Foundations of Business Analysis
Overview and Rationale
In order to demonstrate proficiency with the content in this course we will complete a number of different assignments to validate your learning – and allow you to implement relevant practices a real-world setting.
Week 1 Learning Objectives
- Distinguish the key structural elements of business analysis
- Develop a framework for integrating business analysis good practices in the project management
- Execute BA work throughout the project lifecycle
- Process
o Stakeholders/Roles/ Responsibilities
- Levels of requirements
- Examine the role of the BA in addressing project complexity
Essential Components
This assignment is a reflection comparing and contrasting the business analyst and the project manager:
- This assignment allows you to consider the roles of the business analyst and project manager in the context of project work.
- Consider how the roles are similar and how they are
- How can project management inform business analysis work and how can business analysis inform project management work?
- What opportunities are there for collaboration between the two roles? What challenges may occur in doing the respective work and how can this be addressed?
The format for this assignment is free choice – you may use Word, PowerPoint or any other tool that allows you to tell your story. This assignment should be no more than two pages, APA format, if using Word or 2 slides if using PowerPoint. Be creative – consider how a picture/diagram might help tell your story. Cite any sources using APA format. The writing style should be concise and straightforward. Please use a 12 point font.
Assignment Rubric
| Category | Above Standard | Meets Standards | Approaching Standards |
Below Standards |
Not Evident |
| Assignment requirements (70%) | Goes well above the requirements of the assignment.
Provides new information, tools, and/or techniques |
Goes above the minimum requirements of the assignment | Meets minimum assignment requirements | Meets some assignment requirements | Does not meet the requirements of the assignment. |
| Critical Thinking | Professional insights | Comprehensive | Includes an explanation | Includes a general | Does not explain the |
| (15%) | into depth and breadth
of assignment – goes |
explanation of the
issue; exploration of |
of the issue;
exploration of expert |
explanation of the issue
but is vague or is not |
issue; does not explore
expert viewpoints or |
| WELL beyond | expert viewpoints and | viewpoints and use of | clearly linked to the | use evidence to inform | |
| assignment
requirements to |
use of evidence to
inform interpretation |
evidence to inform
interpretation and |
identified risks;
includes some |
interpretation and
analysis; does not |
|
| explore risks and/or | and analysis; thorough | analysis; includes an | exploration of expert | provide an evaluation | |
| relevant new | evaluation of the | evaluation of the | viewpoints and use of | of the context | |
| techniques. | context (historical,
ethical, cultural, |
context (historical,
ethical, cultural, |
evidence to inform
interpretation and |
(historical, ethical,
cultural, environmental |
| environmental or | environmental or | analysis; includes a | or circumstantial | ||
| circumstantial | circumstantial | general evaluation of | settings), and self and | ||
| settings), and self and | settings), and self and | the context (historical, | others’ assumptions | ||
| others’ assumptions
and perspectives when |
others’ assumptions
and perspectives when |
ethical, cultural,
environmental or |
and perspectives when
stating a position; |
||
| stating a position; well- | stating a position; | circumstantial | conclusions are not | ||
| informed conclusions
based on methodically |
conclusions are based
on methodically |
settings), and self and
others’ assumptions |
based on prioritized
evidence and |
||
| prioritized evidence | prioritized evidence | and perspectives when | perspectives. | ||
| and perspectives. | and perspectives. | stating a position, but | |||
| lack specificity;
conclusions are based |
|||||
| on prioritized evidence | |||||
| and perspectives. | |||||
| Communication | Goes well beyond | Assignment is well | Assignment is | Assignment is well | Assignment is not |
| (10%) (includes grammar and clarity) | assignment requirements to
communicate |
organized, and the format can be followed.
It is evident to reader |
organized, and the format can be followed.
It is evident to reader |
organized, and the format can be followed.
It is evident to reader |
organized. It is not evident to reader what
is contained in each |
| information in a | what is contained in | what is contained in | what is contained in | section of report. Low | |
| precise, insightful and
professional manner. |
each section of the
report. High quality |
each section of the
report. High quality |
each section of the
report. Good quality |
quality grammar,
misspellings. |
|
| grammar. No | grammar. No | grammar. Minor | |||
| misspellings. | misspellings. | misspellings. | |||
| Formatting (5%)
NOTE: Gross failure to provide PROPER citations and |
Virtually no errors in formatting, citations, or references. | Rare errors in formatting, citations, or references. | Some errors in formatting, citations, or references. | Multiple errors in formatting, citations, or references. | Does not submit assignment materials in APA 6 format. |
| references – particularly with regard to direct quotes – will result in sanctions as outlined in the academic
honesty policy |
