Author: Christina Lovelock

Christina is an experienced BA leader, has built BA teams ranging in size from 5 to 120 Business Analysts and champions entry level BA roles. She is active in the BA professional community, attending and regularly speaking at events. Christina is an examiner for the International Diploma in Business Analysis and is also a director of the UK BA Manager Forum. She has co-authored the 2019 book, Delivering Business Analysis: The BA Service Handbook, which shares insights and findings from research into Business Analysis, practical guidance for BA leaders, and case studies from across the professional community.

Recruitment Metrics for BA Teams

Being involved in BA recruitment is a big responsibility. It’s hard to recruit right now, and it’s easy to blame the competitive market and skills shortage. It’s tempting to leave measurement and metrics to HR teams, but there are a number of key concepts all those involved in BA recruitment need to understand.


Time To Fill

From the point we become aware that a new or replacement BA role is needed, a clock starts ticking. Whether someone has handed in their notice, or a new project has emerged, we now have a gap that needs to be filled. It is so important to understand our average time to fill (TTF) for each role on the BA career path, as this aids decision making, including the use of short term resources such as consultants, contractors and secondments.

Typically more senior roles take longer to fill, because the talent pool is smaller and the demand greater. Having internal talent pipelines reduces the TTF and creates internal progression routes and clear BA career pathways. Ensuring these are in place improves knowledge retention, employee loyalty and morale and serves as an attraction factor for BAs outside the organization.

TTF includes internal processes of gaining agreement and approvals, getting a role posted and engaging with recruiters. This is often a hidden time over-head, and usually an area where organizations can speed up their recruitment.


Time To Hire

This marks the time between making a role available for applications and having someone in post. It includes the interview process and the notice period of the candidate.

Recruiting managers often put pressure on candidates to try to reduce their notice period. This is unfair, when it is the only period of time in the whole process which is outside of the recruiting organizations’ control. If we want people in faster, we should look to improve our own processes! Sometimes organizations exclude notice periods from their time to hire metric, to stay focused on the elements within their control.

Knowing the average time to hire helps us keep stakeholders informed, and contributes to better planning and onboarding.





At each stage of our recruitment process people drop out or are ruled out. This can be visualized as a recruitment funnel. Understanding the conversion rates between different steps in the process allow us to answer question such as:

  • How many applications do we typically need to find one appointable BA? [conversion rate from application to accepted offer].
  • How many candidates accept our offer? [conversion rate from interview to accepted offer].
  • What can we do to improve our conversion rates? (Faster processes? Better marketing of roles? Better communication with applicants?…)


If we understand where in the process we are losing people, and really consider the candidate experience, we increase the chances of a successful recruitment outcome, and save both time and money. Different organizations have different levels of formality, and may include more or less interview rounds and steps in the process. However formal or informal, it is valuable to understand the key conversion rates.



This is the rate which we lose BAs from the team over a given period. Not all attrition is bad, we need to support people to move to new and appropriate roles, and we need to allow BAs with new ideas and different experiences to join the team. Generally an attrition rate of less than 10% is considered healthy for team stability and business continuity.

Retention is the opposite measurement to attrition. This is the percentage of the team that stay during a given period. Focusing on ‘increasing retention’ is a more positive framing of the issues than ‘reducing attrition’. Recruitment is expensive, the cost of replacing BAs is far more than the cost of investing in appropriate initiatives which retain talented BAs in the organization. By asking and listening to what individual team members want from their role and employer we can increase retention rates (money will be a key factor, but not the only one!).



This means understanding how long people stay with us and can be considered  at different levels:

  • Average length of time in each role/grade within the BA structure
  • How long people stay within the BA team
  • Total amount of time spent within the organization.


This is helpful to understand the rates of progression within the team. If we have entry level/development roles within the team, how long before people typically progress to a practitioner role? It allows trends and patterns to be explored. If we find people either stay less than 1 year or more than 10 years, what insights can be gained? What does that tell us about our recruitment and retention processes?

With further analysis we can understand the push and pull factors which keep BAs within the team or encourage them to look elsewhere. It also allows us to consider what internal development routes we offer into related professional disciplines.



In this competitive market, with increased demand for business analysis skills and the ‘great resignation’ making people consider their options, BA teams need to fully understand our own processes and look for improvements. A greater focus is needed on recruitment and retention, and we can no longer rely on ‘recruiting as we always’ have to make great appointments and grow our teams.


Further reading
Are you Losing BAs? C Lovelock, February 2022
Job Crafting for BAs C Lovelock, July 2021

Don’t. Step. Back.

‘We need to take a step back’ is a common phrase amongst BAs, and while the intention is understandable, this entreaty simply isn’t helping.

You know the feeling.

  • The project is already running away with itself.
  • Stakeholders have identified a solution before articulating the problem.
  • This great new idea does not align to strategy or objectives.
  • The CEO wants to implement a system they’ve seen work elsewhere without understanding our context and challenges.


You know we need to calm down, think logically, act rationally. In every meeting, you want to say things like:

  • We need to slow down
  • What about the bigger picture?
  • Let’s go back a step.

But no one wants to hear that.

The start of initiatives are about energy, motivation and enthusiasm. BAs can be seen as blockers. What we think is pragmatism can be interpreted as negativity.


Restraining Language

When BAs are constantly using language which is perceived as holding back progress, stakeholders begin to avoid us, work around us, and don’t include us in discussions where we could offer a valuable perspective. BAs then become increasingly worried and frustrated, and our warnings become more dire and more persistent.

It can look like our input is focused on restraining the initiative and identifying additional work.

Is it possible deliver the same information in a more impactful way?


Examine Our Role

BAs often feel we are the conscience of a project, and our job is to protect stakeholders and the organization from poor decisions. Is that a reasonable expectation to set for ourselves?

Trying to reign-in a project which has senior backing, forward momentum and is moving at pace is perhaps not the best way to expend our energy. It’s OK to be on board with an idea and to be enthusiastic. We don’t have to ensure every ‘lesson is learned’. It’s more important that the project benefits from an engaged BA that is consulted at the appropriate time and is seen as someone who is contributing to moving the initiative forward.


Enabling Language

Swapping our restraining language for forward-focused language may not be as difficult as we think.

Instead of “We need to take a step back” we can say “We need to be clear on the best next step”.

Instead of using “Yes, but….” to list off all the problems, we can use “Yes, and…” to keep our contribution constructive.

We can use language that says I’m onboard with this project, I want to see it progress and my contribution helps move us forward.

BAs can sometimes see positivity as naivety. It is possible to be positive and well informed. We can use our experience to help projects avoid potential pitfalls, without insisting on a backwards step.



BA don’t need to single-handedly restrain projects. In fact the best way to influence projects and products in the right direction is to demonstrate that we are invested and enthusiastic about the outcome.

Language matters. Swapping restraining language for enabling language shows our stakeholders we care, we understand and want a positive outcome. There may still be difficult messages to deliver, but  we can frame these as future-facing hurdles to overcome rather than backwards-facing steps to make.

Goldilocks And The Three BAs

Once upon a time, there were three BAs, they all wanted their analysis to be “just right”, but what does that actually mean?

Balancing Act

‘Just-enough’ and’ just-in-time’ sound like straightforward concepts, but how much is enough? This very much depends on the context and the needs and preferences of your Goldilocks. We always want our business analysis outputs to be accurate, but we also need them to be proportionate and appropriate to the situation.

So ‘enough’ business analysis means: establishing clear expectations and exclusions, sufficient breadth and depth of investigation, engagement with representative stakeholders, utilization of suitable analysis techniques, and a focus on creating analysis outputs and assets that meet a specific purpose.

We can look at the characteristics of ‘over-analysis’ and ‘under-analysis’ to help test the balance, and ensure our analysis efforts and outputs are just right.


The First BA: Over-Analysis

This BA finds it difficult to know when their analysis is ‘finished’.

We can always speak to one more stakeholder or hold one more workshop! It is easier to frame analysis outputs as ‘sufficient to meet the purpose’ (which may be to inform further activities, share knowledge, facilitate agreement, enable decisions, etc.) rather than ‘finished’. We must also remind ourselves that new information will always emerge, this does not mean our analysis was wrong but reflected what was understood at that point in time. The purpose of the analysis is to increase knowledge and test assumptions. Some assumptions will be proven wrong, and new perspectives will emerge.

The characteristics of over-analysis:

  • Feeling overwhelmed and experiencing Analysis Paralysis
  • Too much detail, no summary or high-level routes into the detailed analysis
  • Endless meetings/discussions/workshops with no progress
  • Number of requirements out of control
  • Too much focus on edge cases
  • No prioritization of analysis effort
  • Repository of unread documents
  • Total reliance on BA to navigate the analysis, opaque to others
  • Regularly finding duplication of requirements or analysis assets
  • Audience for analysis outputs unclear
  • Being ‘90% done’ for weeks or months.


The Second BA: Under-Analysis

This BA does not challenge assumptions or apply analytical thinking.

Stakeholders may have low expectations of this BA, treating them like an order-taker or scribe. When we accept a very narrow role or are told we cannot deploy the full range of analytical techniques required for the situation, the quality and veracity of the resulting analysis will be compromised.

The characteristics of under-analysis:

  • Always engaging the same small group of stakeholders
  • No stakeholder analysis
  • Solution pre-defined
  • No clear problem definition
  • Applying a very limited range of analysis techniques
  • Only creating user stories
  • No consideration of edge cases
  • No templates or reuse, always starting from scratch
  • No peer-review by other BAs
  • Process-view only, no consideration of data
  • Technology view only, no consideration of business
  • Opinion over evidence, deference to HiPPOs (Highest Paid Person’s Opinions)
  • No challenge of ideas/assumptions/processes
  • Undocumented assumptions
  • Writing things down with no critical thinking or analysis.


The Third BA: Just Right

This BA understands the audience and purpose of the analysis and is confident in the business analysis skills and techniques which will achieve the required outcome.

A key aspect of creating analysis outputs that are accurate, appropriate, and proportionate is agreeing on who will use the analysis and for what purpose. It then entails considering possible routes to achieving that purpose, how the analysis will be carried out, and getting further agreement on that approach.

A ‘definition of done’ for the analysis deliverables is very valuable, and creates a shared understanding and agreed set of expectations from all stakeholders.

Questions for getting analysis just-right:

  • WHY am I doing this? What is the purpose of the analysis?
  • WHO am I engaging with? Who is missing? Are the stakeholders representative and proportionate? Are they appropriate for this stage? Who will use what I produce?
  • WHAT am I creating? What format, what length, what systems will I use?
  • HOW will I approach the analysis? What business analysis techniques will I apply? How will I select techniques that are appropriate to the audience, timescale, and other constraints? How will I ensure I am producing analysis and not simply documentation? How will I achieve validation and approval of the analysis deliverables?
  • WHEN is the analysis needed? What can be achieved in that timeframe, what cannot be achieved? What constraints does that place on the engagement and investigation? What dependencies exist?
  • WHERE will the analysis be shared and stored? How can I ensure transparency and increase engagement?



The first BA is drowning in the detail and doesn’t know where to stop. The second BA is doing what they are told, and not bringing analytical tools and thinking to the situation. The third BA is asking a lot of questions, and quite possibly annoying people who think they should ‘just get on with it’, but certainly has the most chance of producing analysis outputs that are useful and valued.

The recipe for getting business analysis just right is to be aware of the characteristics of over and under analysis, to apply a suitable range of analysis techniques which explore multiple perspectives and to understand the expectations of Goldilocks.

Practicing Practical Optimism

What we believe is pragmatism can be perceived as pessimism. Is it time for BAs to start practicing practical optimism instead?

The Problem With Pragmatism

There are many words that BAs hold dear – objective, holistic, pragmatic. They guide our approach. We want to consider all factors and all perspectives, avoid bias and ensure appropriate action is taken in light of all relevant information. Pragmatism should mean planning for the worst, but hoping for the best. We are skilled at identifying the worst-case scenario, highlighting gaps and risks, and getting to root causes; have we become so focused on being ready for the worst outcome, that we have forgotten to hope for the best outcome? Has our pragmatism turned to pessimism?

We really do want to move forward, learn lessons, and avoid re-making past mistakes. It can feel like a way to achieve that is to focus on everything that has gone wrong previously. This past-focussed pragmatism nudges us closer to negativity.


 The Problem With Optimism

 Many BAs see optimism as naivety. We believe that if people really understood the issues (as we do) then they wouldn’t be quite so positive! We think that the role of analysis is to surface and clarify needs, issues, and problems, and it’s very hard to talk about these topics in a positive way. We also know that over-optimism in planning and delivery causes many projects and products to fail.

Optimism has become synonymous with unrealistic and uniformed.

The Benefits Of Optimism

There are wide-ranging benefits, observed in comprehensive research from all around the globe.

Optimists are healthy and live longer. They are more likely to achieve their goals. They are more resilient and less stressed. They are more productive and have better relationships. Optimism increases the likelihood of success.

The good news is optimism is a skill and mindset we can all practice and improve at, whatever we consider our ‘natural’ disposition.

Practical Optimism

Optimism does not mean naively hoping for the best, denying reality or failing to prepare. The phrase “practical optimism” acknowledges the unspoken accusation of “blind optimism” and provides a path to taking sensible steps towards the best possible outcome. Genuinely understanding the best-case scenario and always keeping it in mind makes that outcome much more likely to occur!

Risk identification and problem-solving seem to get much more airtime than benefits and drivers. Reminding ourselves of why we are doing something, who benefits and how is a great motivator. Reflecting on how far we have come, highlighting successes, and celebrating milestones all contribute to future-focused thinking. This creates the right climate for practical optimism to thrive.


Pragmatism seems like the perfect balance between uninformed optimism and immobilizing pessimism. In reality what feels like pragmatism can easily look like pessimism. Striving for an approach of practical optimism rather than pragmatism can lighten our mental load, improve our relationships and lead to better personal and business outcomes.

Being realistic can be about striving for the best possible reality. It’s time for business analysis to look on the bright side.

Further Reading:

[1] When BAs Go Bad, C Lovelock, BA Times, 2019

[2] How To Incorporate Realistic Optimism Into Your Life, Forbes, 2021

Do We Need A Skills Matrix?

The answer to this question is almost always no. Here’s why…


The stated objectives for creating a person-level skills matrix are usually something like:

  1. “We want to match staff to appropriate work by understanding their skills.”
  2. “We need to identify skills gaps and shortages across the team/organisation and prioritise areas for individual and general improvement.”

These seem sensible enough. They sound efficient, future focussed and suggest it will help individual team members to engage in appropriate work and increase their skills as needed.


The skills matrix appears on the surface to help with these aims. Unfortunately, they rarely meet the intended outcomes.

Here is a typical process:

  1. Drivers 1 and/or 2 exist, and eventually someone says “skills matrix”.
  2. Key skills to include are discussed and agreed. (This takes much longer than planned; technical skills are over-represented, core skills [1] are under-represented and undervalued by this process).
  3. Realisation that we want knowledge areas not just skills. A very long list is produced…
  4. After much questioning and resistance (most) staff rate themselves against the skills and knowledge areas.
  5. This is on the whole unsuccessful due to the Dunning-Kruger effect [2] on the one hand and Impostor Syndrome [3] on the other. (Plus, the fact that most of us think we are self-aware and only 10-15% of people actually are [4]).
  6. Many difficult conversations are then required explain why Person A is not actually an expert in everything and Person B is better than they think.
  7. The people who would be “best” for a piece of work based on the output of the matrix are not available.
  8. Managers and team members are all quite bruised by the process.
  9. Matrix is not updated. It goes slowly out of date.
  10. Abandoned.



Alternative Reality

The skills an individual has is one of many factors which need to be considered when assigning appropriate work. The factors include:

  • What motivates them?
  • Who do they work well with?
  • Who can build relationships quickly?
  • What kind of support/environment allows them to do their best work?
  • Where do their interests lie?
  • Who has these skills/who needs to develop these skills?
  • Is there an appropriate senior person/role model?
  • Who has earned an exciting opportunity?
  • Who needs to stick to the basics?
  • Who can juggle multiple assignments?
  • Who prefers to concentrate on one area?

It is not possible to model all these factors in a spreadsheet. This level of understanding comes from managers having good relationships with team members, being able to honestly discuss personal style, preferences and professional development needs. Managers also need good visibility of upcoming work and assignments to be able to plan appropriately and engage with team members about future work.

Training Needs And Skills Gaps

Good managers know this information without a skills matrix. Given a list of skills needed by an organisation, managers should be able to identify and quantify capacity and competency gaps. A skills matrix is a lazy substitute for good quality management and a distraction that creates the illusion of control.

Individual personal development plans which align to organisational objectives are a more motivating and effective way of establishing and then aggregating team-member level data.

How Can BAs Help?

Business Analysts may be asked to create or contribute to the development of a skills matrix or record our own skills. We can use our analytical skills to establish the drivers and intended business outcomes and suggest alternative methods of achieving those.

Is A Skills Matrix Ever Relevant?

If the answer to the question “Do we need a skills matrix?” is almost always no, then there must be exceptions. Very large, typically global organisations which operate across a number of sectors (such as retail, aviation, construction etc.) that need to quickly mobilise specialist teams need a way of “searching and filtering” on staff. This is more effective as searchable information, with some structured data (e.g., job title, location, knowledge domains) and bio information maintained by the individual (experience, preferences, etc.) to allow the right people to be identified. Implementing this type of system requires appropriate investment in technology and business change. The business case for the ‘spreadsheet matrix’ never stacks up.


The skills matrix is typically a misguided attempt to automate something which needs to be a human discussion. How they are implemented often demotivates staff, serves as a distraction from real work and genuine issues and fails to meet the intended outcomes.  Organisations that want the capability to understand the skills and experience of their staff need to encourage the right behaviours from managers, make appropriate investment in robust decision support tools and engage with staff to capture information which is accurate, proportional and timely.

[1] Core Skills: C Lovelock, BA Times, 2019
[2] Dunning-Kruger Effect : J KrugerD Dunning, 1999
[3] Impostor Syndrome: C Lovelock, BA Times, 2020
[4] Self-Awareness: T Eurich, Harvard Business Review, 2018