You bring up a lot of interesting discussion points. I think it is a worthwhile discussion to have.
In general I believe there is value in a professional organization that attempts to help better define what a specific role is and what are the general activities that are involved in performing that role. Organizations want to know when they hire someone for a specific role that there is a mutual understanding of what the role entails and the general approach that the worker will perform to achieve the tasks of the role. Many other standard roles, from accountants to lawyers to project managers to nurses to teachers, have organizations that are in place to meet this demand.
The value of a document like the BABOK is that it helps define what it means to perform business analysis activities, whether you are working formally as a Business Analyst or not. It is not meant to be highly structured; one takes the knowledge areas and applies them to a methodology, which then defines the specific processes and tasks that a Business Analyst performs to achieve their target objective. Part of the challenge with writing such a document is that it must generalize both situations and techniques, which can make it sound vague or overly complex. I agree that there is still much room for improvement with the BABOK, but for me it is a step in the right direction. I have worked with collections of individuals who interact with Business Analysts (executives, recruiters/business development staff, IT architects, etc.) and walked through the BABOK with them to help them get a better understanding of what the profession is all about. We identified many areas that did not seem necessarily appropriate or applicable in many cases, and there was a lot of confusion and questions. But by the end of the process they all had a better understanding of how to leverage Business Analysts in their organizations.
With respect to some of your specific comments:
1) Most bodies of knowledge are developed by an organization that represents the community of practitioners, whether that authority is granted to them by a government or through simply filling the void of an absence of standards. While most organizations have an open process for soliciting and gathering feedback when developing their standards, they can be controversial or seen as incorrect by the community once published. Potential changes can be met with hostility and lead to questioning of how open the process really is. Just look at the row over the process of updating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - a very important body of knowledge that not all practitioners agree with either the current or potential revised conclusions.
2) Decision analysis is quite commonly used in determining whether or not to proceed with physical development projects (plants, bridges, etc.). I have not seen it used in software projects but that does not mean it is not a valuable business analysis tool and it could be used in IT with the proper training and knowledge. The purpose of the BABOK is to support business analysis in all domains, not just IT. While version 2 is very rooted in IT (one of my main criticisms of the document), it did start taking the steps into general business analysis and this is one example.
3) The BABOK development process is fairly open – they had a call out members who wanted to be part of the core team to develop version 3 back in 2010, and more recent call for writers and reviewers of version 3 this past year (opportunity closed in early June). The IIBA is a volunteer-driven organization that needs the community to participate in developing the standards. Like any professional non-profit organization there is a need for a self-sustaining business model, thus the costs of membership, certifications, etc. Certifications are a debate in of themselves but overall the cost of access to a fairly good list of resources they provide for their base membership fee is fairly minimal.
As has been mentioned many times the IIBA and the BABOK are very young in their lifecycle. I anticipate they will continue to evolve and mature as more individuals can bring their knowledge into the process of defining a collective wisdom. To me versioning the body of knowledge is a standard practice in these types of documents (see the PMBOK, the DSM for mental disorders mentioned above and any number of the accounting standards out there) and demonstrates that the documented guide to applying business analysis will continue to change over time. I think the rate of change in the BABOK will slow over time as the profession matures - the PMBOK was last updated 4 years ago and there were 4 years in between the 3rd and 4th editions.
I think it’s a great idea for you to gather your specific criticisms and share them. What’s even more productive is to get involved and share your ideas with those that are working on improving our common tools. I would recommend you look to bring your specific BABOK comments in front of the BABOK development team. I believe Kevin Brennan is heading up the development of version 3 and led the development of version 2. Contact him and share your thoughts. If you want a more group participative process, post your thoughts on the IIBA forums as well as here so IIBA staff/volunteers also get your feedback. The IIBA LinkedIn group would also be another good venue for discussion. There will also be a public review process for version 3 which I would encourage you to take part in.
I decided to join our local chapter’s board of directors for this coming year so I can do my part to help other BAs get better at what they do through education and professional development. Part of that will be taking any feedback I get on the BABOK and passing it along to the IIBA.