IIBA® Senior Leadership Team Blog

The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good

2009-07-13T12:46:00.001-04:00

Via James Robertson, I got this critique of the BABOK Guide and IIBA. I'm sure that nobody reading this blog will be shocked to learn that I disagree with the arguments made in that post. Let's look specifically at the assertions and assumptions made by the author, though, and I'll explain why I disagree. In ti, the author writes:

Business Analysis, on the other hand, has appeared on the stage only recently and the efforts being directed towards distilling a body of knowledge, and associated certification standards and educational programs, seem very much pre-mature.

I hear this claim a lot--that business analysis is a "new" profession. I don't think it's as new as a lot of people seem to think, though. What's changed is that a) there's a growing recognition of the need for the role and b) a lot of people who always did business analysis are starting to identify as BAs and using that title instead of the many different titles that prevailed in the past.

Business analysis has been around long enough for me to spend my entire career doing it. In fact, it was pretty much my first job out of school, and I certainly wasn't the first BA to work in the companies that hired me. It's been around long enough that my mother has experience in the role. She's been retired for years, and finds the BABOK Guide both fully understandable and can see how it relates to what she used to do. If I look back to my first BA job, I believe my colleagues and I would have then understood what the BABOK Guide was driving at and how it related to what we did. Certainly, new techniques and approaches have been introduced over time, and we did our best to ensure that current practice and innovations were properly addressed in version 2.0. But frankly, given that my mother can understand perfectly well what I do and how these techniques work despite having retired from IT a decade ago, I don't think that business analysis is as unstable as Mr. Gollner thinks it is.

The comparison to project management is an interesting one--largely because Mr. Gollner seems to be talking about PMI and project management as it is today without considering how it got there. One of the major reasons that "project management" is considered to be a well-defined role today is precisely because PMI built and developed a body of knowledge that became the standard for our understanding of the role. PMI didn't emerge from a well-defined, universally accepted standard understanding of project management--it helped to create it.

The other issue that's behind a lot of the criticisms in this article rests with the distinction between "generally accepted practices" and "best practices". Mr. Gollner complains:

As an example, consider the issue of analytical modeling notations, where the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (BABOK) is forced to catalogue a ramshackle list of options with many of these, such as Entity-Relationship Diagrams (ERD) or the "Unified" Modeling Language (UML), being deeply rooted in very specific implementation paradigms for information technology.

His complaint seems to be that the practice of requirements analysis is still quite immature, given that there are still a lot of different modeling practices in use, many of which overlap or are designed specifically for IT, and we don't definitively understand which techniques are most effective.

All that is true, but I don't think it's relevant, unless you believe that if we can't do it perfectly we shouldn't do it at all.

The BABOK Guide describes "generally accepted practice"--that is, what business analysts are actually doing. In fact, we've done enough research, surveys, solicitation of expert opinion, and collection of feedback from practitioners to be quite confident that the BABOK Guide really does accurately describe that. It gives us a standard of practice for BAs--if I walk into a new job as a BA, knowing how to do what the BABOK describes, I can reasonably expect to be prepared for most of the situations I will encounter on the job. Similarly, an employer who hires a BA has a basis for understanding what they can expect that BA to know how to do. For many BA practitioners, this has been a major improvement over what exists today.

That shared set of expectations is a necessary first step to figuring out what best practices are. Again, to go back to the example of PMI, the PMBOK Guide only talked about "generally accepted practice" for the first 20 years or so--PMI has only very recently reached the stage where they believe they can identify best practices (and I know that there are those who still strongly disagree with them). Until you have a shared set of expectations and outcomes a role or profession is supposed to achieve, how can you say that one approach is better than another? How can you say what those tools and techniques he wants us to be developing are supposed to be used for?

From my perspective, Mr. Gollner has got things almost exactly backwards. He's complaining that IIBA shouldn't be doing what we're doing until the profession is where project management is today, but project management got there because PMI, along with many other individuals and organizations, laid the groundwork by doing what IIBA is doing now.

Would I like to be in a position to tell the world that a certain set of business analysis practices can be proven to reliably and consistently produce significant returns for organizations that practice them? Of course I would! As long as IIBA is being compared to PMI, though, let's not forget that PMI only produced a study showing that for project management last year--40 years after the organization was founded, 24 years after the PMP certification was launched, and 14 years after the first complete draft of the PMBOK was published (and yes, the PMP does predate the PMBOK).

Now, I don't want to wait until 2023 to demonstrate the value of business analysis. My hope, in fact, is that we will be in a position to do that within the next few years and even have some of that research incorporated into the next edition of the BABOK Guide. However, that research would be impossible without the shared definition and understanding of the profession we created through building the current edition.

The important question for practitioners is not whether the current BABOK Guide is perfect, but whether it represents an improvement over having no shared understanding or common definition of business analysis. Mr. Gollner can't have it both ways. If our practice of requirements analysis is immature, and I agree it is, then someone needs to understand what those practitioners are doing and work on how to help them do it better. A large number of business analysts are still struggling with the fundamentals of our profession, and we don't need a provable, robust model of organizational improvement to understand that they will benefit from understanding process analysis or facilitation skills or improving their communication skills or improving at any of the dozens of other competencies described in the BABOK Guide. If anyone has a case to make that business analysts and the organizations that employ them don't need people with those abilities, I'd love to hear it.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

A Serious Question

2009-07-10T15:19:00.001-04:00

Are business analysis and enterprise architecture fundamentally the same discipline? Or is there a real distinction between the two?

I started to think about this because I came across Gartner's definition of EA today:

Enterprise architecture is the process of translating business vision and strategy into effective enterprise change by creating, communicating and improving the key principles and models that describe the enterprise's future state and enable its evolution.

Compare that to IIBA's definition of business analysis:

Business analysis is 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.

In both cases, you have a person who elicits information from stakeholders in order to understand and describe what an organization looks like today and what it needs to look like in the future. There seem to be two key differences.

First, the Enterprise Architect is looking at the enterprise as a whole, rather than trying to understand the practicalities of a specific change. Second, enterprise architecture has traditionally been very technology-focused, looking more at the IT architecture than at the business model, processes, and so forth. But then, I hear people saying the same thing about BAs.

A while back, I looked into product management to try and understand how they're different from BAs, and came to the conclusion that there was a critical difference--briefly, product managers analyze markets, while business analysts analyze organizations. On first blush, though, the difference between EA and BA seems to mostly be one of scope rather than subject.

Comments are more than usually welcome--in case it's not obvious, I'm asking a question, not stating a conclusion.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

Changes at IIBA

2009-07-03T12:06:00.001-04:00

Quite a lot has been going on. We'll have details in this month's newsletter, but here's the high-level summary.

First of all, all the measures proposed at this year's AGM passed with the overwhelming support of our members. Thanks to everyone who voted, and we're glad to know that our membership has confidence in the direction of this organization.

As a result of those votes, I have informed the Board that I will not be standing for re-election in September. The purpose of those changes was to ensure that the Board could fill its proper role in governing IIBA, which requires it to be clearly distinct from the group that manages the day-to-day operations. I am remaining a member of the IIBA Senior Leadership Team and will remain VP, Professional Development, so for most purposes people won't even notice the difference in dealing with me. Some other current Board members will be taking the same step this year.

Secondly, we have added some new people to the SLT. Michael Gladstone, after two years of service as VP Certification, is stepping down from that role to focus on his responsibilities as IIBA's CIO (and free up time for his family and day job). Paula Maychruk is replacing him as the VP, Certification, and Jonathan Anderson has accepted the position of VP, Membership.

Last but not least, this blog will be undergoing a transition as IIBA's Community Network gets ready for its general launch. The site is up and running at http://community.theiiba.org and is accessible by all IIBA members, although we're still getting everything in place. All the functionality and features are present and working, but we're still adding content, putting groups in place, defining our policies, and so forth. However, if you are an IIBA member feel free to stop by or jump in. The formal launch will be within a couple of weeks.

Lastly, the BABOK Guide has been selling quite well on Amazon--well enough that they're having trouble keeping it in stock (because they're not ordering enough copies from us yet).

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

New EEP Contract

2009-06-17T22:30:00.001-04:00

I'll be sending this out in an email soon but wanted to update people here as well.

A while back we sent out an announcement that we were going to move EEPs over to a new contract. That hasn't happened yet, as we're still dealing with an issue regarding trademark law. Our trademarks are registered in Canada and the US, and to make a long story short, we found that under Canadian law we are required to do certain things that we are forbidden to do under US law.

Our legal staff believe that it is possible to come up with a contract that is legal in both countries, and are working on the solution. We hope to have that in place soon.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

IIBA Community Network Launching Soon!

2009-06-16T18:52:00.001-04:00

A few months ago, when we released version 2.0 of the BABOK® Guide, we told you that IIBA was preparing to launch a greatly enhanced online community for our members. I’m happy to tell you that it’s almost ready. In fact, as I write this, we have finished integrating it with our membership database and are beta-testing it with a number of our volunteers. We anticipate a launch to the entire IIBA membership within a few weeks.

So, what is the IIBA Community Network? It’s an online platform to allow business analysis professionals to share their experiences, ideas, and templates with one another. It’s a resource that will help our members, chapters and volunteers to communicate more effectively with one another and with IIBA.

It includes a long list of features, such as:

Personal Member Pages

A significantly enhanced member profile to replace our existing membership directory. Unlike the existing system, you can decide whether to share your contact information with other IIBA members. You can include a photo of yourself, a biography, and even tag your profile with your most important skills and knowledge. You can contact other members through the system as well—however, even if you choose to allow other members to contact you, your email can be kept confidential.
Every member can also have a personal blog, and comment on other member’s blogs.
You can search for members based on their skills, location, or other information.

Groups

Groups can be created on the site to discuss specific topics of interest, for individual chapters, to discuss specific industries, or anything else. While we will have a number of groups set up at launch, members are also able to create their own groups to discuss topics we haven’t considered. This allows the community to evolve to fit your needs.

Each group gets its own dedicated wiki, which can be modified and built on by its members. In addition to that, groups also have their own file library which they can use to store documents, presentations, or other files of interest to group members. Groups also have their own dedicated email list server, so group members can email one another without having to know the email address of every group member (and yes, we do have more conventional forums as well for people who prefer those). Finally, groups can have their own blog—this is mostly intended for groups like the SLT, Chapter Council, or individual chapters, so that they can communicate to the wider membership—but other groups can allow moderators, or even all members to contribute to their blogs.

Finally, the settings on all of these things are configurable. Some groups may choose to moderate their email list and library submissions, while others prefer a more wide-open conversation. You can set up different groups with different permissions and structures, depending on what’s appropriate—so we have groups for volunteers to discuss IIBA business as well as groups to talk about specific industries or methodologies.

Event Calendar
The site also comes with a proper event calendar so that we can keep everyone updated on events of interest to the BA community, such as webinars, chapter meetings, and conventions. We’ll be making an effort to capture as many of these as possible so that you know what’s available out there, but as with everything else you can add events yourself as well. Events are also searchable, so you can look specifically for webinars or chapter events in your area. Event locations are even shown on Google Maps!

Forums
The forums represent a major upgrade in capability from the ones on our current site. They now support WYSIWYG editing, allow people to develop reputations, include polls, and more. You can also subscribe to a forum via an RSS feed so that you know when a conversation has been updated.

Library
Last, but certainly not least, the community site has a searchable library. The Library can contain files, links to external sites, tips and stories, and book reviews, among other things. Each entry in the library is tagged so that you can easily find library entries that are relevant. Files in group libraries can be shared with the general library or kept private to the group. Each library entry allows for members to provide feedback on its quality and rate the value of the information

The most important point is that anyone can submit files to the library. We would like to encourage you to submit your templates, white papers, and anything else you see of value to the library in order to make it a useful resource for the BA community.

So, that’s what’s coming soon. We know that there are many BA sites out there today with a great deal of useful content, but we also believe that the IIBA Community Network facilitates knowledge-sharing that makes it unique. It allows members to talk to one another, rather than requiring the conversation to be directed by IIBA.

We do have open volunteer positions if you’re interested in helping out as a moderator or if you want to help develop and sustain a group discussing a particular topic or industry. If you are interested, please check out the volunteer pages on the IIBA website or contact community@theiiba.org. And keep your eyes open for the formal launch soon!

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

2.0 Exam Blueprint

2009-06-11T12:54:00.001-04:00

Been meaning to post this.

BAP&M: 19.33%
Elicitation: 14%
RM&C: 16%
EA: 15.33%
RA: 19.33%
SA&V: 16%

Questions on the Techniques and on Underlying Competencies have been assigned to a relevant Knowledge Area.

As a reminder, the exam switches to version 2.0 on August 1. Questions should be directed to certification@theiiba.org.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

AGM 2009 Information and Revised IIBA Structure

2009-05-27T23:03:00.001-04:00

The IIBA® Board of Directors and Senior Leadership Team (SLT) have reviewed the IIBA® leadership structure and have agreed that as the organization has evolved and matured, it is now necessary to change the bylaws. In our current structure, members of the Board of Directors are elected into active operations roles such as President or VP of Chapters. While this model was effective as we grew, the size and calibre of the IIBA® organization requires a more formal governance structure which allows us to be more agile and pro-active.

The Board is now proposing to move to a more traditional business model which clearly separates the purpose, objectives and roles of the board of directors from the team that runs the organization on a day-to-day basis. The changes we are proposing will ensure that the organization is governed more effectively and efficiently for the benefit of our members, other stakeholders, and the business analysis community as a whole. We need to be able to concentrate fully on the operations of the organization by hiring fulltime operational roles responsible to our Board and our members, as many of these roles demand more time and effort than volunteers are able to provide. Similarly, we need to ensure that the Board continues to effectively represent our members and their interests.

We will be asking our members to vote on the revisions to the Bylaws at the 2009 AGM. More information is available in this month's newsletter. The revised bylaws will be available for review on June 9, and a webinar to discuss the changes will be conducted on June 16.

BABOK Now Listed On Amazon

2009-05-18T22:41:00.002-04:00

It's not in stock yet, but you can order a copy here.

UPDATE: Barnes and Noble apparently has it in stock.

UPDATE 2: It's now listed as in stock, although it will take about two weeks before Amazon has it in its warehouses and starts shipping.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

Free to a Good Home

2009-05-17T13:28:00.001-04:00

I have three copies of version 1.6 of the BABOK sitting around my office (in addition to the one I am planning to keep). The first three people to ask for one can have them.

UPDATE: All gone now, sorry.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

Errata Part 2

2009-05-17T10:53:00.001-04:00

Here's the other things that got fixed. A few formatting/layout issues are not included on this list. See also the previous part. I'd love to think that the BABOK is now errata-free, but I'm sure there's something else that has still slipped past us.

P.5: Para.3, Sentence 3—Add comma after “Requirements include”. Delete comma after “enterprise”.

Figure 2-1 and 2-2: Change spelling of “Judgement” to “Judgment” to match text.

Figure 2-1: Reorganize Outputs in diagram to alphabetical order to match other diagrams in BABOK.

P. 34, 5th Para. Last sentence: Insert “or” after acceptance criteria and delete “or more detailed documentation” at end of sentence (the statement is redundant, since it’s mentioned earlier in the sentence as well).

P. 39: Last sentence—change “planned” to “considered in the plan”.

P. 53: Change “The word elicit is defined” to “The definition of elicitation is”

P. 66: Third para.--in “When presenting the requirements for review” delete “the”

P. 79: Last bullet point—delete superfluous comma

P. 85: Put parentheses around “is likely to”.

P. 104: Figure 6-3 incorrectly cross-referenced Specify and Model Requirements as 6.4 instead of 6.3.

P. 119—First word is “form”, should be “from”.

P. 138: 3rd paragraph: In sentence “It is likely that that there are...” only one “that” is needed.

P. 143: Under 8.1.4.3, Effectiveness Measures, it refers to decision analysis instead of problem solving.

P. 165: In section 9.7.3.3, 1st paragraph, delete second sentence as it refers to an example that was cut before release.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Body of Knowledge

BABOK 2.0 Goes to Print

2009-05-16T11:35:00.001-04:00

The printer's proof of version 2.0 of the BABOK was signed off yesterday. This version will incorporate all errata identified to date, has a slightly revised layout (as the original didn't print as cleanly as I had hoped) and a full index.

The retail price will be $59.95 USD or €44.95. It will be available through a number of online retailers, including Amazon (.com, .ca, and .co.uk) and Chapters in about 4-6 weeks. At this point in time it's impossible to say if it will be picked up by bookstores, although there should be some copies available in the Chapters at John and Richmond in Toronto, Ontario, for those of you who live around here (the Chapters booth at BA World took them on consignment).

IIBA is also able to start taking orders for direct sales of the print edition, although unfortunately at this time we must require a minimum order of 10 copies. We're still investigating the direct sales situation for individual copies, although I fear that in practice we will be unable to offer a sufficient discount to offset the lower shipping costs from online retailers. To place an order, please contact bok@theiiba.org with your order information and we will let you know the total cost with shipping and handling. Delivery should be in 5-10 business days.

Chapters and EEPs are entitled to a 40% discount off the cover price when ordering direct. All others will get a discount based on the quantity ordered.

The PDF will be updated on the IIBA website and on the purchase link very shortly. The differences are minor and will not affect the exam or alter the content-the changes are fixes to typos, cross-references, and similar. If you have purchased a copy and would like the latest version, please email bok@theiiba.org and we will give you access to the update. The errata and index will also be posted separately for those of you who might not care to print out another copy.

Thanks once again to everyone who got us here.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

Thoughts on 3.0

2009-05-07T11:43:00.001-04:00

So, it's been a month now. That's enough of a break, right?

Here's my (very early) thoughts about what version 3.0 might look like. A big consideration for me will be that it shouldn't be too much longer than 2.0. I can see adding a chapter on lifecycles and methodologies to explicitly show how the BABOK maps against them, for instance, and other materials that might bulk it up a bit, but I'd be very reluctant to see it go over 300 pages. So that means that it would stay at about the current level of depth and detail on the topics it covers.

First, the obvious--whenever it comes out, we will run surveys to see if there are any important changes in which techniques are generally accepted (either more so or less so).

Then, there may be some restructuring of tasks. Nothing like the 1.6-2.0 transition, to be sure, but I think there's some opportunity to structure things a little more consistently and also a couple of things that might deserve to be tasks in their own right.

However, I think the biggest changes will come from various efforts now underway. We're doing analysis on BA competency models, and version 3.0 will emphasize those qualities that we find are most important to being effective as a BA. We expect to see work done to align the BABOK more closely with other critical standards. And thirdly, the field itself will change, as we see how Agile methods, BPM, outsourcing, and other current hot trends play out over the next few years. (My personal guess is that at least one or two of those will peak this year or next, but we'll see).

As always, though, we're open to feedback. Let me know! And in the meantime, I have plenty to keep me busy.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

BABOK Errata

2009-04-23T13:33:00.000-04:00

Nobody’s perfect, especially not me. Here is the known errata for BABOK 2.0. If you've spotted other things, drop me a line or post in the comments below.

P. 16—“BASEL” in Basel II should be in lowercase.

P.17—Outputs should be in alphabetical order.

P.40—last paragraph in 2.4.4.2 should not be bulleted.

P. 53—in Figure 3-1, “Focus Group” should be plural (“Focus Groups”)

P.58—“(9.9” missing closing parenthesis

P.60 & 61—Figure 3-5 and 3-6 incorrectly label Specify and Model Requirements as task 6.4 rather than 6.3

P. 63—Requirements Structure should be an Input on the diagram.

P. 67—In Domain SME entry, the words “by the stakeholder” are repeated twice.

P. 80—Cross-reference to Structured Walkthrough incorrect (should be 9.30).

P.90—Cross-reference to SWOT Analysis incorrect (should be 9.32).

P.95—Figure 3-7 incorrectly labels Validate Requirements as task 6.7 rather than 6.6.

P.105—Cross-reference to Organization Model incorrect (should be 9.19).

P.121—Figure 7-1 incorrectly labels “Outputs” group as “Inputs”.

P.136—Techniques should be in alphabetical order.

P.143—Under 8.1.4.3, replace “decision analysis” with “problem solving” in first sentence.

P.149—In second bullet, “verses” should be “vs.”

P.153—Last sentence on page should be bulleted.

P.171—In 9.10.3.5, delete period at end of last bullet point.

P.173—Last sentence on page: Put hyphen in “pre-planned”, insert comma after “issues”.

P.217—Last bullet, change “experenced” to “experienced”.

P.230—In entry for “Repository”, change “retreival” to “retrieval”.

P.234—In Unified Modeling Language, insert hyphen in “non-proprietary”.

P.235—In Walkthrough, remove hyphen from “walkthrough”.

P.241—From entry for Business Analysis , remove duplicate “Society”.

P.249—In Enterprise Analysis table, in Preparing the Decision Package (2.7), the correct names of the matching tasks are Prepare Requirements Package and Communicate Requirements.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

Long Week

2009-04-18T00:32:00.001-04:00

The last few weeks have been filled with stuff that I would like to talk about but isn't quite ready for prime time yet. So, here's a few things that I can discuss:

I'm prepping BABOK v2 for a print release. This will involve fixing the errata identified so far (all minor) and adding an index. This information will be provided for all on the site so that those who bought copies of the PDF are not left out.
Also coming free in the not-too-distant future will be the BABOK Glossary.
So far, the BABOK has been downloaded by over 5,500 people.
I'm still having trouble getting used to the idea of not working on the BABOK.
I also have to gear up for the convention season. I'm doing a lot more talking this year than I did last year.

Sorry, I'll try to have more substantive posts soon. As I said, there's big stuff happening but it needs to get a little better nailed down before I put it out in public.

On the personal front, life is also busy. Áine is getting a lot bigger and my wife and I are still coming to grips with this little person in our lives. Here's what she looks like now:

The scary thing is that she's already trying to talk. She's not succeeding, not quite yet, but even so...

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

BABOK Q&A: Member Pricing on Print Edition

2009-04-09T23:25:00.001-04:00

Q. Will IIBA offer a member discount on the print edition of the BABOK?

A. I don't know.

We will if we can. However, the book trade these days is changing rapidly, and some of those changes make it difficult to say yes. The biggest factor here is Amazon.com and its subsidiaries.

The problem for us is that Amazon has a tendency to do two things with technical books (like the BABOK). First, they offer steep discounts. Second, they offer free shipping on orders over a certain value.

The practical outcome of this is that--for example--the PMBOK is cheaper to buy on Amazon than it is to buy from PMI, and Amazon will throw in free shipping on top of that. And PMI already has a book fulfillment and distribution capability. IIBA does not.

Now, the printing arrangements we're looking at pretty much guarantee that the BABOK will be available on Amazon. That's a good thing, since it will make it widely and easily available. But we may not be able to discount it steeply enough to beat what Amazon may choose to offer, especially when we can't possibly offer free shipping.

I'm not yet certain how the business case will shake out on this one. But if we don't offer a member discount, this will be why. In order to offer a member discount, we have to be able to offer members a better deal than they can get through Amazon while still managing to cover the costs of order management, fulfillment, and distribution.

For what it's worth, I expect to be able to announce a print release date soon. The print edition will include correction of known errata (nothing too serious, but there are a few things we've found since it went live) and we'll be adding a full index (available as a separate download for those who want it).

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

One Week Later, and a Look Back

2009-04-06T15:27:00.001-04:00

I'm still digging out from under the email that landed in my inbox last week while I and the rest of the IIBA SLT were off having our quarterly meetings (about which more will be said later). I came down with a cold the day after those meetings, just to make things even more fun.

Reaction so far to version 2.0 has been very positive, although to date it's mostly focused on the improvements to readability and organization rather than the actual content. That's not unexpected.

When version 1.6 went out the door, we intended at the time to follow it up in the short term with a few updates to fill in the holes (that is, completion of Chapters 7 and 8, plus some additional content in other sections). That version of the BABOK (which would have been called "version 2.0") actually did exist by early 2007. The problem we ran into was related to certification. Specifically, the existing exam had been based on version 1.6, IIBA couldn't afford to convene another item writing session that year, and it didn't seem like a good idea to have two versions of the BABOK kicking around on a long-term basis.

For the record, none of this affected the validity of the certification exam itself--the exam questions may be derived from the BABOK, but they are not limited to it and there's an extensive verification and validation process that we put the exam through to ensure that it's psychometrically valid. The version 2.0 test will undergo the same process. Among other things, the certification team also does their own job analysis of business analysts to ensure that the test covers topics that are relevant to successful performance of business analysis.

Rather than put out a version 2.0 that would never actually be used as the basis of the certification exam, we decided to move ahead and do the work that was originally planned to be the basis for version 3.0--that is, look into how to address business analysis from other perspectives, streamline the content, and fully integrate all the sections. Work on that started in the middle of 2007 and resulted in what was released last week.

So depending on how you look at it, version 2.0 is either really really late or about on time. ;-)

So, now that you've had a whole week, I'd be interested in knowing what people would like to see in 3.0. When we put 1.6 out the door, we had a very good idea internally of the kinds of things that needed to be addressed in future versions. Most of the advice and suggestions we got confirmed what we thought needed to be done, rather than suggesting new directions. With version 2, though, I don't have any similar ideas. I mean, I can think of some tweaks and improvements I'd like to make, and maybe little additional content, but if I were to start planning for version 3 today, the changes would just be relatively minor improvements to version 2. And if that's all that's going to be needed, then great. However, I don't want to assume that no major improvements are possible or necessary.

So, what would you most like to see in version 3?

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Body of Knowledge

What does the world want to know???

2009-04-02T11:58:00.007-04:00

It's been a long, long time since I posted an entry on our IIBA SLT blog. Well, I'm sitting here in an IIBA Senior Leadership Team session and we're talking about the blog. And, I'm asking myself why it is that I haven't been posting. The best answer I can come up with is that I'm not quite sure what to blog about! (I've always hated public speaking. One of the reasons for that is that I was never good at coming up with something to talk about!)

So, this is what it comes down to: as you are likely aware, I have a few roles within IIBA:

a) a member of the IIBA Board of Directors
b) IIBA's Chief Information Officer
c) IIBA's Vice President of Certification

So...you tell me: what do you want to know about? What am I not communicating already that would be of interest to you? If you tell me, I'll do my best to use this channel to get the info to you.

(Having said that, please, please do not ask for information that is readily available elsewhere...)

Michael Gladstone, CBAP

Chief Information Officer & VP, Certification

On a Serious Note...

2009-04-01T23:38:00.001-04:00

I guess I'm older than I thought--I would have thought that the New vs. Classic Coke reference would have tipped everyone off.

Other than the opportunity to play a little April Fool's joke, I did have a serious point to make. "BABOK Classic" really is version 1.0 of the BABOK. We've come a long way in only a few years. I'm really looking forward to seeing what version 3.0 looks like.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

IIBA Withdraws New BABOK, Releases BABOK® Classic™

2009-04-01T11:05:00.001-04:00

I hate to say it, but we made a terrible mistake yesterday in releasing version 2.0 of the BABOK. Fortunately, there's still time to correct it.

The last thing the business analysis community needs is a detailed framework of tasks and techniques. 250 pages--who has time to read that? We've realized that BABOK 2.0 tested well in focus groups and surveys, but once people actually tried to work with it it just didn't meet their needs.

So, after an emergency meeting of the Board, we realized that we had it right the first time. And I mean the very first time. IIBA will be reverting to BABOK version 1.0, now renamed BABOK® Classic™. We'll be upgrading, or perhaps I should say downgrading, the certification exam to match in the near future.

We're making BABOK® Classic™ available for free to everyone, as an apology for our error. Click on the link to get your copy.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, BABOK® Classic™

BABOK Version 2 Now Available!

2009-03-30T22:35:00.001-04:00

The Business Analysis Body of Knowledge® (BABOK®) is the collection of knowledge within the profession of Business Analysis and reflects current generally accepted practices. As with other professions, the body of knowledge is defined and enhanced by the Business Analysis professionals who apply it in their daily work role. The BABOK® Guide describes Business Analysis areas of knowledge, their associated activities and the tasks and skills necessary to be effective in their execution. The BABOK® Guide is a reference for professional knowledge for Business Analysis and provides the basis for the Certified Business Analysis Professional™ (CBAP®) Certification.

All IIBA® members can download a complimentary PDF copy for their own use. Individuals who are not members of IIBA® can purchase a PDF copy for $29.95 USD.

The release of BABOK® Guide 2.0 represents the development of a common framework to understand and define the practice of business analysis.

Version 2.0 is a major revision from version 1.6, and represents over two-and-a-half years of work by IIBA® volunteers. Since 1.6 was released, we’ve gone through two cycles of review and revision of the materials, during which we received over 5,000 individual comments from practitioners and industry experts, and incorporated that feedback into the new edition. We’ve also received extensive feedback from the almost 200,000 practitioners who downloaded and read the 1.6 draft.

We’ve conducted a number of surveys with the business analysis community to ensure that the content of the BABOK® Guide really does reflect “generally accepted” practices in the profession. Based on those surveys, we can now be sure that the tasks and techniques found in version 2.0 are performed by the majority of business analysts worldwide.

Our goal for this release was to ensure that the BABOK® Guide was adaptable enough to fit the needs of the broad community of business analysts, while also making it simpler to use and easier to understand. The Knowledge Areas were reassessed and redefined to more logically group tasks together. We’ve taken the 76 tasks found in version 1.6 and condensed them into 32, to make all of those tasks relevant to the majority of business analysis efforts. The task structure is now significantly more flexible, allowing the BABOK® Guide to be easily mapped onto a wide range of methodologies and frameworks, including Agile development, CMMI, business process management, and others.

Once you've had a chance to look it over, please let us know what you think!

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

Enterprise Analysis Preview

2009-03-28T01:13:00.001-04:00

Here's the first few pages of Enterprise Analysis as it will appear in version 2.0. This should give you a pretty good idea of the information that will be included with each task.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development

BABOK Overview

2009-03-22T21:56:00.001-04:00

Here's today's preview...a presentation that will serve as an overview of BABOK 2.0.

If you want the words that will go with it, please join myself and Julian for a webinar on March 31 at 12 PM Eastern Time. This webinar is open to the public, and I expect to spend part of it going over the changes but will also set aside a fair bit of time for questions.

To sign up, please go to https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/424599875.

See you there, and I'll be back later this week with more.

BABOK® 2.0 Launch Party

2009-03-20T23:10:00.001-04:00

It’s a Q&A, really, and open to all (not restricted to IIBA® members).

On Tuesday, March 31, 2009 from 12:00 noon - 1:00 PM EDT, please join Kevin Brennan, CBAP, PMP and VP Professional Development to discuss “BABOK® Version 2.0 Release Party”.

As the website says, “It’s finally out!” I’ll be hosting the conversation – hopefully having voice and everything this time. Please register at https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/424599875 to talk about what’s new in version 2.0, understand how to use and benefit from it, and find out what you need to know to get ready for the updates to the CBAP® exam.

Julian Sammy
Product Manager – New Media

Notice of Investigations

2009-03-17T13:29:00.001-04:00

From time to time, IIBA® receives complaints from its members and the public concerning alleged conduct carried out by individuals or organizations under IIBA’s name or trade-marks that are unauthorized and harmful to IIBA® and to the public. IIBA® investigates these complaints and takes the appropriate steps to ensure that any such conduct found to be improper or unlawful will not continue.

The following are complaints received by IIBA®:

March 17, 2009
Re: Abby Osoba and The Bayberry Group

IIBA® has received a complaint from the public concerning Abby Osoba of The Bayberry Group with respect to alleged misrepresentations relating to IIBA® services. IIBA® is currently investigating this complaint and will notify our members and the public of its findings in due course.

March 17, 2009
Re: Vijay Reddy and Spectramind Solutions

IIBA® has received a number of complaints from the public concerning Vijay Reddy of Spectramind Solutions. The complaints concern alleged misrepresentations relating to IIBA® services and improper conduct in breach of the Endorsed Education Provider Professional Code of Conduct. IIBA® is currently investigating these complaints and will notify our members and the public of its findings in due course.

BABOK v2 Preview

2009-03-12T22:18:00.001-04:00

Over the next few weeks I'm going to put up a few previews of version 2. I'm also willing and able to answer questions you may have--just post them in the comments.

As always anything that shows here is subject to change until the actual release March 31. However, except for any error correction, the BABOK is done. I plan to do one last review of it in about two weeks to fix anything that anyone's spotted between now and then.

For the first installment, here's the Table of Contents.

Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Professional Development