP - they can be corrected during subsequent project phases. The job of the facilitator is to gather as much information as possible in the time available rather than worrying whether, for example, a relationship in a data model has been expressed correctly.
The deliverables are created on whiteboard or flipchart in a format large enough to be visible to all of the participants. Flipcharts have the advantage of being a more permanent record of the deliverable than whiteboards. Flipcharts can also be torn from the pad and placed around the workshop room so that many different deliverables can be visible at the same time. Many rooms have rails from which the flipcharts can be hung, but if this is not the case they can be mounted on the walls using Blu-tack or Sellotape, having first made sure that the walls will not be marked.
Record Actions and Issues.
Throughout the JRP a number of topics will be discussed for which no satisfactory conclusion can be reached. It is imperative that the participants do not attempt to invent answers when they lack the necessary information or authority to do so. Such unresolved areas will be recorded as either actions or issues. An action is recorded when one of the participants agrees to own the problem, and will seek a solution off-line, usually by consulting with colleagues not present at the JRP. An open issue is recorded when no obvious action can be taken to resolve the problem. This is done to ensure that the problem is documented for later review.
The facilitator should be careful when assigning actions; it is often the case that some unfortunate delegates become overburdened while others receive no actions. The facilitator should also set realistic expectations concerning the output of the action. Participants will be busy people who have their own jobs to carry out, and it is therefore pointless expecting them to produce a document the equivalent of ‘War and Peace’ in order to satisfy an action.
The list of actions and issues is a valuable output from all workshop types, providing the Project Manager with a clear view of areas which require further investigation.
The Closing Ceremony.
The closing ceremony brings the JRP to a formal end. The objective is to ensure that participants are aware of any actions which they have accepted and to allow feedback on the JRP process.
Review Deliverables.
Time should be allowed at the end of the JRP for a walk through of the deliverables which have been produced. It may be that the Workshop Analyst (or Scribe) has been documenting the JRP using a PC, in which case it may be possible to give the participants verbatim copies of all of the deliverables. If this is not the case the facilitator should use the flipcharts created during the workshop to drive the review session. The objective of this review is to ensure that there is no confusion about which versions of deliverables are regarded as the final outputs from the workshop.
Review Actions and Issues.
The review of actions and issues is carried out to ensure that all those who have been assigned actions understand and accept them. Each action should be worded in a way which leaves no doubt as to what is expected of the person who will carry it out. The format of the output should also be agreed at this point e.g. ‘a one page overview of the ordering cycle’. A date by which the action will be completed should also be set at this point, which will enable the Project Manager to plan accordingly, and monitor progress.
Close the JRP.
The final part of the JRP should be a formal close, during which the facilitator should thank the participants for their efforts. Some facilitators ask for direct feedback about the JRP at this point, while others issue a feedback form which can be completed by participants at a later stage. The feedback process is a vital part of the JRP cycle. It is important to solicit the views of participants in order to understand which parts of the workshop worked well and where other areas could be improved. A combination of immediate reactions, followed by a questionnaire allowing participants time to reflect on the workshop before commenting, often provides the most useful feedback.
Document the JRP.
The production and distribution of the final documentation from the JRP is an important part of the process. It is likely that a large amount of information will have been gathered during the JRP, not all of which will have been expressed in a structured form. Verbatim copies of the documentation produced during the JRP can be distributed at the end of each JRP day if the workshop analyst is using a PC to document the outputs. If a PC has not been used the verbatim documentation copies can be issued within a few days of the JRP. It is now important to rationalise the outputs from the JRP and distribute the revised deliverables. If significant changes have been made to the documentation a review session should also be scheduled.
Create Composite Deliverables.
During the JRP a number of structured deliverables are likely to have been created, in addition to which a large number of notes will have been made. I typically find that information about a particular area is spread across a number of documentation pages. The workshop analyst should now create a set of composite documentation by rationalising the outputs from the JRP. The result will be a much clearer set of documentation, with all the information about a given topic brought together into one place.
In addition, many of the structured deliverables will not be semantically correct e.g. data models. The workshop analyst should now attempt to create semantically correct deliverables. However, care should be taken to ensure that assumptions are not made at this stage in order to answer questions or resolve ambiguities. The workshop analyst should compile a list of outstanding questions, as would be the case with any analysis exercise. These outstanding questions will be resolved by further analysis, although some of them may be answered during the post-JRP review session.
It is important to remember that the deliverables have been produced as a result of discussion and debate during the workshop, and are owned by all workshop participants. No individual participant should be allowed to override these joint decisions, although it is perfectly legitimate for them to make suggestions as to how the deliverables should be modified. These suggestions should be treated as change requests and discussed during the post-JRP review session.
Distribute the Documentation.
The final documentation set should be distributed to all workshop participants as soon as it is ready. The documentation should be annotated to explain any changes which have taken place since the verbatim set was issued, and the reasons for the changes. This documentation may also need to be distributed to personnel who were not at the JRP but have a role within the project.
Schedule Review Session.
Following the distribution of the documentation there may need to be a review session involving the original JRP participants, which should now be scheduled.
Review JRP Outputs.
A review session, when scheduled, allows participants to raise any issues arising out of the documentation and to check progress on JRP actions. Even if a review session is not scheduled participants should be encouraged to comment on the deliverables. Some facilitators also ask participants to ‘sign-off’ the deliverables at this point, recording their agreement that the deliverables are an accurate record of the workshop.
Review Revised Deliverables.
The creation of a consolidated set of JRP deliverables will provide users with a detailed view of the decisions which were made during the JRP. These decisions may have been stated explicitly during the workshop, or may be implicit in the deliverables. It is important that the participants are given an opportunity to raise any issues which they feel arise out of the documentation. This can often be a question of emphasis as opposed to disagreeing with the overall content of a deliverable. It may also be the case that participants feel that some decisions made during the JRP have not been recorded.
Care should be taken during this review session not to re-open areas of debate which were clearly settled during the workshop. I usually allow two hours for this review session, and run it based on a formal agenda with workshop ground rules enforced. At the end of the review session it should be possible to achieve ‘sign-off’ for the deliverables if this appropriate.
Check Progress of Actions.
During the JRP a number of actions will have been assigned to individuals. The review session provides an opportunity to check the progress of these actions. Note that some of these actions will have been scheduled for completion before the review session, while others will be scheduled for completion at a later date. Any documentation produced as a result of the actions should be distributed now, if they have not already been issued. It may be that in the course of carrying out the actions a number of additional issues have been raised, and these can be briefly discussed during this review session. Any delays in carrying out actions should be passed on to the Project Manager so that plans can be adjusted accordingly.
JRP Roles & Responsibilities.
Before the JRP takes place each person who is attending, in whatever capacity, needs to understand the role they are being asked to carry out, and what their responsibilities will be. Some facilitators issue a briefing document to all JRP attendees which includes an overview of roles and responsibilities, with the role an individual is being asked to take clearly highlighted.
Facilitator.
The role of facilitator is described in detail in the paper ‘The Gentle Art of Facilitation’. However, the following summary may be useful as part of a briefing document for JRP attendees.
The facilitator is responsible for the planning and preparation which must take place before the JRP, as well as being responsible for the management of the JRP. The facilitator must, during the course of the JRP, ensure that the workshop objectives are clearly focused on. In addition, the facilitator is responsible for enforcing the agreed ground rules which will apply to the JRP.
The facilitator should not contribute directly to the contents of discussions, but should manage the meeting in such a way that all participants have an opportunity to take part in discussions where appropriate. The facilitator may help the process by prompting and making suggestions but should have no bearing on the outcome of discussions.
The facilitator can only succeed if the JRP participants accept the authority of the role and allow ground rules to be enforced where necessary.
The Executive Sponsor.
Each JRP will take place within the context of a project. The JRP executive sponsor should be the senior manager with overall responsibility for the success of the project, and with authority to make decisions. The involvement of the executive sponsor sends a clear message to the workshop participants leaving them in no doubt as to the importance of the exercise. The executive sponsor should work with the facilitator in setting the business objectives and scope of the overall project, as well as those of the specific JRP. The executive sponsor will also have a key role to play in identifying who should attend the JRP and allowing them to be released form their normal duties.
The executive sponsor does not necessarily have to attend all JRPs, but should be available to deliver a ‘keynote’ address before the start of the first workshop session, where the objectives can be clearly stated.
The Workshop Analyst (or Scribe).
The role of workshop analyst is vital to the success of the JRP and, like the role of facilitator, is often undervalued and misunderstood. In broad terms, the workshop analyst is responsible for the JRP documentation. The key items to be documented are:
- actions and issues;
- structured deliverables;
- all decisions.
However, a good workshop analyst will also provide a verbatim record of the discussions which have taken place, recording not only the conclusions which were reached, but also how and why they were reached. This is a very demanding aspect of the role, but this verbatim record will prove to be invaluable later in the project. The workshop analyst also ensures that actions and issues are recorded clearly, with sufficient level of definition to ensure they are understood when the session has finished.
Like the facilitator, the workshop analyst is impartial, and does not influence the outcome of discussions or the decision making process. The facilitator should work closely with the workshop analyst, ensuring they share a common understanding of the level of documentation to be produced. Some workshop analysts create the JRP documentation directly onto a PC, using drawing tools and word-processing packages. This should only be done if the workshop analyst is extremely proficient in the use of such tools, and the use of the PC does not distract workshop participants.
Participant.
A participant is defined as anyone who attends the JRP with a view to taking an active part in the sessions. They will certainly be there by invitation, and will have been chosen because they have something to contribute. They may represent a particular business unit or be part of the IT organisation. As a general rule, participants should be available for all of the workshop sessions, unless they only have an interest in a particular agenda item.
A key aspect of this role is the knowledge which allows the individual to contribute during discussions. It is important, however, that participants recognise the limit of their knowledge and authority. Saying ‘I need to discuss this with the legal department’ does not cause a problem. On the other hand, passing an opinion without stating that further consultation is necessary will lead to requirements being expressed incorrectly. In addition, participants must accept the workshop ground rules and abide by them.
Observer.
It may sometimes be desirable to allow a small number of attendees to observe the JRP process without taking an active part in the proceedings. This may be useful if the observers are evaluating the use of JRP within the organisation or are thinking of using the technique for their own project. Observers play no active part in the workshop, sitting away from participants and ensuring they remain unobtrusive throughout the session.
The observer role is sometimes abused by individuals who want to be at the workshop in order to influence what is going on but don’t want to be seen to be taking an active role. Such individuals will become very disruptive during the workshop, passing notes or holding whispered conversations with participants. The rules for observers are clearly defined and should be enforced. If they have something to contribute to the session they should join the group and take an active part in the proceedings.
Presenter.
The facilitator is normally responsible for the presentation of the input documentation to the JRP. However, if the material is of a deeply technical or obscure nature, it may be necessary to allow a specialist in the subject area to present the material. The presenter could be one of the JRP participants or may be brought in for a specific session.
The presenter does not take over from the facilitator, who remains responsible for the conduct and management of the workshop. Each presenter is responsible for the preparation and distribution of the material being used.
|  |
| Joint Requirements Planning is used to overcome the communication issues that often impact on today's buisness projects. Most projects today involve many different business deprtments and a wide variety of users. There may be as many opinions as to what is required as there are people invoived in the project. It is vital to the succes of all projects that a common understanding is reached of the wider business goals and objectives so that priorities can be established. By bringing together all of the key stakehoders, JRP enables the different points of view to be openly discussed, and decsions made which can be accepted by all stakeholders. |
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기