I'm Not Dead Yet!
Well, another year another post.
Yup, it's been over a year since my last post. I tell ya, two small children keep you busy.
Work has been tough - way too much going on, no one held accountable. Requirements - What are those? Just churn. "When in danger when in doubt, run in circles scream and shout."
The bright spot is the rest of my team. They are as frustrated as I am, but we have a lot to teach each other. So, I keep plugging. Oh, and my company is building a LEED Certified building that we move into at the end of the year. That is a giant carrot to keep going!
In semi-related news (really I suppose only related in so much as it is on the 'professional' side of things), I helped facillitate another study group for my local chapter of the IIBA (Greater Boston) and it was quite successful! I felt much more comfortable this time around. At the same time we are trying to go through BABOK 2.0 at work. I have also joined the ranks at BUCEC as faculity, teaching the BA curriculum. I haven't started yet, should begin the process this fall. Auditing classes, co-teaching and then solo. Pretty cool - if I do say so myself!
So that's all the chit-chat for now, on to business...I subscribe to the email newsletter from BPtrends. They are one of the leaders in the BPM realm. I have found a lot of value in the articles that they write, and have studied much of their school of though. Today I receive the newsletter, and I about jumpped off my chair. It made me very angry. I stopped to think about it, to make sure I wasn't overreacting (yesterday had been a bad day, and I was still in "a mood"). I re-read the article, and sure enough I was not just over reacting - it pissed me off.
A linked-in associate posted a link there, and I started a discussion, but I also wanted to start the discussion here.
Here is the BPTrends Article.
Here is my take on the whole thing. As a BA, I am certainly looking out for the value I can provide, and trying to protect the BA role. But this article just strikes me as absurd.
I think Mr. Harmon has missed the boat with his characterization of the BABOK, and the BA role that is defined by the IIBA of “how an individual should go about defining business problems that are to be automated”. The BABOK defines business analysis as “the set of tasks and techniques used to work as a liaison among stakeholders in order to understand the structure, policies, and operations of an organization, and recommend solutions that enable the organization to achieve its goals”.
By definition, there is no distinction as to whether or not a solution is an automated one or not. It is only the narrowest of interpretations that focuses upon the automated solutions, and this is the interpretation that I believe is held in most companies - and the limiting factor to the success of a comprehensive BA role.
We need more collaboration on the BA role - to allow it to inhabit the position where it can truly analyze the business - and provide solutions. Not additional chipping away of responsibilities, creating more and more speciallization of what should be a comprehensive view of the business domain. This specialization will help no one, as there will not be a clear vision of what the business domain contains.
The role of the BA focuses on a solution for a problem. Understanding the problem is the first step. In order to understand the problem the BA must review and understand, objectives, process, technology, and limitations. It is impossible to separate the "Business Objectives (Requirements)" from the "Technical Requirements" and the "Business Process".
What you do defines how you do it, and what tools will allow you to achieve these ends. Thus, there is a cycle of “Business Objectives" --> "Business Process" --> "Technical Solution" --> "Business Objectives". All of which falls to the BA within the Business Domain.
I look forward to anyone's comments.
~ Nathaniel, CBAP
Yup, it's been over a year since my last post. I tell ya, two small children keep you busy.
Work has been tough - way too much going on, no one held accountable. Requirements - What are those? Just churn. "When in danger when in doubt, run in circles scream and shout."
The bright spot is the rest of my team. They are as frustrated as I am, but we have a lot to teach each other. So, I keep plugging. Oh, and my company is building a LEED Certified building that we move into at the end of the year. That is a giant carrot to keep going!
In semi-related news (really I suppose only related in so much as it is on the 'professional' side of things), I helped facillitate another study group for my local chapter of the IIBA (Greater Boston) and it was quite successful! I felt much more comfortable this time around. At the same time we are trying to go through BABOK 2.0 at work. I have also joined the ranks at BUCEC as faculity, teaching the BA curriculum. I haven't started yet, should begin the process this fall. Auditing classes, co-teaching and then solo. Pretty cool - if I do say so myself!
So that's all the chit-chat for now, on to business...I subscribe to the email newsletter from BPtrends. They are one of the leaders in the BPM realm. I have found a lot of value in the articles that they write, and have studied much of their school of though. Today I receive the newsletter, and I about jumpped off my chair. It made me very angry. I stopped to think about it, to make sure I wasn't overreacting (yesterday had been a bad day, and I was still in "a mood"). I re-read the article, and sure enough I was not just over reacting - it pissed me off.
A linked-in associate posted a link there, and I started a discussion, but I also wanted to start the discussion here.
Here is the BPTrends Article.
Here is my take on the whole thing. As a BA, I am certainly looking out for the value I can provide, and trying to protect the BA role. But this article just strikes me as absurd.
I think Mr. Harmon has missed the boat with his characterization of the BABOK, and the BA role that is defined by the IIBA of “how an individual should go about defining business problems that are to be automated”. The BABOK defines business analysis as “the set of tasks and techniques used to work as a liaison among stakeholders in order to understand the structure, policies, and operations of an organization, and recommend solutions that enable the organization to achieve its goals”.
By definition, there is no distinction as to whether or not a solution is an automated one or not. It is only the narrowest of interpretations that focuses upon the automated solutions, and this is the interpretation that I believe is held in most companies - and the limiting factor to the success of a comprehensive BA role.
We need more collaboration on the BA role - to allow it to inhabit the position where it can truly analyze the business - and provide solutions. Not additional chipping away of responsibilities, creating more and more speciallization of what should be a comprehensive view of the business domain. This specialization will help no one, as there will not be a clear vision of what the business domain contains.
The role of the BA focuses on a solution for a problem. Understanding the problem is the first step. In order to understand the problem the BA must review and understand, objectives, process, technology, and limitations. It is impossible to separate the "Business Objectives (Requirements)" from the "Technical Requirements" and the "Business Process".
What you do defines how you do it, and what tools will allow you to achieve these ends. Thus, there is a cycle of “Business Objectives" --> "Business Process" --> "Technical Solution" --> "Business Objectives". All of which falls to the BA within the Business Domain.
I look forward to anyone's comments.
~ Nathaniel, CBAP