BCT(B) key terms

A structured process for identifying everyone affected by or interested in a change, then assessing their influence, interest, and attitude so engagement effort can be prioritized and tailored.

A living document that records each stakeholder's role, contact details, influence level, interest, expectations, and preferred communication approach, used to plan and track engagement throughout the initiative.

The set of techniques used to draw out needs from stakeholders and source documents, including interviews, workshops, observation, surveys, and document analysis, before any requirement is written or confirmed.

A statement describing a specific behavior the solution must perform, such as calculating a fee or routing an approval, usually expressed as an input, processing rule, and expected output.

A constraint or quality attribute that shapes how well the solution must perform, covering areas such as performance, availability, security, usability, and regulatory compliance rather than specific behavior.

A short, plain-language statement of a need written from the perspective of a role, typically in the form 'as a role, I want capability, so that benefit', used to keep discussion focused on user value.

The specific, testable conditions a deliverable must satisfy to be accepted by the requester, agreed before development begins so that both sides share one definition of done.

A table linking each requirement to its source, design element, build component, and test case, allowing teams to prove coverage and assess the impact of proposed changes.

A formal record of the business problem, objectives, scope, assumptions, and high-level requirements for an initiative, serving as the agreed baseline between the business sponsor and the delivery team.

A document that defines what the initiative will and will not deliver, including boundaries, major deliverables, and exclusions, used to prevent unapproved expansion of work.

The uncontrolled expansion of project work through small, unapproved additions that individually seem minor but collectively threaten schedule, cost, and quality.

A visual diagram showing the sequence of steps, decision points, inputs, and outputs in a business process, used to build shared understanding and expose waste or gaps.

A process map divided into lanes, each assigned to a role, department, or system, so handoffs, delays, and accountability gaps between participants become immediately visible.

A documented model of how work is actually performed today, including informal workarounds, used as the baseline against which improvement options are compared.

A model of how a process should operate after improvement or system change, describing redesigned steps, roles, and rules that address weaknesses found in the current state.

A comparison of current capability against a desired future state that names each shortfall and its cause, producing the list of changes needed to close the distance.

The step in a process with the least capacity, which limits the throughput of the whole flow and causes queues or waiting to accumulate immediately before it.

A lean technique that charts every step in a process along with its processing time and waiting time, distinguishing value-adding activity from waste so improvement effort targets the largest delays.

The elapsed time from when a unit of work starts a process until it finishes, including all waiting, rework, and handoffs, as distinct from the hands-on processing time.

A disciplined investigation that repeatedly asks why a problem occurs until the underlying systemic cause is found, rather than treating the visible symptom.

A cause-and-effect diagram that arranges possible causes of a problem into branches, often grouped as people, process, technology, and policy, to guide structured brainstorming.

A quantified measure chosen because it reflects progress toward a specific business objective, paired with a target, a data source, and an owner.

The recorded value of a metric before a change is introduced, providing the reference point against which later results are compared to judge whether improvement actually occurred.

A defined attribute used to judge fitness of data for use, commonly including completeness, accuracy, consistency, timeliness, validity, and uniqueness, each assessed with explicit rules.

The examination of a dataset's actual values, patterns, ranges, and null rates to reveal quality defects and to validate assumptions before the data is used for analysis or reporting.

A reference listing each data element with its definition, permitted values, format, source system, and owner, so that analysts and report authors interpret fields consistently.

The documented path a data element travels from its originating source through transformations and stores to its final report, used to trace errors and support auditability.

A single-screen display of selected metrics and trends designed for a defined audience and decision, prioritizing clarity over completeness of data shown.

A ranking technique that sorts requirements into must-have, should-have, could-have, and will-not-have categories, making explicit which items can be deferred if time or budget tightens.

An ordered, evolving list of everything that might be built, with the highest-value items at the top, refined continuously as understanding of user needs improves.

The structured assessment of a delivered solution against agreed criteria such as fitness for purpose, adoption, cost of ownership, and realized benefit, producing a recommendation to keep, adjust, or replace it.

An early assessment of whether a proposed option is workable across technical, financial, operational, and schedule dimensions, used to eliminate options before significant investment is committed.

A comparison that quantifies the expected costs and expected benefits of an option over a defined period, often discounting future cash flows, to support a defensible investment decision.

A grid that assigns each activity one responsible party, one accountable owner, plus consulted and informed parties, removing ambiguity about who decides and who performs the work.

The deliberate management of a group session so that participants reach a shared outcome, using an agenda, ground rules, structured activities, and neutral guidance of discussion.

A facilitated discussion with a small, selected set of representative participants, used to surface shared perceptions, reactions, and needs that individual interviews may not reveal.

The deliberate handling of disagreement among stakeholders through techniques such as clarifying interests, separating positions from needs, and agreeing objective decision criteria.

A designated group with authority to review proposed changes to scope, requirements, or baselines, and to approve, reject, or defer them according to documented criteria.

The practice of tracking whether the outcomes promised in the business case actually appear after delivery, assigning owners and measures so benefits are managed rather than assumed.

A schedule defining what information each stakeholder group receives, in what format, from whom, and how often, aligned to their influence and information needs.

The documented ethical standards a professional commits to, covering honesty, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and fair treatment, used to guide decisions when no rule directly applies.

A situation where a professional's personal interest, relationship, or outside role could improperly influence a business judgment, requiring disclosure and usually withdrawal from the decision.

The obligation to protect information entrusted during work, limiting access to those with a legitimate need and preventing disclosure beyond the purpose for which it was shared.