Thanks for posting this and allowing me an opportunity to expand on the Twitter dialog we had Saturday evening. There are some conversations that Twitter is hopeless medium for continuing, though obviously great at initiating!

The point I was trying to make in response to your original Tweet of the definition, without the benefit of the context here, is that part of business analysis is cultivating joint ownership of the approach or the solution. So to simply say "define" to me is a limitation. I can define solutions, but if I'm not gaining buy-in I'm delivering limited value as a business analyst. Although we may not always facilitate, we will need to gain alignment or buy-in on the capabilities if they are to create value for our organization.

With the context here, I see how my suggestion of "support the definition of" is limiting and inappropriate. However, I am not yet letting go of this concept of joint ownership and would like to understand if you see that as an element of business analysis or, possibly, part of a typical business analyst role, but outside of business analysis.

Thank you,
Laura

Firstly, no it's not new but it is getting worse (which is probably a good case for having the IIBA try to stop the rot). I blame the UMLs, Six Sigmas, Leans, BPMSs and other narrow minded paradigms that are overwhelming us. I'm getting pretty tired of having to justify the need for rigour coupled with an holistic viewpoint(s) and of so called BAs who think UML is great for business modelling.

Secondly, logical entity relationship diagramming has everything to do with business and (potentially) nothing to do with technology. Without a thorough understanding of the data being processed there's little hope of understanding the process. The world would be a much better place if all those Excel jockies and document designers actually understood data structures.

Thirdly, "The Perfect is the only way to get Good".

Last but not least, (while I'm on a roll) am I the only one who thinks the demise of the requirements management industry can't come a day too soon?

Cage rattling over.

I am a little surprised that my suggestion that the IIBA should focus on facilitating the improvement of the tools and techniques available to practicing Business Analysts should spark such disagreement. Perhaps the framing of a outline for a body of knowledge is a concrete step in that direction. I can grant it provided there is an agreement, and there seems to be, that the domain is in need of work. I should add that I don't think it is the only step – and I expect everyone is likely to agree.

I am also a little surprised that someone would object to being compared to Brad Pitt and, even more so, to a Brad Pitt that looks better and more vigorous as time moves on. Under this comparison, the future for Business Analysis looks pretty good.

I guess I am not so surprised that any negative inference touching upon the IIBA would be met with strenuous opposition from those directly involved in that organization. I did not intend the import to be an overly negative one – but rather more of a call from the parapit that the business analysts I encounter (known by that name or not), in projects from Sydney to Seattle and Moscow to Mumbai, desperately need some better tools.

I could continue with some point by point rebuttals but I get the sense that this would not be very fruitful. As is often the case, there are probably issues revolving around definitions that would need unearthing resolution and this is, as Business Analysts know well, is tough work.

As a parting comment, when I was researching the emergence of many of the better known "professions" of today (think medicine, the law, engineering…) back in my grad school days, one thing was almost always apparent: that state transitions from craft to practice to profession were often accompanied by periods of excessive defensiveness as boundaries were be drawn or re-drawn. I think we have seen some indication that business analysis is amid one of those transitions (and I would suggest that from craft to practice).

These transitions often take a great deal of time. The migration of Medicine from being a practice towards being what we would formally define as a profession has taken the better part of a 1,000 years. It is noteworthy that there was not one institution, or even type of institution, that facilitated this transition, just as the PMI is not the sole factor to be considered in the nascent professionalization of project management. So we can be confident that effort to professionalize Business Analysis will go on for some time and that many adventures lie ahead.

And behind my post still stands the declaration that the appearance of better tools and techiques, and the emergence of a recognized and respected practice and then profession for Business Analysts, will be an exceedingly good thing and that organizations around the world stand to benefit immensely with every step forward.

I will let that be my closing remark.

I have some further comments brewing and these will come in the not too distant future. I did want to say that the point made by Julian about my initial post – that "Cute-iosity is the Enemy Of Conversation" – also holds merit. I will try to ground the next pieces with a little less rhetoric (the problems with which are clear and their appearance in this discussion is entirely my fault).

@Kathy, I partially agree with you: I think he has a pretty good understanding of the BA, but his tone has distracted from his intended message.