Whole-Brained Business Analysis – New Metaphor Required
I’ve been guilty using the much debated ‘Left vs Right brain’ metaphor to explain what I believe is needed. By way of example, Alec Sharp (@alecsharp), Sally Bean (@Cybersal), Roy Grubb (@roygrubb) and I have been Tweeting about Concept Modeling vs Concept Mapping. Alec is keen to get Data Modelers to abstract their thinking up from physical Data Models by thinking conceptually and I have been encouraging Business Analysts to think similarly when gathering requirements. This has meant that we both find that we need to introduce a different mindset: one that encourages more creative & inclusive discussion atthe initial discovery and play-back stage of the Requirements-Solution Design journey. I expect the Agile/XP community will declare this to be their philosophy (and nothing new) and they’re probably right. But rather than get caught-up in ‘IT-centric’ methods, I’d rather think of it as a way to better understand any requirements for change – regardless of the Software Development Life-Cycle. I’d rather see such thinking applied to all aspects of business change – people, process, practice, policy and … technology.
Tried-and-tested analytical techniques should not be abandoned, they just need to be augmented with others that, in my experience, help expand ideas and produce resilient, coherent and business-value-creating solutions. Both side of the equation are equally important. However, I’m finding (through experiment) that the more creative techniques are more engaging – simply more fun and inclusive – and, this alone, can, in my recent experience, dramatically improve business outcomes.
In attempts to explain the need for a more ‘whole-brained’ approach, I’ve been following the lead of the ‘Design Thinking’ community in referring to both Theory X and Theory Y from MIT Sloan and the Left-brain Right-brain metaphor. This, however, is fraught with problems due, in large part to the findings of the University of Utah who debunk such binary thinking (as I was reminded by Rob England – @theitskeptic).
So I’m in a quandary: on the one hand I find that an X-Y, Left-Right, metaphor is a simple way to convey the difference between, say, Analysis vs. Synthesis, on the other hand, however, I run the risk of aligning with outdated concepts being fundamental reconsidered by neuroscientists.
I guess the Complexity Science community might say that I’m talking about the difference between ‘Complex Adaptive’ vs. ‘Complicated’ systems, but, again, academic debate makes coming up with a simple metaphor next to impossible.
Has anyone found an alternative metaphor for a more balanced approach to Business Analysis and Enterprise Architecture?
Importantly, I’m keen to avoid the impression that people are to be seen as fundamentally one way or another. My observation is that it is the practice of Business Analysis/Enterprise Architecture that needs to be more ‘Whole-brained’ – not the individuals per se.
To get the discussion rolling, I’d like to hear views on:
In attempts to explain the need for a more ‘whole-brained’ approach, I’ve been following the lead of the ‘Design Thinking’ community in referring to both Theory X and Theory Y from MIT Sloan and the Left-brain Right-brain metaphor. This, however, is fraught with problems due, in large part to the findings of the University of Utah who debunk such binary thinking (as I was reminded by Rob England – @theitskeptic).
So I’m in a quandary: on the one hand I find that an X-Y, Left-Right, metaphor is a simple way to convey the difference between, say, Analysis vs. Synthesis, on the other hand, however, I run the risk of aligning with outdated concepts being fundamental reconsidered by neuroscientists.
I guess the Complexity Science community might say that I’m talking about the difference between ‘Complex Adaptive’ vs. ‘Complicated’ systems, but, again, academic debate makes coming up with a simple metaphor next to impossible.
Has anyone found an alternative metaphor for a more balanced approach to Business Analysis and Enterprise Architecture?
Importantly, I’m keen to avoid the impression that people are to be seen as fundamentally one way or another. My observation is that it is the practice of Business Analysis/Enterprise Architecture that needs to be more ‘Whole-brained’ – not the individuals per se.
To get the discussion rolling, I’d like to hear views on:
- A good Business Analyst or Enterprise Architecture must be a balance of Left-X(Reliability – Doing-things-Right) and Right-Y (Validity – Doing-the-right-thing)
- We’ve spent to much time of methods that attempt to industrialise EA (the TOGAF 9.0 manual runs to around 800 pages in the attempt) and BAs are too often focused on methods focus on an ‘IT solution’ rather that the Whys and Whats of the current or desired business behavior
- We need to spend more time on developing pattern-based storytelling skills in BAs and EAs to deliver break-through changes and allow for innovation in TO-BE models.
- Economic churn and environmental challenges warrant more Y-minded thinking (with appropriate X-controls)
- The world can’t be fully explained or governed algorithmically (thank god!)– not while values and trust dominate the way organisations function.
A traditional approach to Enterprise Architecture might suggest spending a significant amount of time (in some cases this could last as long as a year) gathering data from different parts of the business in the hope of building a holistic view of how the business looks today. Once you are sitting on this mass of data you may then consider EA tools to help you make sense of it all. To some people this seems a logical sequence– we’ll do the heavy data lifting on our end then call in the analytics guys to tell us what it all means. In reality this approach will often lead to wasted effort and set back the timetable for delivering value. As we discussed in a recent post, 
