1 Introduction to the study
3.3 The development of the conceptual model
The research aim, questions and objectives
The aim of this study is to improve the clarity of the business analyst role by conducting empirical research into business analysis and developing a service framework for the business analysis discipline. The research question defined for this study is:
‘What are the services, work practices and value propositions offered by business analysis within the context of IS projects?’.
The following sub-questions provide clarification of each element of the research question:
• What are the services offered by business analysts and what activities do they perform when providing these services?
• How do business analysts conduct business analysis work? • Why is business analysis relevant and useful to IS projects?
Conceptual framework continuum
LoosedefinitionTight definition • Highly emergent • Time-consuming • Experienced researcher • Clear structure • Time-efficient
The following objectives have been defined to address the research question and sub- questions, and clarify the outputs to be delivered by this study:
• RO1. The role (what is done): identify a set of clear, distinct services that business analyst practitioners provide to their organisations and list the activities that
business analyst practitioners undertake in order to offer these services. • RO2. The work practices (how business analysis is conducted): construct a
taxonomy of the standard techniques, models and skills that should be used to perform the business analysis activities effectively.
• RO3. The rationale (why business analysis is required): provide a clear and accessible definition of the value proposition for each business analysis service in order to explain why the service may be beneficial to the organisation.
Review of existing conceptual frameworks
In considering the conceptual framework to apply to this research project, it was important to utilise a conceptual framework that enabled the examination of business analysis from several perspectives and ensure that the dimensions set out in the research objectives were explored.
The models discussed in table 3.1 below were considered as a basis for this research
project but were rejected as they did not have sufficient alignment with the research question and objectives. The rationale for considering these frameworks, and the reasons for their rejection, are set out in table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Role and organisational analysis frameworks considered for this study
Name and author Dimensions Reasons for consideration and rejection Five factors for
comparing CIO roles (Peppard et al., 2011)
Five factors used to describe and compare the CIO roles. The factors are:
• Scope of the role
• Issues critical to success
This framework was derived from research concerned with an IS role and the issue of role ambiguity. Therefore, it offered factors that applied directly to the business analyst role and enabled the description of different aspects of the role.
The factors related to the research objectives are as follows:
• Performance metrics • Challenges • Relationship
with peers (the CxOs in the case of the CIO)
• The scope allowed for the exploration of the tasks conducted by business analysts.
• Performance metrics would be related to the value proposition for business analysis.
• Issues critical to success and challenges would have enabled the investigation of the concerns related to role recognition.
• Relationship with peers would have been relevant given the need for business analysts to work with stakeholders.
However, the framework lacked factors that were concerned with the skills, processes and techniques of a role. It was felt that these aspects, which relate to research objective two, are vital elements. Therefore, this framework was not adopted.
The McKinsey 7-S Framework (Peters and Waterman, 1982) Seven interconnected dimensions of organisations: • Strategy • Structure • Systems • Style • Skills • Staff • Shared Values
This framework was considered because it would offer a basis for taking a systemic view of business analysis, having a range of dimensions with which to examine the business analyst role. It also offers a breadth of coverage and a basis for investigating specific aspects of the business analyst role, such as the skills and systems, that relate to the research objectives. However, the organisational focus raised two issues:
• dimensions such as ‘strategy’ and ‘structure’ were not relevant to this study
• some dimensions would have required significant adaptation in order to analyse the stated objectives concerning role definition and
rationale.
Therefore, this framework was not adopted. The Human Performance System (Harmon, 2014; Rummler and Brache, 2012)
Five factors used to analyse human performance: • Activity standards • Activity support • Consequences • Feedback • Skill, knowledge and capability
This framework is used to improve
organisational performance through process re-design. It is relevant to this research into business analysis because it offers a holistic view of job performer analysis. The five factors consider aspects that relate to the research objectives as follows:
• Activity standards, skill, knowledge and capability, and feedback, are all concerned with research objective two.
• Consequences align with analysis of the value proposition offered and therefore relate to research objective three.
However, the definition of the activities conducted is not included within this framework as there is an assumption that each activity, and the related performance, is considered separately. While this would be beneficial, this framework does not provide a specific basis for exploring research
objective one. Therefore, this framework was not adopted.
The context, content, process, outcomes framework
The findings from the pilot study into business analysis were considered when evaluating the possible frameworks to guide this study. One of the key findings from the pilot study was that there were concerns regarding the recognition of the business analyst role and the lack of role clarity that may contribute to this. While many of the frameworks considered incorporate dimensions that relate to tasks and skills, they do not prescribe consideration of a context for the work. However, this is felt to be highly relevant to this study and, therefore, a conceptual framework would need to incorporate a context dimension.
The Pettigrew and Whipp framework has been identified as highly relevant within
organisational change research (Kuipers et al., 2014) and has been applied to IS research concerned with the delivery of business benefits (Ward and Elvin, 1999). Ward and Elvin modified the Pettigrew and Whipp (1991) dimensions of strategic change, extending the original context, content, process framework to include two further dimensions of intent and outcomes. The importance of outcomes is also defined in a later study (Pettigrew et al., 2001).
Four dimensions of this framework (excluding Intent) have also been defined in further detail (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999; Kuipers et al., 2014) as follows:
• Context: the environment within which the organisation functions.
• Content: the substance and activities of organisational change initiatives. • Process: the approaches and tasks for implementing change initiatives. • Outcomes: the variables used to assess the consequences of organisational
change initiatives.
Figure 3.3: The context, content, process, outcomes framework (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999; Kuipers et al., 2014)
Given that the role of the IS business analyst is the focus of this research and that the role is performed within an organisational context, it was important to apply a conceptual framework that incorporated both organisational and role-specific aspects. The pilot study had identified that business analysis work is broad in scope and requires investigation and definition if role clarity is to be attained. Therefore, the content of the work, and the processes and skills applied, are relevant dimensions. Further, having explored the literature regarding IS, and having found that problems with requirements are clearly indicated as factors contributing to IS failures and challenges, the need to connect IS business analysis with project outcomes was also identified as an important area of study.
The fifth area offered by Ward and Elvin in their modified framework, concerns the Intent dimension. This was felt to be of less relevance to this research, because the outcomes dimension addresses the success measures relevant to IS business analysis.
Therefore, the context, content, process and outcomes dimensions were adopted as the conceptual framework to guide this research in order to:
Content: the
substance and
activities
Process: the
approaches and
tasks
Outcomes: the
variables to
assess the
consequences
• Provide a formal structure within which data could be collected and analysed. • Offer a structure that aligns to the organisational and role aspects of this study. • Correspond with the research question and objectives, as shown in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4: The context, content, process, outcomes framework mapped to the research objectives
Adaptation of the context, content, process, outcomes
framework
The framework has been adapted and applied to the study of business analysis as follows: • The context: this dimension is concerned with the environment for the research
topic. There are two contextual aspects: the personal context that relates to individual business analysts, and the organisational context for business analysis work, whereby the business analysis function is viewed as an internal service provider to the rest of the organisation. Context is inextricably linked with the resultant actions in a change situation (McLeod and Doolin, 2012; Pettigrew et al., 2001). The Business Analysis Maturity Model (BAMM) (Paul et al., 2014),
Content: RO1:
the role of the
business analyst
Process: RO2:
the business
analysis work
practices
Outcomes: RO3:
the business
analysis value
proposition
described in sub-section 3.3.5, was used as a contextual framework for identifying the level of maturity of each Business Analysis Practice within each organisation. The BAMM is relevant to this study because it focuses on three dimensions of business analysis work across different levels of project scope.
• The content: this dimension has been defined within the context of change initiatives and focuses upon the activities that result in changes to processes and systems, in other words, ‘what the change is about’ (Kuipers et al., 2014, p.8). The content dimension within this research project concerns the nature and scope of business analysis work. Service science theory (e.g., Lusch and Nambisan, 2015; Maglio and Spohrer, 2008; Spohrer and Maglio, 2010) was applied during the data collection and analysis for the content dimension. This enabled the clarification of the business analyst role through the definition of the business analysis service offering. The context and content elements of the study address research objective 1 – the role of the business analyst within the IS function for an organisation.
• The process: Kuipers et al (2014) define the process dimension as being
concerned with the processes devoted to the implementation of change. However, this has been adapted for this research to consider the processes concerned with the analysis of business situations and the subsequent definition of required changes. This dimension encompasses the activities conducted by business analysts, the techniques applied when conducting these activities and the skills required to do this. Techniques provided by standards organisations such as IIBA, OMG and PMI, and the literature relating to business analysis standards such as the SSM (Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 1999) and Requirements Engineering (e.g., Cadle et al., 2014; Robertson and Robertson, 2013), were applied during the data collection and analysis for the process dimension.
Several taxonomies were considered with regard to business analysis skills: o the categories applied by Misic and Graf (2004) for systems analysts; these were interpersonal and communication skills, and analytical and technical skills
o an alternative taxonomy for systems analyst skills applied by Dennis et al (2015) comprising technical, business, analytical, interpersonal,
management and ethical
categorisation provided by Rollason (2014). This categorisation has been selected because it aligns well with the other taxonomies and is used within the BAMF Expert BA qualification scheme (BAMF, 2012). It is possible to subsume categories suggested in the alternative taxonomies such that ‘interpersonal and communication skills’ are included within ‘personal qualities’, and ‘technical skills’ within the ‘professional analysis techniques’. Given the business context for business analysis it was considered important to include business knowledge as a skill category. The process dimension addresses research objective two: the work practices applied in business analysis.
• The outcomes: outcomes from IS projects are evaluated typically in terms of whether or not the project may be deemed successful. Kuipers et al (2014, p.11) comment ‘whether the change can be considered a success also depends on the definition of success’. While the literature offers a range of criteria for evaluating the outcomes from IS projects, this study defined success in line with an
organisational view of value. This concerned the ways in which the business analysis standards and work practices may contribute to the realisation of business benefits from IS projects. Accordingly criteria were derived from the IS success model (DeLone and McLean, 2003) and the benefits dependency
network (Peppard et al., 2007; Ward and Daniel, 2012) to form value propositions. The outcomes dimension addresses research objective three: the value
propositions offered by business analysis.
The extended and adapted version of the context, content, process, outcomes conceptual framework is represented in Figure 3.5 below. This figure shows the specific areas of business analysis that have been researched within each dimension.
Figure 3.5: The context, content, process, outcomes framework adapted for this research
Theories selected to support the business analysis research
Several theories relate to the work of the business analyst. These theories offer standard principles, processes and techniques that have the potential to clarify business analysis. They were used in this study to help guide the data collection and analysis, within the structure offered by the conceptual framework.
The aspects of these theories that are relevant to business analysis are described in the following sections:
• Section 3.4: The Business Analysis Maturity Model