|
|
|
|
| The Telecom Network for Professionals and Users Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts |
| Convergence Issues - Organizational Structure | Views: 478 |
| Sep 17, 2006 5:52 am | | Convergence Issues - Organizational Structure | # |
Ken Hilving | |
New Page 1
With convergence, organizational structures
probably have changed. What does your technology groups org chart look like
today?
Private Reply to Ken Hilving |
| Sep 17, 2006 12:03 pm | | re: Convergence Issues - Organizational Structure | # |
Romuald Navin | | Hola!
The tech char has remained the same since 2004, with a separate leg running up to the CTO office and on to the CEO.
However, the main difference that I observe, not only in my org but also in many in Asia, is the creation of a position that sits in between the Technology and Commercial teams - someone with technology background but also has a keen eye on business development and end-user perspective.
Just some feedback from this end of the global playground.. :)
Private Reply to Romuald Navin |
| Sep 18, 2006 8:18 pm | | re: re: Convergence Issues - Organizational Structure | # |
Ken Hilving | | We call that a business analyst here. Sometimes the function falls on the infrastructure architect instead.
Did you have a seperate voice group and data group? If so, was it at the user support level only, or did it extend to engineering and operations? With convergence, did you merge staffs or cut staff and move responsibility?Private Reply to Ken Hilving |
| Sep 23, 2006 8:55 am | | re: re: re: Convergence Issues - Organizational Structure | # |
Romuald Navin | | Does your business analyst get involved in day-to-day technical and commerical operations OR just provides feedback/consultation?
Yes, separate teams... at user support and ops level.
With merger, staff count was halved, but then, alot more was outsourced to india!! In terms of productivity, we're not sure if what we did is the right move now... *lol* Private Reply to Romuald Navin |
| Sep 24, 2006 4:55 am | | re: re: re: re: Convergence Issues - Organizational Structure - Business Analyst | # |
Ken Hilving | |
New Page 1
The role of the business analyst varies from
enterprise to enterprise.
Ideally, time is split between the technical and
business units. At the business unit, the business analyst is often the first
level support for existing technology. More important is the time spent in with
users and in management meetings. There, the business analyst is listening for
opportunities to improve the role of technology. These get presented to the
technical units as business requirements in terms that are relevant to the
technical staff.
Information from the technical units on what can
or cannot be done, or changes necessary (whether for maintenance of existing
systems or to provide new services), as well as new technical possibilities, are
brought back and presented to the business units in their own terms.
In short, the business analyst is the translator
between the business and technical units.
In an outsource situation, the business analyst
function and time varies a bit depending on whether the client or outsource
employee. This variance is a natural occurrence based on who provides the
paycheck and hence defines what defines a successful exchange.
On major projects it is important to reconsider
the business objectives and business requirements. A business analyst associated
with a particular business unit sometimes loses the objectivity to consider the
enterprise business objectives. This is why an infrastructure architect will
sometimes step in.
Private Reply to Ken Hilving |
| Sep 25, 2006 3:40 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Convergence Issues - Organizational Structure - Business Analyst | # |
Ira Stoller | | In practical situations, if enough ideas which are presented to technical services are shot down as undoable or unrealistic, or too expensive, the business units will no longer be as open with the business analyst. They figure what's the point of asking.
I work in the United States for an Israeli based company. We no longer make suggestions for IT improvements since none of them have ever been deemed worthy of consideration. To repeat, when you run across a situation like this, what's the point of continuing to ask?Private Reply to Ira Stoller |
| Sep 25, 2006 4:27 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Convergence Issues - Organizational Structure - Business Analyst | # |
Ken Hilving | |
New Page 1
It has been my experience that suggestions to any
SME (subject matter expert) individual or group that include specifics within
that domain are poorly received. While each circumstance is unique, I have
concluded that the problem is with the five currencies, and in particular with
security and prestige. It takes a very confident individual to accept outside
advice or suggestions regarding something the individual is considered an expert
in.
So how are your suggestions to IT phrased? Are
you making specific technical suggestions, or making business suggestions that
IT can turn into technical solutions? Do your suggestions give them a gain in
their security and prestige, or a loss by exposing their short comings?
A good business analyst understands this
intuitively or by training. His own status within the company should be based on
a mutually successful relationship between business units and technical units,
so he gains whenever he enables cooperation. A key part of his task is to phrase
the issues so each side feels an aggregate gain in time, money, security,
knowledge, and prestige.
So what's the point in continuing to ask? I
suspect its because you care about doing a good job, and care about being part
of a successful company.
Private Reply to Ken Hilving |
| Sep 25, 2006 6:50 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Convergence Issues - Organizational Structure - Business Analyst | # |
Ira Stoller | | Ken, what we look for at this point are work-arounds. IT is supposed to have a staff function. When the IT department can and does make - instead of follow - company policy, where do you go?
We make suggestions to improve the flow of information and to streamline operations. Current policies slow down our operation, but nobody at headquarters is at all sympathetic. They have the whole company to worry about and cannot (read that will not) make exceptions for one small business unit.Private Reply to Ira Stoller |
| Sep 25, 2006 8:47 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Convergence Issues - Organizational Structure - Business Analyst | # |
Ken Hilving | |
New Page 1
I can empathize with the frustration.
I don't know if there is an approach in your
circumstance that would work. Depending on what has already transpired, there
may not be a way for IT to see an aggregate gain at this point. The physical
distance also works against you since it is harder to establish a personal
relationship that can serve as a backdoor for your proposal. If it seems clear
that too many walls have been built, too many bridges burned, an immediate
solution might be impossible from the inside.
An outside solution might work. If this is an
important objective for your business unit, give me a call and we can kick
around some possibilities. Otherwise, we can simply drink a toast to business
idiocy when you are down this way.
We'll raise up our glasses against evil
forces
Whiskey for the men and beer for the horses.
Private Reply to Ken Hilving |
| Sep 26, 2006 5:13 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Convergence Issues - Organizational Structure - Business Analyst | # |
Ira Stoller | | Thr latter will be much more productive! Private Reply to Ira Stoller |
 |
|
|
