As Is versus To Be – Fight! Fight! Fight!

First published on LinkedIn on August 2, 2016

The original title I intended for this post was “The Critical Nature of Current State Analysis” but then I decided once again that a good cartoon would do a better job of illustrating my point! The dude on the left is Mr. As Is representing ‘Current State’ while the ‘trunky’ dude on the right is Mr. ‘To Be’ representing ‘Future State’. Mr. As Is is visibly unperturbed!

Now, for anyone who is not familiar with these terms, a key aspect of Business Analysis is often conducting a Gap Analysis i.e. trying to figure out the gap between where an Organisation is at (Current State aka As Is) and where the Organisation should or could be at (Target State aka To Be). Therefore, a Gap Analysis is very useful in helping to frame some of the business problems that will serve as a launching pad for our requirements definition. For example, if the ‘Gap’ identified relates to a resourcing capability, then the requirements may touch on recruitment or training. Or if the ‘Gap’ identified relates to a technological capability, the business will have the option of either enhancing existing technology within the organisation, developing a custom solution or purchasing a COTS or “Commercial Off The Shelf” product. However, without a very good understanding of the current state of affairs, and indeed a very clear picture of the target position of the Business, it will be very difficult to map exactly what steps need to be taken in order to successfully complete the transition and subsequently measure the extent to which we have achieved the goal. So we can see both the importance of conducting an effective Gap Analysis to the Business Analysis effort and also the essential role an understanding of the ‘As Is’ and ‘To Be’ analysis play in that effort.

So back to our eager pugilists, it is very clear that Mr. To Be (standing on the right) is more than capable of taking out Mr. As Is (standing on the left). In fact, if you are embarking on a change programme which enjoys popular support and little resistance from the stakeholders, it is likely most will be rooting for Mr. To Be. Unfortunately, the reality often is that change programmes tend to be driven ‘top down’ within the organisation therefore there will be many middle managers and front line staff who will be apprehensive if not downright in opposition, and these guys probably would not want to see Mr As Is get knocked out. At this point let me quickly clarify that these stakeholders who stand in opposition to the change DO NOT represent the green spiked vest for the purpose of this post (maybe in a subsequent discourse you or I may choose to reuse the cartoon to illustrate that point but it is a separate point to the one I am making today).

Today, the green vest with red spikes represents IGNORANCE! This ignorance may be absolute or simply represent a gap or gaps in our knowledge of the Current State. If Mr. To Be goes ahead with this fight, he will not only lose but also runs the risk of doing some serious damage to his ability to ever fight again because those green spikes will show no mercy to his gloves and knuckles – they will chook him fiercely! Now the point I wish to make is simple, without a thorough understanding of our Current State, we may not only fail to achieve the Future State but may also do damage to the Future State, so much so that the picture we have of the ‘To Be’ may not even be correct. 

So how is Mr. To Be supposed to defeat his opponent? The truth is that HE CAN’T! Not unless he gives Mr. As Is the respect that he deserves. This is why I find it very surprising, disheartening and uncomfortable whenever a change programme is embarked upon without giving the necessary time, resources and detail to a critical understanding of the current state. Ever so often, the powers that be seem so eager to cut down so called ‘time to market’ that this results in only a cursory glance being paid to current state investigation sometimes purely to satisfy the ritual of Change Governance.

So why do I believe Current State Analysis is absolutely critical to the successful analysis of a business venture?

An effective Current State Analysis explains the following:

• How the Organisation is currently structured
• How the Operations currently function
• How the Solution currently works
• How the People currently feel

In other words, an effective Current State Analysis is actually the due diligence required to verify and validate whatever assumptions have led to the initiation of the Change Feasibility itself. However, if we are to tick every letter of the SMART objective, the Current State Analysis should not just focus on Capabilities and Costs but also on People and Culture (the often missed crucial ingredient for successful change management). Therefore, with every gap in our ignorance plugged, we can build a much more accurate picture of Mr. To Be and also expect Mr. As Is to voluntarily throw in the towel. Yay!

ADDENDUM – Agility…

Let’s imagine that Mr. As Is does not throw in the towel just yet. However, as the bout progresses, Mr. To Be is able to find out more about his opponent which in turn leads Mr. To Be to change his strategy in reaction to Mr. As Is tactics. In other words, the more we find out about the Current State, the more likely our picture of the Target State is likely to change. We do not create a ‘once and for all’ frame of reference but just like in a boxing match, we continue to ‘bob and weave’ as new information becomes available. Current State analysis is a perpetual activity and not to be trifled with. In a waterfall environment, we will find the all too familiar scenarios of dreaded Change Requests bubbling up due to ‘gaps’ in our understanding of the Current State – the Project Manager’s nightmare! Thus our understanding of the Current State and the Gap to our Target State will likely go through a number of iterations and every Change Professional should expect this and adequately plan for it. Being ready to accommodate these changes to our perspective is a key component of being Agile i.e. re-prioritizing the Backlog. In effect, the BA never stops keeping tabs on the Current State until the Target State (or desired Current State) is achieved.