Do Business Analysts (BAs) Add Value?

I was recently invited to an informal debate between Project Managers (PMs) and Business Analysts (BAs) on the topic "Do BAs Add Value?". In a moment of clear rational thinking (i.e. lucidity under the influence of the mind-bending PMBOK 2007) I wrote the following short speech – its title is:

In theory, there is no difference between the theory and the practice. But, in practice, there is.

A use case is a description of a sequence of actions constituting a complete task or transaction in an application. Use cases were first proposed by Jacobson (1987) and have since been incorporated as one of the key modeling constructs in the UML(Booch, Jacobson, & Rumbaugh, 1999) and the Unified Software Development Process(Jacobson, Booch, & Rumbaugh, 1999).

If we trace the development of use cases, we can easily identify a number of problems with both their application and theoretical underpinnings.

From an application perspective, the use-case concept is marked by a high degree of variety in the level of abstraction versus implementation detail advocated by various authors.

In addition, use cases are promoted as a primary mechanism for identifying objects in an application, even though they focus on processes rather than objects. Moreover, there is an apparent inconsistency between the so-called naturalness of object models and the commonly held view that use cases should be the primary means of communicating and verifying requirements with users.

From a theoretical standpoint, the introduction of implementation issues in use cases can be seen as prematurely anchoring the analysis to particular implementation decisions. In addition, the fragmentation of objects across use cases creates conceptual difficulties in developing a comprehensive class diagram from a set of use cases. Moreover, the role of categorization in human thinking suggests that class diagrams may serve directly as a good mechanism for communicating and verifying application requirements with users.

We conclude that Use Case analysis is just complete hogwash.

SO, the major point I’m trying to make here is this:

BAs are in the business of acting as Translators –
turning Business speak into IT speak so that both worlds can sign off on a set of completely unambiguous Requirements Definitions.

The reality ladies and gentlemen is that BAs are failing badly - neither world understands the result.
USE CASE ANALYSIS as a tool is failing.

Maybe the business will recognize enough bits here & there to be seduced into sign off … maybe they are embarrassed & don’t want to admit that they actually don’t understand all this UML stuff that CIO magazine keeps talking about !!

So, seems to me that BA’s have invented another language - Unified Modeling Language (UML) - as the intermediary layer between the business & the techies. And excitingly, UML version 2.0 is now released !!

UML 2.0 – WOW!! – A MAJOR UPGRADE - so much better than previous versions !!

Honestly – I almost wet myself when I read about how the Infrastructural meta-metamodel was changing:
- Nested Classifiers
- Improved Behavioural Modelling
- Improved Relationship between Structural & Behavioural Models
- even Metadata to describe the Metadata !!

BAs have created an entire INDUSTRY for themselves to live inside & be protected by – and they have ALMOST created a technically credible illusion.

Well done I have to say, but in conclusion:

Do BA’s Add Value?

Well, in a criminal case the burden of proof must be “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” –
but lets not view BA’s as criminals …
so instead we should use civil case criteria, where the burden of proof is “on the balance of probabilities".

I have concluded, and you must as well –
that On The Balance Of Probabilities, BA’s certainly do NOT Absolutely Positively Add Value.