The IIBA endorsed business analysis training company, for example, needs to begin not by merely saying “We’re IIBA endorsed,” because as we all know, there are other companies just as endorsed. Moreover, “We’re good at training” and “We’ve been around since the 1980’s” are hardly attributes worth talking about.
On the other hand, if they choose “We’re template-driven, our delegates are template-driven, and this is about documentation” as one axis, and “Our delegates learn how to fit into IT projects” as the other one, suddenly you have a training provider worth registering with, a provider worth paying the premium fee for.
Is this the training company I wish I had when I was starting out in my career? Absolutely not. It’s not for me. But for the organisation who views business analysis as a means of ‘bridging-the-gap’, and for the delegate who sees being a business analyst as a strict role, this is precisely what they wanted.
And now the training provider has their work cut out for them. Because they do, in fact, have to be more structured and traditional than other training companies. They do have to make the difficult decision of failing students who don’t follow the templates. And they have to persevere enough with the classes of delegates that they do actually fit squarely into IT projects.
A few streets away, a different training company takes a totally different spot on the map. They work with the whole range of techniques, focusing on the practice, not the paper. They can refuse to be blinkered by IT but instead grow business analysts based on the holistic competency and making an impact.
Both training companies treat business analysis learnings differently. They don’t compete; they’re simply on the same board.
Sounds like a dig at a well known training company where you did your training, but I fully agree with you and have similar frustrations 🙂
It’s a riff about finding and communicating one’s place amongst others.