When I run my workshops for analysts, I often survey the participants to understand their frustrations and challenges. Frequently, these issues revolve around engagement—or the lack thereof—with stakeholders. Common complaints include stakeholders being vague or ambiguous with their requests, analysts feeling out of the loop, and not being involved early enough to influence the outcomes of initiatives, just to name a few.
The problem is, if analysts experience these frustrations and remain passive, it can lead to a misalignment between their outputs and the stakeholder’s expectations. This can frustrate stakeholders who believe they've given clear instructions, leading to re-work for the analyst. This not only affects their productivity but also diminishes their enjoyment of the job. It’s a lose-lose situation!
So, let’s break down what I mean by working ‘passively’ and working ‘consultatively’ (or collaboratively).
In my experience it’s all about control, especially in the briefing stages of any piece of work.
In a passive model, the stakeholder controls the briefing process. If you're receiving written briefs from stakeholders via email and working directly from these without any prior engagement or discussion, it suggests you're working passively. This lack of interaction can lead to misunderstandings and misalignment.
Working in this way will not deliver the best results for the stakeholder - there are several reasons for this:-
The stakeholder may not be good at articulating what they want analytically or not fully understand what they require; creating ambiguity or a lack of clarity in their request.
There may be inherent assumptions and biases in the brief which, without being challenged, could lead to flawed or incomplete conclusions.
The stakeholder may not have applied any analytical rigour or logic to the development of the brief - they may be a classic ‘off the cuff’ kind of stakeholder who shoots first then asks questions later which will generally lead to a brief with too broad a scope and very little detail.
The stakeholder may have framed the brief based on their experience rather than what is possible analytically and therefore miss the opportunity to take advantage of the analysts’ expertise.
Working directly from briefs that haven't been analytically challenged reduces the chances of delivering outcomes that meet the stakeholder's expectations. Unchecked briefs often result in misunderstandings and misaligned objectives between the analyst and the stakeholder.
Ultimately this will lead to re-work for the analyst and frustration for the stakeholder - not only that, the stakeholder’s perception may well be that the misunderstanding is down to the analyst rather than themselves.
Engaging with the stakeholder can provide greater clarity on the objectives and better align expectations. It also allows the analyst to showcase their expertise by adjusting the brief based on what's feasible and exploring alternative approaches the stakeholder might not have considered. This is a great first step towards a consultative approach that can be implemented right away. If you have a formal briefing system where stakeholders submit tickets to a portal, don't just rely on that process—intervene and ask the questions necessary to get the clarity you need.
Addressing the wider issue of a lack of the analyst’s involvement early on in the process, before the brief is created, needs significantly more effort.
I strongly believe that re-work can be avoided by encouraging analysts to take responsibility for the development of briefs which, if left to the stakeholder, may lack the clarity and analytical coherence as previously highlighted. Taking control of the briefs has several benefits:-
For the stakeholder, it takes away the pain of having to put the time and effort into developing a detailed brief that may lack the necessary analytical rigour or coherence to meet their ultimate needs.
It gives the opportunity for the analyst to develop an analytically sound brief that they know is achievable and makes best use of those things that are under the analyst’s control and knowledge domain - i.e the data, the tools and techniques, and their own availability.
To successfully engage with stakeholders in this way, analysts need to have established enough trust and credibility so that stakeholders feel comfortable delegating this responsibility. Building that trust takes time, but proactively starting conversations with stakeholders, rather than waiting for them to reach out, is a great way to begin. Consistently delivering your work on time and without the need for re-work is crucial for building and maintaining that trust.
So, in summary, if your analysts are consistently working passively then it’s unlikely the organisation is getting the best value out of them - they will be doing more re-work and as a result may feel over-committed, undervalued and that they are just a cog in the machine (a ‘number cruncher’). However, it’s a double-whammy, as the stakeholders are likely to feel misunderstood and frustrated when work doesn’t meet their (potentially misplaced) expectations and this can affect the analyst’s credibility in their eyes.
Greater engagement from both sides should be encouraged, however there is much the analyst can do to help their own cause by being more proactive in their communications and ensuring they open a dialogue on receiving any work.
If you would like to implement a more consultative model of working you can access some effective strategies now by subscribing to my Newsletter on LinkedIn ‘The Analyst: Insightful Bytes’ and reading edition 2. Just follow the link - Subscribe on LinkedIn
Steve Hulmes - Analyst Coach, Sophic
To find out more about how Sophic can help with these issues with our ‘Working Consultatively’ workshop and to view Sophic’s full programme please click here.
However, if you’d like to discuss a more bespoke solution to your analysts’ development needs, let's have a no obligation chat to see whether Sophic can help. Just email Steve at steve@sophic.co.uk
Comments