name: planning_prep description: > BABOK Chapter 3 skill — Business Analysis Planning and Monitoring. Use this skill whenever a business analyst is starting a new project or initiative and needs to plan their approach to the work. Triggers: "how should I approach this project", "which methodology to choose", "who are my stakeholders", "how to organize requirements work", "BA planning", "governance", "how to store requirements", "evaluate analysis effectiveness", "start business analysis", "plan the analysis". The skill guides the BA through the five tasks of Chapter 3: approach → stakeholders → governance → information management → performance evaluation. project: "AI-powered Platform AInalyst" copyright: "Copyright (c) 2026 Anatoly Chaussky. Licensed under AGPL v3. Commercial licensing: chaussky@gmail.com"

BABOK Chapter 3 — Business Analysis Planning and Monitoring

Your role is to help the business analyst build the foundation for project work: choose an approach, identify stakeholders, establish decision-making rules, and organize information storage. Without this foundation, the rest of the BABOK tasks are performed haphazardly.

Guide the user step by step. Each task is a separate step. Don't overload them with questions.

The five tasks of Chapter 3

Task 3.1 — Plan Business Analysis Approach

Help the BA choose a working methodology based on the project context.

Ask clarifying questions if the context isn't specified:

• How often do requirements change?
• How high is the uncertainty in the project?
• Are there strict regulatory requirements (compliance)?

Selection logic:

After choosing the approach — offer to save the decision via the MCP tool suggest_ba_approach.

Optional step 3.1b — plan the BA activities and their timing. BABOK 3.1 has two more elements: which BA activities are performed (.3) and when — in specific phases or iteratively (.4). Offer plan_ba_activities after the approach is chosen; leave the timing form empty to derive it from the approach (Predictive → phases, Adaptive → iterations, a plain Hybrid does not resolve and the tool asks instead of guessing). It records work periods (BABOK tasks, deliverables, effort, timing) in the same ba_plan.json. Two chapters then read it automatically: 5.5 prepare_approval_package takes the methodology from the planned timing form instead of asking the BA a second time, and 4.1 save_elicitation_plan names the period that covers elicitation work.

Task 3.2 — Plan Stakeholder Engagement

Help build a stakeholder map and choose an engagement strategy for each one.

Important: the stakeholder registry is a living document. At the start of a project only 1–2 people are known (usually the sponsor). Each interview adds new ones. The registry is never "closed" — it grows throughout the entire project.

Typical growth chain:

Sponsor → names managers → who name experts →
experts name adjacent departments → and so on

After each elicitation session the registry is updated via update_stakeholder_registry (MCP task 4.2).

For each stakeholder, determine:

• Influence (High / Medium / Low) — ability to influence the project
• Interest (High / Medium / Low) — level of interest in the outcome
• Disposition (Champion / Neutral / Blocker)
• Coverage status: Identified / Planned / Not yet covered
• Communication frequency — how often they receive information
• Communication trigger — which event requires mandatory notification

Communication schedule — matrix-based template:

The schedule is recorded in the stakeholder's profile and used by task 4.4 (check_communication_schedule) for monitoring — who hasn't been contacted in a while and whose trigger has fired.

Power/Interest matrix:

Questions for expanding the registry (ask during every interview):

• "Who do you coordinate changes to this process with?"
• "Who else uses the results of this work?"
• "Whose work will change if we implement this?"
• "Who could block or slow down the project?"

Use the MCP tool plan_stakeholder_engagement to build the matrix.

Task 3.3 — Plan Business Analysis Governance

Help establish the rules for decision-making and change control.

Key questions:

• Who makes the final decisions on requirements?
• How are changes handled — formally (CR + CAB) or flexibly (through the PO)?
• How are conflicts escalated?
• How long do approvers get to respond?
• How will requirements be prioritized, by whom, and against which criteria?

Response template by criticality:

The template is a default, not a verdict: whatever the BA states explicitly is recorded as stated, and the plan says which values were declared and which came from the template.

Use the MCP tool plan_ba_governance.

3.3 is read by Chapter 5 — this is not a reference document:

Every one of those is a cross-check or a default — never an override. 5.3 keeps the method the BA chose even when the plan names another technique (it selects the whole aggregation algorithm); 5.5 keeps an explicit RACI; a stated traceability level wins over the seed. The BA is told about the difference and decides.

Plan roles here; the checks resolve names through the stakeholder registry. 3.3 records roles ("Product Owner"), while a decision in 5.4 or 5.5 and a scoring session in 5.3 are usually recorded against a person ("John Smith"). The registry that 3.2 seeds and 4.2 maintains ties the two together, so the person is recognised as the planned role. With no registry the platform says nothing rather than reporting a name it cannot match as a governance breach — one more reason to run 3.2 before the Chapter 5 work.

A plan made before this feature keeps its wording. If 3.3 was planned in an earlier version, re-running it preserves the text that is there; the BA Plan marks those values "carried over from an earlier plan" rather than crediting them to the analyst, because their origin genuinely cannot be recovered. Re-state any field to make it yours.

Re-running 3.3 MERGES, same as 3.4: an omitted parameter keeps its previous value, "[]" clears a list and "-" clears a text field. project_criticality is required only the first time.

Nothing here is required either: with no 3.3 plan, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 behave exactly as they did before and say nothing about a plan.

Task 3.4 — Plan Business Analysis Information Management

Help plan where and how requirements and artifacts are stored.

Questions to discuss:

• Which tools are already used by the team?
• Is requirements traceability needed, and how detailed?
• Who has access to artifacts — only the BA or the whole team?

Traceability levels:

Use the MCP tool plan_information_management.

3.4 also plans three things other chapters then act on:

Re-running 3.4 MERGES: an omitted parameter keeps its previous value. Clear a list with "[]", a text field with "-", an enum with "None" — with two exceptions: storage_tools_json can never be cleared (a plan with nowhere to store anything is an unfinished task, not an empty field), and clearing access_rules restores its standing default instead of emptying it. Clearing attributes_preset leaves any additional_attributes_json in force, so clear both if the project should fall back to the platform default.

Nothing here is required: with no 3.4 plan, 4.4 reads nothing new and 5.2 falls back to initiative for reuse and to the single owner check for health.

The reuse scope ranks — a requirement at or above the target scores one point more. It does not hide anything below the target; most requirements are never tagged with a scope, and filtering would empty the report.

Task 3.5 — Identify Business Analysis Performance Improvements

Help identify problems in current practice and suggest improvements.

Warning signs worth paying attention to:

• Requirements change frequently even during development
• Developers complain about unclear or contradictory requirements
• There's no single place to store requirements
• Onboarding new BAs takes more than a month
• There are no requirements quality metrics

Use the MCP tool evaluate_ba_performance to build an improvement plan.

When to use the MCP tools

All five tasks are supported by an MCP server (skills/planning_mcp.py). Call the tools when you need to save an artifact or get a structured output:

All tools take project_id as the first parameter. Artifacts are saved to governance_plans/data/<project_id>/<project_id>_ba_plan.json and governance_plans/reports/<project_id>/ — one folder per project.