Category Archives: CBAP

Unhappiness with IIBA

Posted on by
5

4341606-1998304857-sales.jpg

Recent activity in the IIBA group in LinkedIn has revealed a variety of opinions about the effectiveness of IIBA.

David Olsen wrote a blog post titled “Why I Chose Not to Renew My IIBA Membership” and posted it in the IIBA group in LinkedIn. 

This is my summary of the discussion.

David’s Reasons

David’s main concerns are:

  • the IIBA is too focused on members, and gaining new members, than on Business Analysis itself. His main argument here is that the IIBA’s Body of Knowledge, the BABOK, should be free for everyone who wants to improve in Business Analysis.
  • The Recertification process. A BA can earn more points for presenting, and watching webinars than they can from actually “doing” BA work.
  • the IIBA communicates poorly. Often major announcements are made with little, or no, rationale given. Examples include:
    • IIBA’s 3 year strategy plan
    • The new Global Strategic Alliances (see more on this here, here and here).
    • The decision to rebrand the CBAP / CCBA certifications as part of a broader “Gold Standard” certification with levels.

These seem like valid concerns. Enough to make Dave want to not renew his membership.

The Reaction

So what happened when he posted this to the IIBA group on LinkedIn? Well, before I go into that, I just want to mention what David wrote when he share his blog post in the group:

I figured this was a place where I would probably get the most disagreement so I figured I would post a link here in case anyone wanted to chime in and maybe end up changing my mind (not that I expect any of you to care).

What followed showed that people, actually, did care. I’m writing this 5 days after the original post, and there have been 80 comments made, and 119 people have indicated that they want to follow the discussion.

And in the comments you could that there were three groups:

  • those who 100% agreed with David’s concerns
  • those who did not agree with David’s concerns
  • and people who fitted in between – they agreed with some of David’s concerns, but also consider things from a pragmatic point of view.

Those who thought he was right

 

Free the Knowledge

There were those that agreed that the BABOK should be available to the wider Business analysis community.

since they claim to be the “voice” of our profession, they should realize that whatever is developed at IIBA – publications, tools, methods, BoK, … it’s all collective property of the entire community. And community here means anyone who is working in this profession, irrespective of the membership.

– Rajul A.

 

Make BABOK and such other sources free for all – I feel very strongly about this. Let the whole of business analysis benefit from these.

– Ronnel E.

One commenter pointed out an example of this – an online Business Analysts Guidebook, put together by the New York State Government

Fully support the comments on openness (The future is MOOCed)

See: Business Analysis Guidebook
(https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Business_Analysis_Guidebook)

– Gerrit B.

Cost  and value of membership

And then there were many voices concerned with the cost of membership, and the value of it.

The IIBA is not delivering value to me that justify to pay the member renewal amount

– Sergio L.C.

 

I strongly believe that the IIBA needs to do a better job on this front of demonstrating and communicating the value being added.

– Michael R.

 

I have never understood why you have to pay for a membership to IIBA and then be asked to pay for local membership as well. Why doesn’t this $110 cover local membership too?

– Angie P.

 

I am also disappointed by IIBA hence did not renewed my membership . If you are part of IIBA global community, by default You get access to local chapter. Unfortunately it didn’t happened

– Harsh S.

 

I started my BA career three years ago as a transition from being a Developer hoping I would get something out of membership. I’ve been rather disappointed with the membership in general. I just don’t feel like there’s much value added criteria to the membership in general.

– Thomas P.

 

I would be more satisfied with the membership fee if the IIBA were to publish a monthly peer-reviewed research journal on business analysis modeled on the Communications of the ACM or IEEE Software.

– Douglas K.

 

I’ve considered joining the IIBA, and taking the CBAP, for a few years. I was initially put off by their attitude as illustrated by your first point: all they seemed to be interested in was money.

– Ron H.

 

[Re-]certification

And, people weren’t happy with the certification, or recertification, process. (You can read more about the recertification requirements in the IIBA Recertification Handbook.)

As an IIBA member and a CBAP certificate holder i completely agree with your analysis, especially on the recertification process which is geared toward EEP courses rather than experience.

– Marius A.

 

I just renewed my certification last year and felt it was a nightmare trying to figure out what qualified and what didn’t. I couldn’t get credit for working and guiding my team on business analysis as their manager because the experience had to be something where I learned something. Well, let me tell you, there wasn’t a time that I didn’t learn from my co-workers something new and different based on their experience and viewpoint. Why is that not valuable?

– Angie P.

 

I started the process to get my certification but stopped before I wrote the test. I have been doing BA work long before the term was coined. I know what needs to be done, and how to do it. The problem with the test, like most, is that it is all memorization. It tests if you have memorized the BABOK, not if you can actually do the work. My resume and references show if I can do the work.

– Dean M.

 

This year I finally decided I was just going to sit down and finally attempt to get my certification but I admit I was having some reservations after reading about IIBA and was wondering if I was the only one.

– Michelle D.

Those who disagreed

While there were a lot of people in support of David’s concerns, there was also a small camp of people who did not agree. Either with what David had expressed,or with the comments that others had made.

As a volunteer who worked on both the BABOK and Competency Model I would like to clarify for the dialog here that myself and the other writers were not paid. We all gave of our time to these assets with no remuneration. We do this out of our passion for business analysis and a desire advance the profession.

– Angela W.

 

… I can only say I value my membership highly. It provides access to a wide range of information, tools, insights that have helped me take my career to the next level.

– Sheila B.

 

The BABOK is all about community input….In a nutshell, the Team uses various research studies, and multiple levels and layers of community feedback. All of it includes thousands of BAs around the globe. There are standard guidelines the development of a standard BoK as a community effort and IIBA does follow them. This is why it takes 5 years to create a new version. The Core Team of experts is there to make the trade off decisions on conflicting feedback from the community.

– Angela W.

 

I was also one of the volunteers on BABOK 3. I participated because I believe in the IIBA’s objectives in creating professional recognition of Business Analysts and wanted to share and develop my knowledge.

– Brian H.

 

I was a lead author on BABOK 2.0 and an expert reviewer on 3.0 I received nothing–absolutely nothing–for the hundreds of hours I put in. I did it for many reasons, among them because I believe in having consistency in what business analysis is and what the work entails, to have some say in shaping those things, and to work with colleagues whom I respect and like.

– Elizabeth L.

 

I believe and am passionate about the profession of business analysis and the IIBA is the only institution that I have found that validates everything I have worked towards well before the profession became a true profession. I do not believe the BABOK should be a truly open source product. The limiting and monitoring of its development ensures those who are truly qualified are assisting with the shaping of the profession. With that said, I also believe all performing the discipline should have a voice.

– Lora M.

 

It is not the IIBA’s responsibility to alone do the things you’ve mentioned. We as members have a responsibility there too. If we want greater transparency we should define and demand it. If we want to grow the community we should put forward the opportunity and help make it happen.

– Christopher H.

 

As far as I am concerned, the business analysis profession is leaps and bounds better than it was 12 years.

– Jeffrey D.

 

While I have been frustrated with IIBA for many things over the years, we are better for having them around.

* The organization is opaque, but we are better with them than without. No other alternative for BAs is as attractive to me.
* The BABOK, whatever my personal quibbles, serves its purpose of defining the scope of the jobs involved, standardizing the profession, and growing professionals skills.
* As someone who contributes by writing, speaking, and sometimes chapter involvement, I love these things! It helps push us forward.

– Jeffrey D.

Jeffrey also shared a link to “To Stay Relevant, Professional Associations Must Rebrand“

One suggestion is to become involved in your local chapter. Join the leadership team. Contribute to the program.

– Rebecca S.

 

One positive found was access to their online library.

– Rupkamal T.

 

I want to throw a thought in about your comment David, ‘The IIBA is Too Member-Focused’. I would be disappointed if they were not member focused. There is a lot of good information on the IIBA website for members such as the online library for example…

– Bryan W.

 

Those who had a pragmatic viewpoint

As I mentioned at the beginning, there were also those commenters who might have agreed with some of David’s comments, they looked at things pragmatically.

In some ways I agree with you. But in the end charity doesn’t help sustain, forget about growing. If an organization were to grow, commercial aspect is necessary.

– Rahul A.

 

This is a difficult one. The CBAP is the gold standard for BA certifications, but the IIBA brings me absolutely no added value. BABOK v3 came from volunteers, not the IIBA.

– Michael B.

 

David, thank you very much for this article. It has prompted a great discussion and after all that is what Business Analysis is about. Challenging status quo with discussions. I happen to agree with you on a few points. Make BABOK and such other sources free for all – I feel very strongly about this. Let the whole of business analysis benefit from these. Change re-certification to also recognize the value of professional experience (including management of business analysts). However I believe there is still a place for a membership. A membership to me would mean regular news letters, access to the online library, even a better deal in some training opportunities. These are all direct value a membership can provide.

– Ronnel E.

 

IIBA’s response

Although there were several commenters who were involved directly with the IIBA, the  were two “official” responses from the IIBA.

David, Thank you very much for your feedback. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss your views further. If you are available for further discussion, please contact Kathleen Hutton, our EVP, Chapters and Member Services at [email protected] Thank you.

– Kristina Fixter

 

Thank you for your feedback as it is valuable to our ongoing evolution as a Member driven organization. I have provided additional insights on this important conversation. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/value-iiba-membership-kathleen-hutton?published=t

– Kathleen Hutton

 

Kathlyn goes further into the strategic plan of the IIBA, as well as given more detail on some of the current activities of the IIBA aligned with the strategic plan.

 

In conclusion

What is have shown above is just a sampling of the comments made with regards David’s post. As you can see, there are a lot of valid comments that support the issues that David mentioned. And, there are a lot of great input from the other side of the argument. I’m glad that the IIBA got involved. I’m not sure if David has taken this further with them. Hopefully we will hear more soon.

What did strike me was one of the comments made:

Lots of inputs, criticisms, suggestions… Some cosmetic actions… Silence on key issues… complacency… Noise fads… Silence prevails… I hope this discussion doesn’t take this route.

My sentiments exactly. Are they yours?

 

Related links

  • Discussion in LinkedIn
  • David Olsen’s original post
  • To Stay Relevant, Professional Associations Must Rebrand
  • Business Analysis Guidebook (NYS)
  • The Value of IIBA Membership (by Kathleen Hutton)

Conference 1: DREAM15

Posted on by
Reply

I recently attended three conferences here in the Netherlands. In this, and the following two posts, I’m going to describe my experiences at them.

This is post #1

DREAM15 Event

Location: Hotel Vianen, Utrecht, Netherlands

BA

In my earlier post “22 reasons why I’m Attending the DREAM15 event“ I described a conference that DREAM (Dutch Requirements Engineering And Management) were holding.

In it I had mentioned that one session didn’t have a speaker yet. I was ecstatic when the organisers asked me to fill that spot. While you can read my slidedeck from that session here, today I’d like to describe the conference itself.

Arrival

“Buzzing” is the word I would use to describe the atmosphere at the conference when I arrived. I was taken aback  at the number of people that were attending. The place was packed. And this became even more evident during the opening keynote.

Opening Keynote

The opening keynote speaker was Paul Turner. As I’ve mentioned (in the above-mentioned post), Paul Turner is one of the co-authors of the excellent book “Business Analysis Techniques (99 Essentials Tools for Success)“. Paul was entertaining while being informative, and while Paul presented in English, and the audience was Dutch, everyone enjoyed his presentation. In fact, what he had spoken about was repeated at several times during the day by other speakers. (However, Arjen Uittenbogaard, one of the speakers, commented in his (dutch) blog that Paul had given a bit of a mixed message at one stage.)

Sessions

This was where it was difficult. And the organisers, in the introduction in the morning, acknowledged that it would be . There were just so many great sessions running in parallel. It really meant that you had to make a choice.

I had intended to write a little bit about them all. I even tried this, in the morning, by watching a little bit of each presentation, running from one conference room to another, Unfortunately this was not very effective.

Brainwriting

In the afternoon, there was one session that I wanted to attend: “Brainwriting“.

Like brainstorming this technique also allows for the generation of ideas. However, unlike brainstorming that relies on the quick, and “public” shouting out of ideas, brainwriting involves lists. Blank ones. The main problem, or goal, is written at the top of the lists. Participants are divided into groups of 6, and then each person is given a list. They write their idea down on the list and, after a given time, each participant hands their list to the person to the right of them. A new idea is written down. And so on. At the end there are a large number of ideas, and these can be discussed.

As mentioned, the aim of this technique is similar to brainstorming, but let’s everyone come up with an idea, rather than just the loudest people in the room.

This was a practical session and very effective. As well as being a lot of fun. I recommenced searching for more on this.

My Session

It was a honour (and a surprise) when the organiser’s asked me to present. (You can read my presentation here).

There were more people in the audience than I had expected, and my presentation was well received. (Even considering that I presented in English – just goes to show how easily the Dutch can speak a language that isn’t their own.)

Closing Keynote

The closing keynote, by Theo Severein, took the opposite angle from the opening keynote, and looked at organizational improvement from a holistic viewpoint. This was also a crowd-pleaser.

Socialising

This is one of the big draw-cards for me. A chance to mix and mingle with other like-minded people. It also was a chance to meet, in person, people that I have been interacting with online.

During one of the breaks I was doing the rounds of the vendor standsand had a chance to meet Jan Willem Knop, one of the committee members of the IIBA NL chapter. it was really great to finally meet him in person, and learn more about the IINA in the Netherlands.

Carrying on around, I also got to meet Stefan Sturm, the Managing Director of IREB (International Requirements Engineering Board). Through some of my blog posts, and posts on LinkedIn, I been “conversing” with Stefan for awhile. Also a really great chance to meet him in person.

Just before the end of the break, I was able to introduce myself to Paul Turner (the keynote speaker). This was an honour, and I have an very, very interesting chat with him.

In fact, it was a great chance to learn more from Jan Willem, Stefan, and Paul, how the IIBA, IREB and BCS will be playing together in the new alliance/partnership that the IIBA had announced.

Conclusion

All-in-all, a great day. Great sessions combined with an excellent chance to meet, and talk with, others in the industry.

Related Links

  • DREAM site: http://www.dreamevent.nl/
  • My presentation: here
  • Zingeving voor RE’er, by Arjen Uite
  • Tweets from the conference: here

 

 

 

 

 

 

More info on the IIBA Global Strategic Alliances

Posted on by
Reply

handshake_2947510b

In a few recent posts (“The IIBA is teaming up…what does this mean to you?” and “Is the new IIBA alliance a trustworthy one?“) I discussed the alliances that the IIBA has formed.

I see now, that the IIBA, itself, has published information on the rationale behind these alliances.along with the key outcomes.

Essentially, they describe what we already expected. That the there is definitely a benefit to these partnerships. (See below for the link to their page).

One alliance that caused considerable discussion was the one with Sparx. There was concern that partnering with a commercial company would lead to a bias to this one vendor. It’s interesting to read that one of the key outcomes (of the alliance with Sparx) is

“The potential integration of BABOK® Guide v3 with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect (EA)“.

I’m curious what this will mean. What do you think?

Here’s the link to the IIBA page: http://www.iiba.org/mou/backgrounder.aspx

Is the new IIBA alliance a trustworthy one?

Posted on by
Reply

fellowship

The IIBA has formed a strategic alliance, (as described in my previous post).

In that post, I looked at how each partner could enrich the IIBA offering. The partners are:

  • BCS The Chartered Institute for IT,
  • BRM Institute,
  • IREB, and
  • Sparx Systems Pty Ltd.

After submitting the above-mentioned post to some BA groups on LinkedIn, I got some great responses. Ones that made me stop and think about the alliance.

Each member of the alliance has in-depth knowledge of specific areas that are covered at a higher, and broader, level by the IIBA. And this will add value. However, one of the partners, Sparx, is actually a vendor. And this is where the concern is…

Here’s some of the comments that have been made…

I thinks it’s odd and perhaps a conflict of interest for a standards/certification organization to align itself with a particular vendor…no matter how good they are.

How likely will it be that IIBA will host webinars with other competing products now that they are in alliance with one vendor? Probably not very likely. So rather than expose members to a collection of tools, foster competition and recommend “best of breed” products, this alliance does exactly the opposite.

I saw the announcement and was vaguely uneasy about the implications, primarily my squeamishly about IIBA becoming commercialised – maybe i’m being too naive?

So, there is some concern that an alliance with a vendor might not be a good thing.

In the discussion Alain Arsenault, Senior Officer, Corporate and Business Development at IIBA, offered the following:

In 2014, IIBA leadership and Board of Directors revised the organization vision and defined a new direction for IIBA. A 3-years strategic plan was established to support this new model along with a new core purpose to “unite a community of professionals to create better business outcomes”.

The new vision focuses on collaboration, engagement and value creation while continuing to support and advance the practice, discipline and profession of Business Analysis.

The newly announced alliances support this new paradigm. Our goal is to broaden our engagements and enable the Business Analysis ecosystem to flourish and provide greater value and connectivity to our members, the broader BA community and business stakeholders.

Our engagements are not exclusive and we welcome and will continue to foster similar alliances of collaboration with other associations and organizations.

You’ll see that Alain mentions “value creation”, and providing “greater value”. And as mentioned, Sparx do offer a depth of resources and knowledge that is of great value to a BA.

But that last sentence is also a bit of a concern…”our engagements are not exclusive” and “we … will continue to foster similar alliances of collaboration with other associations and organizations.” IREB, BCS and BRMI are all “associations, or organizations”, but how does Sparx fit in there?

Personally, I feel that the IIBA does have our best interests at heart…But the concerns that I mentioned above are also bothering me.

concernedpose

Unfortunately, I’m unable to predict, with any certainty, what is going to happen here…so I‘m just going to wait and see. (IIBA – we are all watching.)

What about you? What are your thoughts? Do you think that the IIBA’s alliance with vendors is one that we should be concerned about? Let me know in the comments below.

Related Links

The IIBA is teaming up…what does this mean to you?

Posted on by
Reply

war army

IIBA (International Institute of Business Analysis) has announced a strategic alliance with four leading, global organizations. 

The four leading, global, organisations are:

  • BCS The Chartered Institute for IT,
  • BRM Institute,
  • IREB, and
  • Sparx Systems Pty Ltd.

In my opinion this is a great thing. Each of these organisations offer real value. Often in ways that the IIBA can’t.

Map Makers

Let’s face it, IIBA does not pretend to be an expert in any one specific field. The IIBA (according to themselves) assists business analysts by defining standards for business analysis, identify the skills necessary to be effective in the business analyst role and recognise BA competency through their CCBA and CBAP certification.  In fact, in an earlier post I mentioned that “the BABOK was merely providing an extremely good high-level map of the BA world. One with signposts to areas that needed further exploring.”

Members of the Alliance

So what value do the parties of this alliance have to offer? Let’s have a look…

BCS

BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT, promotes good working practices, codes of conduct, skills frameworks and common standards. (In that respect, they are similar to the IIBA).

They provide rich, detailed, guidance, and certifications, for specific areas relating to Business Analysis. I have always been impressed with their in-depth material. In fact, one of the most valuable books that I have in my BA bookcase, is “Business Analysis Techniques”, it’s my go-to book when I want to understand specific BA techniques

I see the BCS as definitely complementing what the IIBA offers. (Check out their website, the qualifications, and certifications that they offer, and their list of excellent books).

BRM Institute

The Business Relationship Management Institute advances the art and discipline of BRM. They offer training and varying degrees of certification in BRM. They also have their own BOK, the BRM Body of Knowledge. 

Having the BRMI in a partnership with the IIBA is definitely a winner. It will definitely strengthen the discipline of Business Analysis.

You can read more about the BRM Institute on their website.

IREB

The International Requirements Engineering Board provides training and certification in the field of Requirements Engineering (naturally). Their certification is the Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering (CPRE), and is made up of three levels – Foundation, Advanced, Expert. (The Expert level is in the planning stages – so really it’s only two levels).  The IREB publish an excellent (free) quarterly magazine – Requirements Engineering. 

The IREB focuses in depth on software specific requirement elicitation, requirements documentation, requirements analysis, requirements modeling and requirements management. This will definitely be of value to a complete BA offering.

IREB’s website: https://www.ireb.org/en. Click here also to see an interesting comparison of the IIBA and IREB offering (from 2014).

Sparx Systems

Sparx Systems specialise in visual modelling tools. Their product Enterprise Architect is an exceptional tool for full life cycle modeling. It has a user base of over 350,000, and is used across the globe. Added to that Sparx offer a wealth of information including white papers, tutorials, e-books, etc.

Having Sparx Systems as a member of this alliance makes sense. Sparx Systems have very good credentials, and can offer a lot. 

The Whole is Greater than the Sum the Parts

Each member of the Alliance brings something valuable to the BA discipline. The IIBA is very broad in what it offers, but not necessarily deep. The other partners all contribute something that bolsters out that depth. It is a very sensible alliance and one that I am excited about.

Another possibility…

As you might be aware, dear reader, recently there has been a new threat  to the IIBA’s seat of power. The Project Management Institute (PMI) has developed it’s own Business Analysis certification. A lot of analysis has been performed on the validity of this threat.

Watermark Learning made some very interesting observations in a blog post. The PMI’s perspective of a BA is is that the business analysts support the efforts of the program and project manager. The IIBA perspective is that business analysts support the organization. Which does the organization need?

So … it is also possible that this alliance came about as a way for the IIBA to fend off this new threat, 

I’m curious what you think …

Other Links

  • Announcement by IIBA
  • Announcement by BRMI
  • Announcement by BCS

Why are the CBAP exam questions so friggin tricky?

Posted on by
Reply

hell

“Aargghhh!!” I hear as several Accelerated CBAP course participants tackle some sample CBAP questions. “Why are these questions worded so confusingly?”

I glance over my spectacles, and smile. I was asking the same questions not too long ago. It seems that it’s all because of some guy called Bloom.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Mr Bloom, once upon a time, worked out that you could classify learning objectives as being cognitive, affective or psychomotor. And he created a taxonomy – which is just another way of saying “grouping”.
(You can read more about the Bloom’s Taxonomy here.)

Exam creators (and this includes the IIBA), the world around, love to use Mr Blooms taxonomy when they devise exam questions. They especially like using the “cognitive” grouping, which contains six different levels…

Cognitive Levels

1. Knowledge – these are pretty straight-forward questions. Simple beasts, they have only one goal – to test your ability to know specific facts and recall information that you have learned.

E.g.: Which type of requirement typically describes high-level organizational needs?
 A. Business
 B. Stakeholder
 C. Functional
 D. Transition

Caution: Even though these appear relatively harmless, it does require coordinated use of a variety of neural structures.

2. Comprehension – These questions want to check how good you are at understanding facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, and interpreting

E.g.: What type of requirements contains the environmental conditions of the solution?
A. Transition requirements
B. Stakeholder requirements
C. Business requirements
D. Solution requirements

Caution: the same as for the Knowledge questions.

3. Application – questions of this nature want you to use your knowledge to solve problems.

E,g.: Transition requirements are typically prepared after which requirements document is completed?
A. Solution requirements
B. Stakeholder requirements
C. Business requirements
D. System requirements

Caution: These can sometimes mistaken for the slightly less harmless “knowledge question”. However, stay alert, and don’t be fooled.

4. Analysis – these beauties want you to recognize patterns and seek hidden meanings in the information you are provided.

E.g.: To capture the process of provisioning a circuit, the business analyst observed an ordering supervisor for half a day. The resulting information could then be incorporated into all of the following types of requirements EXCEPT:
A. Transition requirements
B. Solution requirements
C. Stakeholder requirements
D. Functional requirements

Caution: these can be tricky little buggers. Make sure you read these questions carefully. They can sometimes throw you by including NOT or EXCEPT, as in the example above.

5. Synthesis – although sounding impressive, the synthesis question just wants to see if you can relate facts, and draw conclusions.

E.g.: After reviewing the existing process to approve a new cell phone order, Ginger realized that the senior manager is not always available to manually approve the purchase. She documented the capabilities that facilitate a faster ordering approval process relative to the existing situation. She felt that the existing process was inefficient and that it needed to be changed. What would be an appropriate way for Ginger to express the cause of the current cell phone ordering delays?
A. Blame the manual process for the inefficiencies
B. State all of the facts in a neutral manner
C. Express opinions on how to fix the process
D. Insist that approvers adhere to strict deadlines

Caution: These nasty little things like to confuse you by adding throwing lots of information at you which actually isn’t relevant. Don’t let this scare you, or distract you. Take a deep breath and focus…

6. Evaluation – A slightly less aggressive question, these expect you to make judgements about the value of ideas or materials.

E.g.: To document why your project was initiated, it is appropriate to include the:
A. Business case
B. Project mandate
C. Solution approach
D. Business goals

Caution: As with the other questions. Approach these carefully. No sudden movements (or guesses).

Other Types of Questions

Yaaqub Mohammed (Yamo), in his book “The Ultimate CBAP-CCBA Study Guide“,  describes other types of questions:

  • Main idea questions: that test your knowledge and comprehension skills – what is the main use of . . . how does this function?
  • Inference questions: that test your ability to synthesize and evaluate scenarios – which of the following or what can be inferred from the scenario?
  • Implication questions: these test your ability to evaluate case scenarios or real world situations – what is implied by the following scenario?
  • Best-fit questions: that test your knowledge of business analysis and require evaluation and application – which method would be best to apply in such a situation?

Specific Question Types

Yamo goes further to list several specific question types:

Question Type Description
Activities contributing to a KA Descriptions of various tasks or activities in the tasks to identify a knowledge area.
Task Application Scenarios Real-world scenarios for how a task could be applied.
Outputs of Tasks Either direct description or an indirect mention of the output of a task.
Inputs of Tasks Usage of inputs referred with the names as-is or description of the inputs.
Stakeholders Involved/Invited Scenarios to identify which stakeholder need to be involved or is involved.
Role of a Stakeholder What is the role of the stakeholder in a given activity as applicable to a given task?
Purpose of a Task Why is a given task performed?
Outside of BABOK / General Knowledge General knowledge that you are expected to know as a business analyst. (These include Maslow, Tuckman’s model of group development, Motivation Theory, etc)
Real-World Application Scenarios Application scenarios where a real project scenario will be illustrated and a question from any aspect of the task or KA couldbe asked.
Techniques Usage Consideration Implied from the “Usage considerations” of a technique.
Techniques–Best Technique For Best technique for a given scenario (with indirect reference to a task).
Techniques–Elements Key considerations for a technique. Implied from the “Elements” section of a technique.
Requirements Attributes-Related Questions related to broadly used requirements attributes.
Skills Recognition in Underlying Competencies Scenarios or examples given to identify which competency a BA is exhibiting or is lacking.
Definition / Glossary Direct or indirect reference to definitions of terms in the glossary.
Requirements State Questions related to state of requirements.
Techniques in Tasks Which techniques would be used – direct or indirect through a real- world scenario with indirect mention of the task.
Exclusion type questions Usually a misleading question if not read carefully and often characterized by NOT identifying the negative of what is being described in the question.
The Next Step What should happen next in analysis – could be answered by applying experience and using the inputs/outputs that flow between tasks.
Knowledge Analysis
– Tricky questions,
– Confusing / misleading answer choices 		Questions requiring careful reading .and analysis of the facts to arrive at the correct answer; Misleading answer choices or closely worded answer choices
Elements of Task Question related to key facets of a task directly asked or indirectly by the use of a real world scenario.

So…now you know…that’s why the CBAP questions are so friggin tricky.

ME

Many thanks to Yamo and tothe “CBAP/CCBA Certified Business Analysis
Study Guide” (for the question examples used above).

Related articles
  • 5 unfortunate misunderstandings that almost all educators have about Bloom’s Taxonomy.
  • 10 memes just for business analysts

What is your idea of what a BOK is?

Posted on by
Reply

Magic_Scrolls

After my last post, a lengthy discussion started in LinkedIn regarding what the BABOK is.

One commenter – Magnus Stensson – posted a superb comment…

I think there are, roughly speaking, three different groups of interpreters when it comes to BOK’s, be it BABOK, PMBOK, etc.

1. Those who see them for what they are. A collection of current best practices, tools, tips, methods, vocabulary, etc.. grouped into somewhat logical sections called knowledge areas. The reader can get tips and inspiration while choosing how to apply the information in there to suit the environment they are working in. This group has the best use of the BOK as they adapt it to reality and use it to enhance their knowledge and practical ability in the area.

2. Those who, because it is not prescriptive and describes everything in a How to manner, see it as fluffy, too theoretical and incomprehensible, and thus unusable. They are the ones who grumble about it being too theoretical and not useable in the real world.

3. The BOK evangelists who see it as the bible of all things in the area, They seek to apply all knowledge areas and techniques to all projects regardless of scope, creating massive documentation and inefficiency. Everything is referred to against the BOK. “We must do transition requirements as the BOK says so”. “we need these models because BABOk says so”,.. etc. (unfortunately I’ve worked with these people….) . This group refuses to adapt the BOK to suit the situation and end up destroying its reputation because their co-workers, who haven’t read it, see it as a theoretical source of impracticality.

He summed it up nicely.

Further to that, his parting shot was…

The views in discussions like this one reflect which group people subscribe to.. 🙂

BABOK is all well and good – but in the "real world"…?

Posted on by
6

Skilled warrior

This post has been updated to include further detail on the way the BABOK presents information.

One of the main comments I heard today, at an Accelerated CBAP course, was “this is all fine, but in the real world things are different“.

The message was that what IIBA’s Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (BABOK) presented with regards Knowlegde Areas (KAs), and Tasks, didn’t actually align with what happened in projects.

Continue reading →

CBAP – I made it, but it's not the destination that I thought it was

Posted on by
1

CBAP is not the final destination

 After a lifetime of progressive career moves, I started, two years ago, on a serious journey towards attaining CBAP certification from the International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA).

At the end of 2014 I sat and passed the exam.

It’s been an awesome adventure. There have been struggles and achievements. I’ve had to fight off ogres that wanted to prevent me reaching my goal. (Most of these were in my head). I have met many wonderful, eclectic, people along the way, and have been supported (both morally, and physically) by many heroes and heroines that have been there for me.

And I have learnt a lot. Studying the IIBA’s BABOK (Business Analysis Body of Knowledge), has allowed me to formalise the skills and knowledge that are invaluable for a Business Analyst.

And while I thought that achieving that right to vaunt that I had achieved CBAP status would be the pinnacle of my journey – the very goal that I was striving for, it turns out that it isn’t.

Everything described in the BABOK was, for me, enlightening. Every sentence written in this tome of knowledge is valuable. As I read, and re-read each paragraph, and viewed each diagram, I felt an enriching of my comprehension. As if my brain started working at new levels….

However, the more I read, the more I realised that the BABOK was merely providing an extremely good high-level map of the BA world. One with signposts to areas that needed further exploring.

CBAP isn’t my destination… 

IIBA CBAP … Merely a stop along the way

Competition in the BA Space – IIBA's concern with PMI's activities

Posted on by
Reply

threat

Just over a year ago I made the move to formalise my Business Analysis skills, and capabilities. To do this I turned to one of the globally recognised associations that support and promote the discipline of Business Analysis – the International Institute of Business Analysis (known as the IIBA).

The IIBA have been in existence since 2003, and have created the BABOK (Business Analysis Body of Knowledge). This incorporates current business analysis knowledge, into a framework with associated activities, tasks and techniques.

I have found the BABOK a wonderful tool. It has provided some structure and formality to BA activities that I have been undertaking for years (without knowing that they were BA activities.)

Alongside the IIBA, there exists BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT. BCS also offers BA certification. I have not been involved with BCS, but I believe that their offering is also very good. (I’m not going to get into a “this one is better than that one” discussion here).

And a search on the Internet will return several offers for BA training and certification.

Now – there also exists an association for the professional Project Manager – the Project Manager institute, or PMI. This exists to provide best practices, and certifications for project managers. This is something that is worthy of a future blog post, but  from what I can see, Business Analysts and Project Managers have different focuses in projects. They are interchangeable.

Taking into account the alternatives to the IIBA, it surprised me when I received an email from the Acting President of the IIBA stating that the PMI were planning on introducing a certification for business analysis within a project environment, and that the IIBA “do not take PMI’s entry into this market lightly“.

(You can read the email here).

I do not think that the PMI’s offering is going to be a threat.

Useful Links

  • Business Analyst Certifications: IIBA’s CBAP/CCBA or BCS Business Analyst Certification?
  • A comparison of BCS and IIBA Certifications [PDF]
  • Business Analyst Certification – Which Certification is Right for YOU?
  • BA Certification – ISEB or CCBA/CBAP?