With the death of the 100 page Business Intellgience strategy how do you get your stakeholders to come on the journey and agree to invest in the time for your AgileBI to create new data and content for them.

With a waterfall project the process is well know, you do the 100 page BI strategy then once you have the required signatures, you pick a problem domain and create a business case to outline the costs and approach required to deliver this.  If your particularly gifted in writing these documents you also define some benefits this investment is will deliver.

So how do you do this in AgileBI, and more importantly how do you get agreement to be allowed to fund the team on an ongoing basis, not just for a short period of time aka a project.
[[vision stories]]

[[different level]]

[[ used to be initiatives in the bi stategy]]

[[put into a road Mao diagran]]

[[tie to the current and future states]]

[[dont estimate effort. Get the business to decide how much they want o invest in fixing the problem, aka 5 sprints.  From there you can go 6 people x 5 sprints it’s a $$$$ investment]

[[order the sprints in priotory]]

[[business units horse trade priority, makes # sprint estimates bound, focuses product owner on what they get for their sprints, as they can’t get more sprints]]

[[change is ok]]
== the impact of organisational change

I have seen some projects last multiple years, which is often longer than a team within the organisation would last given the organisations constant restructuring

{{In one organisation they undertook a multi million 5 year data warehouse project.  During that project the organisation restructured four times.  Two of those restructures were logo block reshuffles.  Where the same people were retained but their roles and reporting structures were changed.  I call this the Lego block restructure because effectively the people doing the restructure are pulling the current structure apart, like pulling a Lego tower apart, and then throwing the block in the air and hoping they land in a better way.   The other two restructures were more serious and involved the senior management team being replaced.  When this happens there is a trickle down effect where the next level of management is also reviewed and often replaced overtime. }}
Both these types of restructures can have a major impact on the teams delivery, and these impacts can be varied.

A change in the senior management team 
[[vision allows you to retell the story easily]]

[[reconfirm the agreed investment aka the 5 sprints x 6 people

== impact of organisational priority change

[[change is ok]]

[[ things will happen that change the priority, external factors, internal factors, mergers and acquisitions, change in source systems]]

== impact of technology change

[[doesnt change what we do or how we do it.  Just changes what we do it with]

[[data engineering, layers, approach allows us to asses the impact]]

[[could be technical debt sprints, but little outward facing value]]

[[could be new info products, with new layers side by side]]