Let's review some of the key differences between two similar looking certifications in the field of Business Analysis, CBAP (Certified Business Analysis Professional) and CPRE (Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering) (Foundation) certifications. One of the questions I have received often from my participants as well as BA professionals in my circle. Let's delve into those differences.

For computer and applications, "architecture" is a very common and often ambiguous word. It seems certainly to be referred to complex systems, and appears often to be confused with such as structure or frameworks, planning or blueprint, approach or methodology, and so on. It can be seen that, however, there are certain reasons to using this term.

This article explores the fascinating intersection of physics and business analysis, revealing how timeless scientific principles can transform your approach to solving business challenges.

Business Analysts (BAs) are pivotal in guiding organizations through a rapidly evolving landscape, leveraging new technologies and methodologies to address complex problems. In 2025, these ten trends will redefine the scope and capabilities of business analysis, enabling businesses to thrive in complex environments.  Here’s how individual analysts can prepare to take advantage of these opportunities.

Imagine you are in the cockpit of an airplane. Before taking off, you need to ensure all systems are operational, from the engine to the navigation tools. Now, think of your business as that airplane and cybersecurity as the systems you must inspect before flight. In the same way pilots rely on checklists, business analysts use cybersecurity maturity assessments to evaluate an organization’s preparedness for cyber threats. These assessments help you determine where your company stands in its cybersecurity journey, revealing strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.

But how do you conduct a cybersecurity maturity assessment? Let us explore some of the tools and techniques business analysts can use to assess and improve their organization’s cybersecurity maturity.

Shared or informal accountability emerges from peers’ expectations and the software professionals’ intrinsic drive. While the former promotes a sense of collective accountability, where individuals feel compelled to reciprocate and demonstrate their accountability to their peers, the latter is innate and intrinsically grounded. When feeling intrinsically driven to achieve certain outcomes (e.g., code quality or meeting deadlines), software professionals manifest a self-driven accountability. This self-imposed answerability is rooted in a personal desire to excel or meet self-imposed standards, reflecting software professionals’ internal commitment and motivation to uphold and align the quality of their deliverable with their professional and personal values. Shared accountability is mainly reinforced by software engineering and development practices (i.e., testing and code review) and peers’ feedback.

Tools can amplify a software developer’s capability, but ineffective or inappropriate tool usage amplifies their shortcomings as well. Properly applied tools and practices can add great value to a project team by increasing quality and productivity, improving planning and collaboration, and bringing order out of chaos. But even the best tools won’t overcome weak processes, untrained team members, challenging change initiatives, or cultural issues in the organization. 

Planning to take CPRE certification and grow your business analysis career further? This article may help you with some of the starting questions and their answers.

First and foremost any certification exam requires a huge level of determination and commitment from within yourself (self motivation). The drive could also be the encouragement/backing from your organization as part of your professional development goals. In any case, congratulations on start of this journey, now that you are thinking of studying something afresh and are ready to learn further about it.

Fear is a powerful motivator. It often drives us to hold onto the familiar, resisting change, even when the change might bring progress. This fear—of the unknown, of disruption—feeds into status quo bias, a cognitive bias that compels individuals and organizations to stick with established systems, even when these systems are no longer effective. As business analysts, overcoming this bias is critical to fostering innovation and success in projects.

Psychological safety has been reported to result in increased knowledge sharing among software development team members. Studies found a positive correlation between social interaction, team psychological safety, and synergistic knowledge development. When team members feel safe and confident that the environment is free of blame and consequences, they are more inclined to share information. Synergistic knowledge development is observed when a group amalgamates the diverse perspectives of its individual members, thereby leveraging the collective knowledge of the group.

In the vast landscape of project management, few challenges loom as large and insidious as scope creep. It's the silent saboteur that can derail even the most meticulously planned projects, leading to missed deadlines, ballooning budgets, and frayed nerves. When it comes to Big Rock Projects—those monumental undertakings that hold significant strategic importance for an organization—the stakes are even higher. These projects are the bedrock upon which future success is built, and allowing them to veer off course due to uncontrolled scope expansion is not an option.

Planning, managing, and delivering business requirements are daunting undertakings in any organization. It requires a lot of human resources and despite great efforts, the success rate of digital transformation project delivery is usually very low in most organizations, according to Boston Consulting Group and the Harvard Business Review. In this article, we’ll touch base on two methodologies that address today’s challenges of managing and crafting valuable business requirements, one of which is based on generative artificial intelligence.

Requirement Management in TOGAF Enterprise Architecture

Requirement Management is at the center of enterprise architecture as shown in Figure 1 below. In The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), a requirement is defined as a statement of need that must be met by the architecture. It typically represents a high-level capability that must be met by the system or enterprise architecture to satisfy a contract, standard, specification, or other formally imposed document. Requirements in TOGAF serve as the basis for planning, defining, designing, and realizing architectural solutions at the business, application, data, and technology levels. They play a crucial role in guiding the development of the architecture to be delivered, ensuring that the final outcome aligns with the strategic goals, stakeholder needs, and operational demands of the organization.

In project management, while the stakes may not involve the fate of kingdoms, the power dynamics are just as critical. Managing a project is akin to maneuvering through a complex political landscape—success depends on mastering influence, timing, and relationships. A single misstep can jeopardize the entire project, risking all your efforts. As a business analyst, you’re not just a strategist; you’re a key player in a high-stakes game where victory depends on how skillfully you handle shifting alliances, influence, and timing. To succeed, you must sense the right moments to act, anticipate opponents, and adapt swiftly. Remember, there’s no middle ground—either you guide the project to success or watch it slip away. Here’s how to master these dynamics and emerge victorious.

Psychological safety (PS) is the shared belief among team members that it is safe to take interpersonal risks in the workplace. PS is relevant to software development (SD) teams, particularly those using agile practices. Some practitioners even claim that “agile doesn’t work without psychological safety”. Effective collaboration, creativity, and collective problem solving are fundamental in everyday SD teams. PS fosters an atmosphere where team members feel free to share their views and opinions without fear of judgment or retaliation, thereby facilitating an environment conducive to effective collaboration. In a psychologically safe workplace, individuals are comfortable sharing their opinions, worries, or doubts, seeking support when required, and acknowledging errors without fear of being blamed or punished. In such an environment, teams and their members feel empowered to take ownership, innovate, take initiatives, and assume responsibility for their deliverables, resulting in better outcomes. The question, then, is how to achieve and sustain a psychologically safe workplace in the context of software development.

As someone who has worked as a business analyst for more years than I care to admit, one of the most common questions I get is: “Which is better, requirements or user stories?” If only the answer were that simple! The truth is, there isn’t a clear winner, because they serve different purposes and complement each other in ways that are essential to a successful project.

I’ve seen teams try to use only one of the two and miss critical aspects of a project. And I’ve seen projects where both were used in tandem, leading to smooth communication, aligned expectations, and a final product that delighted both users and stakeholders. Let me walk you through why both requirements and user stories are important tools in our arsenal as business analysts—and why, as practitioners, we should never limit ourselves to just one.