Yes, I know.
As I found when we put version 1.6 out the door, there are issues with version 2 that we just won't have time to fix, or which it's too late to fix (because the impact it would have on other work underway is bigger than the benefit of the change). Looking back on my life in IT, this is a feeling I have every time I release something.
Yesterday I spent a little time pulling together a proposed outline for BABOK version 3. I won't post it up here because it's too early to be talking in public about this stuff. We might very well find after version 2 rolls out that these aren't the right changes to make in any case, based on the feedback we get.
With version 2 the BABOK shrunk from 60-odd tasks to 32. I think we can actually reduce that a little further, and I also think there may be one or two tasks that should be added. In addition, there's some tasks that should move between KAs.
Don't get me wrong, the changes I've identified so far are a lot smaller than the changes from 1.6 to 2. I could describe them all in a blog post, unlike the 1.6 changes which will take a 15-page document to address at even a high level. With the exception of a new task or two, these changes wouldn't affect the scope of the BABOK at all. They're mostly about reorganizing things a little to deal with some persistent issues we're encountering or misconceptions that are affecting people's ability to understand what the BABOK actually says.
Finally, yes, we are getting very close to being able to announce the release date.
Kevin Brennan, CBAP
VP, Body of Knowledge
6 comments:
Publish early, publish often.
Would you guys consider putting the BABOK up into a wiki and seeing what the IIBA members organise it into?
It could be an interesting way to begin the drafting process for version 3.
That's something we've talked about a lot. It's a possibility for developing new versions or establishing best practices, but not possible as the basis of an ISO compliant certification exam. My personal view is that we should do a wiki for this purpose - but it's not something we can do without some careful consideration and infrastructure to support it.
Wikis are a lot more challenging to use effectively than most people believe. The interesting thing about both wikis and open source projects is that in general there's a core team of organized people, either paid or volunteers, who do the vast majority of the work. It's also challenging to manage development of content on contentious issues on that kind of platform--I can easily see a BABOK wiki breaking under the weight of methodology wars. You'll note, for instance, that anything remotely controversial on Wikipedia tends to get locked down and only have controlled edits.
I think the simplest way to put it is that going through the review comments on version 2 has made it very clear that dumping it all into a wiki and letting people go at it would not produce a good result. As a profession we are still too young, still are developing a shared vocabulary, and simply don't agree on a lot of things.
People often read things into the text that aren't actually there because they assume a particular context, for example. The most common example is the assumption that when we say "requirement" and "solution" we're talking about software. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that a failure to communicate is necessarily the fault of the audience. When I see that it tells me that I need to fix something, but what I have to fix is not necessarily what the reviewer thinks needs fixing. (That's actually a familiar feeling--I ran across similar situations a lot as a BA).
That said, I certainly am not saying that we won't use a wiki in some capacity for version 3, or that there aren't OTHER things we could do that a wiki would be the perfect solution for. All I'm saying is that it's a tool, not a solution.
I am going to be giving a presentation at a project management/business analysis conference in Feb 09 regarding aligning project reporting requirements with organization's values. In my research I have downloaded the code of ethics from the Project Management Institute but I have not found any requirements or content for ethics and values at IIBA including the BABOK. Do you know of any official other content regarding ethics/values for BA's?
IIBA doesn't have one formally published yet - it's a matter of time and resources being allocated to developing the BABOK, supporting Chapters, etc.. If you are interested in helping us develop it, let us know.
Yes I would be interested in helping develop ethics standards.
Post a Comment