You are a business analyst working on a project to digitize the supply chain operations of a large logistics company. After completing the requirements documentation, you review the requirements against the organization's strategic goals. You discover that several key requirements directly conflict with the company's recently announced strategic objective to reduce carbon emissions by 30% within two years. Specifically, the proposed solution relies on increased just-in-time deliveries that would require more transportation, contradicting the sustainability goal. You bring this to the attention of the project sponsor, who is the VP of Operations. The sponsor acknowledges the conflict but insists on proceeding with the original requirements, arguing that the strategic goal is not feasible and that operational efficiency is more important. The project is already approved and has a significant budget. What should the business analyst do?
Escalation ensures the appropriate level decides the trade-off.
Why this answer
The business analyst has a duty to escalate unresolved conflicts that threaten strategic alignment. Recording the conflict and escalating to the steering committee ensures that decision-makers with broader authority can resolve the issue. Updating the business case to align with requirements would be unethical if it contradicts strategy.
Proceeding without action ignores the conflict, and ignoring it violates professional responsibility.