3 Days Online
A structured, practice-oriented introduction to business analysis work as it is performed on real software and business change initiatives.
Participants learn how analysts move from ambiguous inputs to shared understanding, from understanding to commitment, and from commitment to change. The course emphasizes reading, evaluating, and adapting analysis artifacts before creating new ones, reflecting the reality that analysts most often work with existing materials rather than greenfield designs. Through guided exercises, participants practice identifying stakeholder needs, understanding domain concepts, interpreting behavior, evaluating requirements readiness, and managing change across artifacts.
Formal techniques such as process models, data models, user stories, and traceability are introduced when they become useful, not as starting points. The result is a grounded understanding of how analysis supports decision-making, planning, and delivery. The course reflects real-world practice where analysts work with existing materials rather than starting from scratch.
Describe the scope of business analysis work on software initiatives
Use core analytical questions to structure thinking and exploration
Evaluate analysis outputs for clarity, completeness, and quality
Interpret process models, data models, and use cases analytically
Assess user stories and backlogs for completeness and impact
Perform impact analysis when requirements change
Identify which artifacts must change and defend decisions not to change others
Reason about relationships between artifacts and explain dependencies
Prioritize uncertainty based on risk and impact
Define stopping criteria for analysis and recognize when to revisit understanding
No upcoming dates. Inquire for details.
This module establishes a shared understanding of what business analysis work involves in practice. Participants explore how business analysis differs from related roles and how responsibilities vary across organizations and projects. The module also surfaces common points of confusion and differing expectations that learners bring into the role.
Participants work in small groups to discuss their current roles, experiences, and challenges. Teams share examples of analysis work they have encountered and identify questions they hope to answer during the course. The exercise establishes a practical, experience-based baseline for subsequent modules.
This module introduces three core analytical questions that recur throughout business analysis work. These questions provide a simple but powerful way to structure thinking before formal artifacts are introduced. Participants apply the questions to a shared scenario to experience how understanding emerges incrementally.
Teams brainstorm answers to the three questions using a shared scenario. The focus is on coverage and exploration rather than correctness. Participants capture ideas, assumptions, and uncertainties without attempting to formalize them.
This module focuses on evaluating analysis outputs rather than creating new ones. Participants practice identifying gaps, assumptions, and inconsistencies in others' work. The emphasis is on asking better questions rather than proposing solutions.
Teams rotate and review other groups' outputs from Module 2. Each team identifies unanswered questions, ambiguities, and areas requiring clarification. Findings are consolidated to highlight patterns across teams.
This module introduces prioritization of uncertainty rather than prioritization of features or solutions. Participants learn to decide what must be understood next in order to move forward responsibly. The module connects analysis work to planning decisions without introducing detailed planning artifacts.
Teams review the combined list of open questions and uncertainties. They identify which uncertainties block progress, which can be deferred, and which are acceptable for now. The exercise concludes with a short articulation of recommended next steps.
This module introduces formal behavioral artifacts by having participants read and interpret them rather than create them. A process model and corresponding text use case are examined as sources of claims about the business. Participants apply earlier analytical questions to structured representations.
Teams analyze a provided process model and text use case. Using only the information present, they answer the core analytical questions and list assumptions and unanswered questions. The focus remains on interpretation, not improvement.
This module shifts attention from behavior to information structure. Participants learn how data models encode assumptions about domain concepts, relationships, and lifecycles. The module reinforces that structural artifacts imply behavior even when it is not explicitly shown.
Teams analyze a data model for the same domain and answer the core analytical questions again. They identify where the data model clarifies understanding and where it introduces new questions or contradictions relative to earlier artifacts.
This module examines high-level diagrams that summarize scope and interactions. Participants learn how these diagrams function as organizational and communication tools rather than discovery tools. The module emphasizes context as process-specific rather than system-absolute.
Teams review a context diagram and a use case diagram and attempt to answer analytical questions using only these views. They then compare results with earlier exercises to understand what these diagrams compress or omit.
This module introduces user stories explicitly as planning artifacts. Participants evaluate a realistic backlog containing duplicates and overlapping stories. The focus is on determining what work is already complete, partially complete, or not yet done.
Teams classify a set of user stories into done, partially done, or not done. They discuss ambiguous cases and identify gaps in understanding revealed by the backlog. The exercise highlights backlog messiness as a normal condition.
This module focuses on the consequences of planned work. Participants examine how selected backlog items affect existing understanding and artifacts. The emphasis is on selective adaptation rather than wholesale redesign.
Teams select a small, coherent set of backlog items and assess their impact on existing artifacts. They update only what is affected and explain both the changes made and the elements left unchanged.
This module addresses requirements quality from a delivery-risk perspective. Participants assess committed work for clarity, feasibility, and testability. Quality is treated as a contextual judgment rather than a checklist.
Teams review selected stories and supporting artifacts from the perspective of development, testing, and operations. They identify quality concerns and determine which require immediate clarification and which can be deferred.
This module introduces traceability as a reasoning and communication practice. Participants learn to explain why requirements exist and how changes propagate across artifacts. The focus is on explanation rather than documentation mechanics.
Teams select a story and trace its connections to analysis artifacts and assumptions. They identify what would be affected by changes and practice articulating this reasoning clearly to others.
The final module consolidates learning across the course. Participants define what done means for analysis in a given context and identify signals that would require revisiting analysis. The module reinforces judgment over completeness.
Teams reflect on the full set of artifacts and decisions. They articulate what is sufficiently understood, what uncertainty remains, and how analysis and planning would continue iteratively. The course concludes with a shared synthesis of key takeaways.
Get practical AI training that keeps your requirements, designs, code, and tests in sync.
We offer private training sessions for teams. Contact us to discuss your needs.