We techies think BA stands for Bullshit Artist or is statement of their knowledge level (Bugger All!)

The idea is interesting but I am going to try and take (what I believe) you are suggesting and try working through it here.

Typically I would classify a project management system (which may even already exist in SharePoint) to be a good place to data mine that sort of information from task lists if they are designed and maintained effectively. Especially if user profiles have previous projects up to date (which is a field in user profiles by default).

As an example: If I am given 50 tasks which are called “SIT Testing” then it could be assumed I have experience/skill with “SIT Testing”. So when we search for “SIT Testing” ‘by experience level’ it should return the person who has had the highest number of project tasks assigned based on the previous projects listed in their profile.

The gap I see with this methodology/idea and the IBIS mapping one is that the relevancy/usefulness depends completely on how accurate the data represents the culture, individuals, and search methodology being employed. I believe this would be a very difficult thing to measure, identify, and plan for in most environments where (as suggested in this article) titles, skills, culture and nomenclature/terminology is constantly changing.

Just some more food for thought on your idea.

In terms of what is suggested by miners, teachers, nurses, etc that brings up a really good point. I believe this is shifting the opposite direction over time. These roles are well identified as a result of fairly standardized schooling, and industries. However if we look at education especially right now it is on the cusp of dramatic change (my opinion) as the current methodologies, processes, and scholarly institutions change the way they teach people. If we think about how fast technical information is growing (which aside from soft skills is the bread and butter of education) the current way in which we teach (over years in an immersed educational culture) will not be as effective as shorter, faster, and more selective training/knowledge building over time. What kind of impact will this have on standardized education (and subsequently standardized industries and standardized titles)?

Next let’s make an assumption that over time more and more individuals will share more and more information creating a whole different style of learning which is self motivated and self evaluated (social driven learning). Further enforced by a growing number of people ‘hiring their bosses’ not having their bosses hire them (again my opinion of the future hiring process – LinkedIn is a good starting point for this?).

The simple fact so many more people shift jobs/positions now than previously also adds greater complication. Since my ‘title’ might change multiple times it may also effect things like searching, and relevancy.

All really interesting starting points for further discussion, analysis and thought. I appreciate your feedback and will have to think about all of this a bit more to try and work it out in my own mind.
Richard Harbridge

But I also suspect (and happy to be proven otherwise), that for some roles this is not a problem. Teachers and nurses is an obvious example, but also when I worked in mining, you had geologists, senior geologists, project geologists and exploration managers. That was the career progression for that particular vocation.

So maybe, like there is tame or “technical” problems compared to wicked problems, there might be a similar type of parallel that can be drawn to roles.

In terms of skills, what about this scenario? (I’ve been thinking about this too). Imagine that all IBIS maps are stored in SharePoint or somehow available via BDC or custom code to search. Imagine then being able to populate the user profile store, based on what topics or projects that you participated in. For example, if a particular person supplies a lot of idea (or answer) nodes, to a map (which is classified by metadata), that might indicate some skill or experience with the project or topic. That information should be stored in user profile and surfaced via people search.

Thanks for your comments – much appreciated

I have to say I use the title Business Analyst with my role at companies quite a bit and agree that many take different interpretations as to what the responsibility and roles a BA should play.

I think this touches on a much larger, wider, and bigger (wicked?) problem that becomes more and more apparent the more global and broader organizations and individuals become. That is that roles, titles, and even functional areas/departments are never very clear.

If you want some examples just imagine how many different titles an individual can have working with SharePoint. Now consider that each of these roles most likely has multiple names/titles available. Now take that one step further and think of the cultural and language complications of creating even more roles/perceptions of responsibility for those roles and subsequent titles.

What we end up with is large corporate structures where we have to have hundreds of ‘relationships’ defined where one role relates to another in order for people to find the desired individual with the desired role. (Example: When I perform a people search at many international companies I might get seven different titles with the word Analyst, when I am really looking for an Architect.) Then there is the complication of the individuals experience with set roles, and the expectations they build for themselves around that role.

Hence I think the solution (which the world seems to be moving towards) is not a focus on the role, but instead a focus on the skill sets of a role (or title). This results in some of the same issues: Requirements Gathering, Requirements Analysis, Requirements Definition, Solution Specification, Requirements Translation, etc. However since listing and keeping track of a skill set is in the domain and control of an individual (in almost all companies today) they can list ALL of those as skills they possess and get around many of the issues listed.

The problem then (in my honest and humble opinion) is that the business ‘owns’ the title and since this is related (often, but not always) to pay rate and perceptions (as documented above) it cannot be moved to the individual. Skills however aren’t seen this way.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this or talk with you more about it as I think it would make a very interesting and good discussion as to where we are moving as a society, economy, businesses, and people (most people feel their title represents who they are quite a bit).

Self Titled Business Analyst with varied skills,
Richard Harbridge

So even though I hear so many job titles bandied about whether functional analyst, solution architect or even technology analyst they all in my book amount to the samething. Someone who can determine what the business want, and then translate that into something which can be delivered. And in Agile this is an even more important trait to have than even on a waterfall project.

Regards

Susan de Sousa
Site Editor http://www.my-project-management-expert.com

Excellent post. An advantage of working in a small dev shop (as I do at the moment) is that developers are generally required to do all the things that BAs do, and more. Developers who’ve worked in larger organisations may find this a bit unusual (and challenging) at first, but soon start to enjoy interacting with users.

On a related note, formal interactions with end-users (such as requirements analysis sessions) offer a great opportunity to learn/practice dialogue mapping. Most folks understand the notation right away, and begin to see the benefits as the discussion progresses and the map starts to take shape.

Thanks for the shout out and some very kind words!

Regards,

Kailash.