Business Analyst Community & Resources | Modern Analyst

Business Analysis in the Age of AI

Pulkit Singhal — Fri, 01 May 2026 19:24:00 GMT

Business analysis work has become faster and more efficient over the past few years. Requirements are documented more quickly, discussions are summarized sooner, and solution options are produced earlier in the delivery cycle than ever before. Yet many Agile and product teams are discovering an unexpected truth: as delivery accelerates, the importance of human judgment increases rather than diminishes.

The central question facing business analysts today is no longer whether tools and automation belong in analysis work, but where judgment must take precedence. That distinction matters because the most serious failures in delivery rarely come from obvious mistakes. They emerge from reasonable decisions that appear correct at the time and gradually move teams off course.

Where Acceleration Helps and Where It Falls Short

Modern analysis practices are excellent at speeding up work that is inherently mechanical:

Converting discussions into draft requirements
Identifying patterns across large volumes of data
Refining user story language
Summarizing customer or stakeholder feedback

When used well, this removes low‑value effort from the analyst’s workload. When relied upon uncritically, it creates the illusion of progress.

The challenge is not poor quality output. The real risk lies in outputs that are clear, structured, and confident enough to pass surface review, while subtly reinforcing incorrect assumptions. This is where judgment becomes decisive.

Judgment Gap #1: Determining Whether a Requirement Is Worth Building

Clear and complete requirements do not guarantee meaningful outcomes.

In day‑to‑day delivery, analysts encounter familiar patterns:

A requirement addresses a visible symptom rather than the underlying problem
Stakeholders agree on wording but diverge on expected results
A feature meets acceptance criteria yet produces no behavioral change

Experienced analysts pause to ask questions that artifacts alone cannot answer:

What decision or behavior is supposed to change as a result of this work?
If this is delivered perfectly and nothing improves, what are we missing?

Strong analysis is not just about expressing requirements well, but about challenging their intent.

Judgment Gap #2: Interpreting Context That Never Appears in Documentation

Business environments contain layers of context that rarely make it into requirements or datasets:

Organizational dynamics and power structures
Regulatory concerns driving risk‑averse behavior
Legacy failures that shape stakeholder trust
Competing incentives across teams

Analysts recognize these signals not because they are documented, but because they have seen the downstream effects:

Solutions that are functionally correct but poorly adopted
Processes that are bypassed in practice
Reports and dashboards that exist but are ignored

Judgment here is not guesswork. It is pattern recognition developed through exposure to real consequences.

Judgment Gap #3: Recognizing When Clarity Creates False Confidence

Early clarity is often welcomed as momentum. Detailed backlogs, well‑defined flows, and polished models can make teams feel aligned and confident.

Seasoned analysts remain cautious.

They ask whether clarity is reducing uncertainty—or simply hiding it:

Are assumptions being locked in too early?
What would invalidate this design once it is tested?
Are open questions being resolved, or quietly deferred?

Sometimes the most responsible decision is to leave things deliberately unresolved, even when tools and processes encourage premature finalization.

What This Means for Business Analysts

As delivery mechanics become faster, the value of business analysis shifts away from producing artifacts and toward exercising judgment:

Framing the right problems
Interpreting conflicting signals
Evaluating consequences under uncertainty
Challenging assumptions before they harden

These capabilities are not procedural skills. They are developed through experience, reflection, and exposure to real outcomes especially failure.

Closing Thoughts

Modern tools and practices have made business analysis more efficient, but efficiency does not replace responsibility. The most effective analysts are not those who produce the most artifacts in the shortest time. They are the ones who know when clarity is helpful, when it is premature, and when the best contribution is to pause and ask a different question altogether.

That work remains deeply human and central to successful delivery.

Top 10 Mistakes in Requirements Elicitation

Trividh Patel, CBAP — Tue, 27 Apr 2021 05:47:00 GMT

Elicitation involves bringing out or drawing out information. Elicitation is a key task in business analysis as without proper elicitation the requirements for the solution to the business needs cannot be identified.

1. Not understanding underlying business need

Organization’s business environment keeps changing with respect to Customers, Marketplace, Technology and Marketing function. It is these changes in business environment that leads to identification of business needs at the strategic level in terms of problem or opportunity faced by the organization.

Defining business needs is the most important step in business analysis. Without understanding and defining underlying business needs, it would not be possible to identify all affected stakeholders and elicit appropriate requirements.

2. Not identifying all affected stakeholders

It is important to identify all the stakeholders affected by the given business need. If any stakeholder is identified late (or worst not at all!) may lead to incomplete set of requirements and could require a revision to requirements increasing project cost and time.

3. Treating elicitation as a phase

I have found many Business Analysts consider elicitation as a phase after planning (and before requirements analysis). But this is not true. If you think little more deeply, information gets elicited whenever we interact with stakeholders such as sponsor, domain subject matter experts (SMEs), implementation SMEs, users etc.

Elicitation is performed to understand the current state and elicit business requirements. Business requirements are used when eliciting stakeholder, solution and transition requirements. During requirements analysis, we may identify gaps which would require further elicitation. Information is also elicited from the stakeholders about solution performance after implementation of a new solution.

So elicitation is performed on an ongoing basis as long as business analysis work is performed.

4. Not asking probing questions to elicit requirements

Many novice Business Analysts assume stakeholders can proactively provide all the detailed information required for the business analysis work. Such a passive approach can be called requirement gathering but not an elicitation. Such an approach can only lead to identification of shallow requirements.

It is the job of the Business Analyst to extract or draw out the detailed requirements from the minds of the stakeholders. Business Analyst need to ask probing questions to elicit detailed requirements.

5. Not setting stakeholder’s expectations

In your career as a Business Analyst, at times you would find some stakeholder who would state their wants (whims and wishes!) as if they are their needs and expect them to be in the solution. You may find their expectations not only difficult but impossible. If you capture their wants as requirements it would be difficult later on to deliver to their expectations.

With your interpersonal and negotiation skills you need to communicate and set the right expectations.

6. Not using combination of complementary elicitation techniques

I have seen many Business Analysis teams often rely only on one technique such as interviews for elicitation. While interviews is the most effective elicitation technique but its effectiveness depends on the skills of the Business Analyst such as business domain knowledge and ability to ask probing questions.

So, apart from interviews, a Business Analyst should have knowledge of other commonly used fundamental requirements elicitation techniques such as Document Analysis, Observation and Prototyping. While a senior Business Analyst should have knowledge of advanced elicitation techniques such as Brainstorming, Focus Groups, Requirements Workshops and Surveys.

A Business Analyst should be able to understand the given situation and use combination of complementary elicitation techniques.

7. Not eliciting assumptions and constraints

Requirements are often stated (knowingly or unknowingly) based on certain assumptions which are believed to be true at that time. Requirements get impacted if those assumptions are later found to be false.

Constraints are limitations or restrictions (such as regulatory restrictions, budgetary restrictions, time restrictions etc) that restrict potential solutions to requirements. Identified potential solutions may change if there are any changes in the constraints.

If underlying assumptions and constraints are not captured for requirements, it would be difficult to assess impact on requirements if certain assumptions are later found to be false and/ or on potential solutions if constraints are changed.

8. No plan to elicit requirement iteratively

In order to elicit requirements, a Business Analyst contacts a stakeholder and requests their time. Many Business Analysts do not plan to elicit requirements iteratively and assume that stakeholders will provide all the information required for the business analysis work.

However, most of times, stakeholders are not aware why they are being contacted. After their initial meetings, stakeholder will have some idea what is expected out of him/ her. In the subsequent meetings, stakeholder is likely to give bit more detailed information. So, in order to elicit detailed information, Business Analyst needs to plan to elicit requirement iteratively.

9. Not confirming the elicited information

Work of elicitation is not over once Business Analyst is done talking to stakeholders. Business Analyst has to organize the elicited information and send it to the stakeholders for review. The purpose is to check if discussion has been properly documented and confirm the elicited information.

10. Not collaborating with stakeholders to have common understanding of requirements

When the elicited requirements are shared with stakeholders, there can be difference of opinions and conflicts between stakeholders. A Business Analyst has to collaborate, mediate and resolve conflict between stakeholders to reach a common understanding of requirements. Business Analyst should identify the stakeholder’s problems and help to identify solutions to satisfy those problems.

About Author - Trividh Patel, CBAP

Trividh Patel has about 20 years of experience in Business Analysis and Consulting in IT services industry.

Currently, he is working as Facilitator and Mentor - Business Analysis providing self-paced online courses in Business Analysis. Previously, he has worked for leading IT Services companies as Business Architect, Lead/ Sr. Business Analyst, and as IT Project Manager. He has executed several business analysis projects for reputed organizations from USA, UK, Europe, Middle East, Japan and India. He has good track record of leading team of Business Analysts to deliver business analysis projects.

Trividh Patel has done MBA in Systems and Bachelor of Engineering from University of Mumbai (India) and is Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP) by International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), Canada since March 2012. He is also Certified Six Sigma Black Belt.

For Consulting, Coaching or Guidance on IIBA Certification (or just to connect!), Trividh Patel can be reached on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/trividhpatel-cbap

Product Evaluation Framework for a BA

Ashish Adike — Tue, 20 Oct 2020 22:36:00 GMT

As a Business Analyst, very often we get into a situation where the Project requires multiple IT Products to be evaluated before implementation and might seek Business Analyst’s recommendation for the same. With the ever-growing range of Products in the market and the marketing promotions associated with some of the products, it’s very easy to choose the Product with most features or the most famous one. While there are various benchmarking softwares that measure the IT products from a technical performance perspective, as a Business Analyst, it is our responsibility to make sure that the right product is chosen as we are the ones who know the Business Processes closely and at the same time are equipped to understand the features of a Product that would be well suited to address the Business Requirements. While a Business Analyst may not be the final decision maker, the BA’s analysis definitely impacts the decision-making process. A structured approach to analyze the available Products would help in choosing the best suitable IT product for the Business.

Features: It is recommended to choose a Product that has Features which meet most of the Business Requirements out of the box. Although it’s difficult to find a Product which would satisfy 100% of all the required features, it’s better to choose the one with as little customizations as possible. Customizations would often mean force fitting a Product for a Business Process and may have downstream impact in future. Also, it would involve high maintenance costs to maintain a highly customized Product. As a Business Analyst, we need to provide a Business Process vs Feature mapping for each of the IT Products in question, which would enable the Stake holders to choose the IT Product satisfying the most relevant and critical Business Processes.

User Experience: As a Business Analyst we generally work closely with the Business Users and can gauge the pulse of the Users. It is important that any IT Product chosen provides a good User Experience as it would drive the user adoption and hence the success of the Project. The Business Analyst needs to capitalize the demos provided by the respective IT Products to determine the User Experience levels. Also, many IT Products are available on a free trial version, which can be utilized to get a feel of the Product hands-on before actually implementing the same.

Support: Once an IT Product gets implemented and as the Business Users start adopting it, we see a lot of enhancement requests coming from the Business Users to improve the existing implementation. Also, there might be Bugs in the Product which got missed in the testing process but arise only when the users start using the Product. In order to resolve the issues and implement the enhancement requests, it is critical to have a good post implementation support from the respective IT Product Vendor.

Ease of access: The ease with which Users can access an IT product also plays a vital role in determining the right Product. A Product which can be accessed from any web browser (i.e. Cloud) would always rank better as compared to a desktop based (i.e. on premise). It would even be better if the Product can be accessed from a Mobile device. With the work-from-anywhere concept gaining prominence, the Cloud based, and Mobile enabled Products would see an upward trend in demand.

Product Roadmap: It is important to consider the roadmap the IT Product has planned for implementing various out of box features as that would help us in planning our implementation and make decision on the level of customization that needs to be done during the initial release. The IT Product with promising features suitable to the Business Requirements needs to be given a higher priority as compared to that without a suitable Roadmap.

Although the cost and performance of the IT Product might be considered by the Management, a careful analysis of the IT products with respect to above listed parameters would help the Stake Holders in choosing the right IT Product for long term.

About the Author:

Ashish Adike is a seasoned Business Analyst with more than 8 years of experience in Business Process Analysis, Requirements gathering, Consulting, Solutioning and Project Management. Experienced in working with multiple Business functions – Sales, Marketing, Finance, Operations. Strong research professional with a PGDM focused in Sales and Marketing from Indian Institute of Management, Indore. Awarded team player with excellent learning and adaptability skills.

Are You Being a Design Illusionist?

Paul Crosby — Wed, 07 Sep 2016 14:31:00 GMT

As business analysts, we are often in the fray of designing. Whether it’s a user interface, report or data fed from one system to another; business analysts create interfaces with human beings and systems. Our design choices impact users and other systems in a very real way. This power can go unnoticed even in our own minds.

Have business analysts become illusionists and pickpockets? Both these skill sets require some of the same sleights of hand. The illusionist uses the blind spots and limits of human vision to fool us. If you haven’t had an opportunity to watch the show called “Brain Games” – give it a whirl. It does an excellent job of explaining how an illusionist can fool our sight and point of view. For the pickpocket, it’s the distraction of a conversation, a tap, or a bump to set your mind off in the opposite direction of where you should be focusing while a sleight of hand takes your wallet.

Are we as business analysts playing a role of illusionist and pickpocket when designing our interfaces? Let’s look at interfaces (such as screens and reports) in a broader sense. An interface in my mind is the presentation or “stage” an illusionist would use.

We all believe we have choices and freedom. Everyone in the western world most firmly believes they have great freedom of choice in being able to do whatever is desirable, affordable and of course legal. You can go just anywhere and do just about anything. But when confronted with a system, website or application with a menu of choices, we fail to see how we are hijacked.

We rarely ask the questions:

(1) What is NOT in the interface? Or why are these my only choices?

(2) What is the purpose or goal of this interface? What is it used for?

(3) Why are these options higher or lower on the interface? More visible or less visible as other choices?

(4) Are these choice empowering me or just distracting me from doing what I need to accomplish?

If you have every used a search engine like Google or an application like Yelp, you get a sense choices are made for you and only certain things are being presented for your attention. I have been told the nearest restaurant or gas station is several miles away – all the while standing right in front of one! I usually chalk it up to “well they must not have gotten into the database yet” but now I’m leaning more to thinking I’m being fooled by the choices I’m presented.

Back in the ancient days at the dawn of computerized civilization – something like 40 years ago for you youngsters – computers were called mainframes. Mammoth monsters that would manage large amounts of data, electricity and generate a lot of heat. They required a forklift to move and had to be water cooled.

In those ancient days of computer myths and data Gods, there was but the humble green screen. To get to all the crap stored in that giant mainframe required you to issue the magic commands. By locating the secret words in the sacred text called “Command Line Reference,” you could instruct the mainframe beast to perform feats of great wonder. In other words, there was a giant three-ring binder with all these commands listed in alphabetical order that you were required to memorize and type correctly. The mainframe didn’t tolerate spelling mistakes, and there was no such thing as auto correct. No Google-like “Is this what you mean?” ever appeared on the screen. Even the help key which was supposed to provide assistance rarely did. This was the world of complete freedom from “the menu”. All the commands were in the book and available and granted they didn’t cover everything you wanted to do, but they did cover a lot of stuff you needed to perform. Yes, you had to memorize a boat load of command line syntax because the mysterious book appeared and disappeared as it desired, but you never felt limited rather you just felt a need to search for the right command.

Enter the age of the personal computer. For simplicity, the command line went away. The mouse was born. There was nothing more entertaining than watching grown men in a room holding the mouse with both hands tightly but gently trying desperately to get that arrow moving in the right direction on the screen. “This mouse thing will never catch on” they grumbled. Suddenly the command line was gone, and menus or buttons presented to us. These were your options. Your only available commands. It didn’t take long before I missed my giant 3-ring binder of commands that gave me all the power.

Over time we became to believe that only the commands we could see were the ones of importance. We would become less and less frustrated at not seeing the things we needed. We are restrained by choices of actions presented. Our perception came to be that if it wasn't presented, it wasn't available.

So let’s take this into the modern smartphone age. The other night friends and I were out at a restaurant having a great conversation. The restaurant was closing because it wasn’t that busy and the owner wanted to call it a night. We asked each other the question “let’s continue this conversation – where should we go?”. We all pulled out our smartphones pulling up Google, Yelp, and the other thousand apps on our smartphones looking for a place that was open late. This searching went on for 15-minutes or so. Now I can be a bit impatient with technology and frankly don’t always find it of much help in situations like these. I quit my search letting the others wade their way through the digital data flowing around with smartphones. Then I looked up.

A beautiful park lay right before our eyes across the street, and we didn’t even see it. We believed our only options to find some place were those our smartphones provided. Did those applications tell us about the park? Not one. How about that food truck with the fabulous desserts? Nope. Not a single one. Our illusion of having choices was broken. Sure we got a lot of options, but it was all about the pictures of the menu or comments from other people that distracted us from answering the exact question “Where should we go to keep talking?”. The menu or interface design didn’t answer our actual question at all. It created the illusion of choice by presenting a small subset of options. All said and done the park was bug-free which is a miracle in Minnesota some evenings. Dessert and conversation continued for hours in the street lamp lit park.

As business analysts or designers, it is easy just to limit user choices to a few as possible to send them down a well-defined and perfectly groomed path. But does that answer their question? How many times have you wanted to say “Siri – lead the way to a great evening with my friends!”. The response from Siri is, “I’m sorry I don’t’ understand what you are asking”.

There are a thousand paths to getting or achieving something. No matter how hard you try to make it simple, it just winds up being even more complicated. Or worse the real thing you need is hidden somewhere because someone felt it wasn’t’ important enough to warrant a button. Some of the best interfaces look very simple on the front end and have a rich set of commands just slightly inside of the interface. As a business analyst and designer, we need to give our users or community a rich experience with our application. Are we the illusionist – forcing users down only one path? Our accounting system has several ways in which to generate an invoice. From a customer contact screen, main menu, sidebar and I’m sure more options remain hidden in the accounting interface. As I watched the finance, customer service, and sales people utilize the user interface with the simple task of generating an invoice, I noticed something important. Not everyone went about taking the same path.

Sales people always went to look at the customer inquiry screen first before generating an invoice. Individuals and their contact information were more important to them, and they would update it before moving on to creating an invoice. Customer service created invoices from the order screens as they were more focused on shipping products. Finance folks just clicked on the main menu option.

Know your users. They each have a story and a way of performing tasks that make sense to them. Think about their “persona” and what they need to accomplish. There is no single path to creating an invoice. Develop a list of capabilities and make sure they are not “hidden” from view. If it all doesn’t fit on a screen, find ways to expand the options for display when requested. Don’t fear including two buttons “Create Invoice” and “Add Invoice” which go to the same screen if it makes more sense to a broader audience of users. It is more about clarity for your users then consistency in terms.

What has a dinner in the park taught me? Smartphones are not as smart as we think they are. Everyone thinks they have choices, but don’t always see the most obvious choice because the choice is not presented in a way the user would understand. Question the choices presented and determine if they are the only choices.

Yes, I still miss my green screen terminal. CMD-1 key forever will mean “useless” help, and a blinking green bar on a black screen will always be a symbol of the endless possibilities to mistype ridiculously long string of text that doesn't make sense to anyone. And that huge 3-ring binder filled with commands-a-plenty works damn good propping the door open.

For more good stuff on business analysis and leadership, check out the blog at Bob the BA.

BABOK v2 - End-to-end data flow diagram analysis can highlight issues

Alan — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 01:20:00 GMT

As part of preparation to sit the IIBA CBAP exam, I wanted a one page summary of the overall BABOK flow. The first step of creating a summary matrix showing a derived master list of documents (e.g. Inputs + Outputs) versus the process that creates or uses it was interesting, but not entirely helpful.

By using the matrix to create an indicative data flow type diagram, that helped to better understand the overall end-to-end process documented in the BABOK.
Note: Clear stakeholder information was not available so a Business Process type Model was not possible.

The data flow type visualization technique is very useful:
1. It is an additional visual means of communicating complex information for people who struggle with understanding just text.
2. It quickly shows the flow of information between the various processes
3. The data flow diagramming conventions help to highlight issues. E.g. No clear sources or uses of specific deliverables, redundant and reverse flows etc.

This is also timely given the review of the Draft BABOK v3 material that has been requested and that closes on July 11th.