tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969448813572355764.post9174509748888319642..comments2024-03-22T05:09:06.268+00:00Comments on Archived : Passionate about SAP - A Blog: BPX & Geek Gap: Buzzwords from SAP CommunityRamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07793995838001318320noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969448813572355764.post-30769399391525204022008-06-04T20:33:00.000+01:002008-06-04T20:33:00.000+01:00The important thing is we both agree that in the c...The important thing is we both agree that in the case you describe, where a greeting was added but forgot to account for time zones, the Geek Gap was indeed at fault.<BR/><BR/>There certainly is a big difference between the Geek Gap and general incompetence! But, depending on the nature of the organization and the job, being unable to write (or help write) good requirements may not be an indication of incompetence, because it may not be the core function of someone's job. <BR/><BR/>Imagine a sales manager whose main responsibility is to oversee a sales team and make sure they meet quotas. That sales manager may be called on to help write requirements and she may not do a good job, but that does not make her incompetent in general. Same for someone on the geek side whose primary responsibility is to write code.<BR/><BR/>There are so many complaints about this issue on both sides. Geeks complain that suits don't give them detailed enough information about what's needed. Suits complain that geeks expect them to know too many details. <BR/><BR/>In an ideal world, there would be a BPX person--what we call a go-between--working with both who *is* expert at crafting requirements and can make sure they say what they need to. <BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>MindaMinda Zetlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02185989876293620382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969448813572355764.post-81129221251095308342008-05-31T01:28:00.000+01:002008-05-31T01:28:00.000+01:00Hi Minda,Thanks for your comment and sorry for my ...Hi Minda,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comment and sorry for my late response.<BR/><BR/>- X sends an email to Y but Y didn't get it [ Gap ]<BR/>- X didn't send an email to Y but Y got it :) [ Still some kind of a Gap ]<BR/><BR/>- X sends an email to Y and he gets it. [no gap ]<BR/>- X does not send email to Y so Y didn't get it. [Still no gap ]<BR/><BR/>So if the suits could not determine the business requirement itself and didn't even try to communicate it to the Geeks and that resulted in Geeks not getting it - well then there is no geek gap here. It’s incompetency.<BR/><BR/>As you said<BR/>"To us, faulty requirements are very definitely a Geek Gap issue."<BR/><BR/>Well I disagree - all faulty requirements are not due to geek gap. Most of the cases are due to incompetent people ( geeks or/and suits ) + ineffective requirement determination process + bad management, planning & execution + so many other factors.<BR/><BR/>The way I see Geek Gap <BR/>- It's a gap between a competent Geek and a competent Business user/analyst due to the difference in their mentality, thought process and background.<BR/>- It's not a gap between an incompetent geek and / or an incompetent suit. That gap is due to incompetency and cannot be termed as geek gap. BPX's role is not to bridge the gap due to incompetency.<BR/><BR/>- Communication gap between geeks and suits is not a cause of geek gap. Actually communication gap occurs because of the geek gap [ it's a result of the difference in mentality ].<BR/><BR/>- Geek gap is the case when both of them seems to be right [ as assessed by their respective communities ] but still the requirements could not be fulfilled.<BR/>[In my example of ‘Greeting requirement’, Suits will wonder why the geeks could not understand, despite being given a clear requirement. And Geeks will consider this as un-clear requirement. And that’s why this scenario represents the real Geek Gap]<BR/><BR/>- Learn from each other. Easier said than done. <BR/>- At the best it can be minimized by cross-skilling or cross-environment exposure however it cannot be eradicated completely. Further, skilling Geeks to act like suits or vice versa may not be the most effective or economical solution. Hence other options like Agile methodology or BPX/techno-functional as a bridge is needed to minimise the gap. Still we will keep on discovering Geek gaps during user acceptance testing but hopefully the new strategy will be able to minimise the damage.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again,<BR/>RamRamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07793995838001318320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969448813572355764.post-16208631543771670542008-05-27T16:54:00.000+01:002008-05-27T16:54:00.000+01:00Perhaps it's a matter of definition. To us, faulty...Perhaps it's a matter of definition. To us, faulty requirements are very definitely a Geek Gap issue.<BR/><BR/>The Geek Gap is defined as a communications breakdown and culture clash between business and IT that exists in most organizations. The failure to properly think through requirements is a very common effect of that culture clash. <BR/><BR/>Writing good requirements means thinking logically, planning for all possible contingencies, and understanding that creating technology means figuring out how to solve a problem--in other words, thinking like a geek.<BR/><BR/>Most suits don't naturally think in those terms. They think things like "Hey, it would be neat if the greeting screen showed the time." Then they want someone to make it happen for them. They don't want to spend the time or mental energy figuring out details like time zones. <BR/><BR/>Bringing these two points of view into some kind of sync, so they can work together effectively is what bridging the gap is about--and it requires adjustments on both sides.<BR/><BR/>Minda Zetlin<BR/>co-author<BR/><A HREF="http://www.geekgap.com" REL="nofollow">The Geek Gap</A>Minda Zetlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02185989876293620382noreply@blogger.com