Image Source: StockUnlimited
BABOK in the Real World
A comment that I heard today, at an Accelerated CBAP course, was “this is all fine, but in the real world things are different“.
this is all fine, but in the real world things are different
The sentiment was clear.
What IIBA’s Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (BABOK) presented didn’t actually align with what happened in the “real world”.
The Knowledge Areas (KAs) and Tasks were considered as being “theoretical” and didn’t reflect true life.
Big Picture
I don’t think that people are seeing the big picture here.
Let’s look at the IIBA’s mission statement:
To develop and maintain standards for the practice of business analysis and for the certification of practitioners.
And the IIBA Certification Handbook lists one of the benefits of the CBAP as:
Competence in the principles and practices of business analysis
It’s a Framework
The BABOK presents these principles and practices in the form of Knowledge Areas (KAs) and Tasks.
It describes these as follows:
Knowledge areas define what a practitioner of business analysis needs to understand
and the tasks a practitioner must be able to perform.
The BOK goes further to make it clear that the Tasks can be performed in any order, and that:
Knowledge areas are not intended to represent phases in a project.
So … the BABOK serves as a baseline.
It provides structure and direction on a preferred way to do business analysis without being too detailed or rigid.
And it provides guidance while being flexible enough to adapt to changing conditions.
Essentially … it’s a framework (as well as acting as a baseline).
What does this mean?
So what does this mean?
To me, it means being able to be a business analyst and do business analyst stuff. Without being restricted to a “this is how we do it here” procedure.
It allows you to lift yourself above that.
Not just automatons
I’ve known of organisations that have employed “business analysts”.
When it comes to the actual practice of business analysis, however, all it means is talking with the stakeholders and then writing up document A, followed by document B, and then, possibly, document C.
That’s what we use here
Documents A, B, and C are, essentially, based on something that someone once put together, and “that’s what we use here”.
Often in these organisations,it’s the Project Manager who tells the BA what they have to do next.
The real value of the BABOK
This is where I feel the BABOK, (and CCBA or CBAP) make a difference.
Although the BA might still need to do things “the way we do it here”, (and still interact with a PM) they are also able to look at it from a higher level.
They can introduce improvements.
And if you take that BA out of that organisation, and drop them into another, they can still perform the art of Business Analysis in a knowledgeable, professional, manner.
Want to learn more?
Below is a selection of resources that I personally feel are relevant to this blog post, and will allow you to get more in-depth knowledge. I do earn a commission if you purchase any of these, and for that I am grateful. Thank you. (Important Disclosure)
If BABOK is unable to inspire BA professionals and other professionals working with BAs to overcome “the way we do it here” and demonstrate the benefits of BABOK (with v 3.0 in the offing), the fault is squarely with IIBA and all the champions of BA. It only means that BABOK is worse than “ad hoc THE WAY WE DO IT HERE” because NO ONE deliberately rejects what REALY HELPS.
I have studied BABOK 1,6 and 2.0 and tried to select at least some parts which are worth following to realize some benefits. Unfortunately nothing emerged as clearly beneficial when reviewed with various stakeholders. Your blog confirms that many others also have the same experience.
I am hoping v 3.0 which is slated to be released in April 2015 would make a difference. If it CAN NOT be that good, it should NOT be released. In bringing out BABOK, the authors and IIBA should consider the interests of all the stakeholders involved and give them something they find beneficial. The repeated failure of BABOKs is a clear indication that it is utterly immature and useless.
PVN 18MAR15
I had a brief look at V3.0 when it was available for public review, and can remember that it was remarkably different (However I cannot recall much, as I was concentrating on understanding v2.0). Maybe you are correct with what you say. If people are, indeed saying, “Huh – how does that translate into the real world”, maybe it is a sign that there is a misalignment between what Version 2.0 is expounding, and reality. Or maybe the BABOK contains wisdom, but presents it in a confusing manner.
I’m looking forward to getting my hands on version 3.0 …
Yeah, objective evaluation of v 3.0 is the right approach. What is important is to identify the stakeholders and get to know what they need and value and deliver to their satisfaction. This is a simple customer orientation applicable to all suppliers (in this case IIBA and BAs).
AA: To me the *software & UX developers / testers * are the prime customers of BA deliverables—they are the professional users / consumers of artifacts produced by BA’s.
BB: The clients come next, though they are the ones who pay the BA’s. They have to approve some artifacts generated by the BA’s but the clients do not have technical or professional competence to judge how useful the artifacts would be for the developers / testers.
CC: Thus, for professional purposes the software UX developers & testers are the prime and key stakeholders of BA. IIBA BOK does not even recognize this. There is no dialog for collaboration with software developer associations / societies. This is a fundamental and serious flaw in the IIBA approach. I do not know if IREB and BSC are any better in this respect. BA or RE must appear as desirable and valuable service provider by IT professional bodies / standards.
DD: Let’s see who of IIBA, IREB and BCS would achieve AA and CC.
Best wishes,
PVN 18MAR15
Thanks Mark, a nice summary, I particularly like your end statement, ‘…if you take that BA out of that organisation, and drop them into another, they can still perform the art of Business Analysis in a knowledgeable, professional, manner.’ (I may quote you on this 🙂
You can’t learn to be a surgeon or mechanic from books alone, but having a ‘body of knowledge’ can’t be a bad thing if one treats it as a ‘primer’, a refresher, a source of new ideas, and continuing improvement of the profession.
As a BA whose training and maturity(!) pre-dates CCBA/CBAP and the BOK I have not been inclined to read the ‘manual’, possibly for the wrong reasons, but I intend to read v3 and see if it can improve what I do and broaden my knowledge base.
Tony @ITelementary
Hi Tony
Nice to hear that you liked it. Thanks. Good to hear that you have similar thoughts.
I certainly understand what you are saying with regards to being not so inclined to read the BABOK. Especially if you have been “in the game” for a long time. And, I think that experience far outweighs “theoretical knowledge”. I do feel, however, the CBAP provides a standard “measuring stick” against which Business Analysts, and employers, can use to assure themselves of a standard level of knowledge.
I’ve been teaching a few classes of a CBA Study course (BABOK2.0). Since version 3.0 recently came out, I’ve been comparing the two version. Version 3.0i s definitely more readable. The information in it is also a lot more relevant to current practices. I’d be interested in hearing what you think of it.