Cyber teams have NIST. Programmes have P3M3. Business analysis has had no shared yardstick — so practices get judged on document volume, not decision quality. This model fixes that. Six dimensions of the Minimum Viable BA Practice, scored against the same CMMI ladder every executive already reads, with one honest question underneath: does your practice scale, or does it just add headcount?
The vertical axis is what you do — the six capability dimensions of the MVBA framework. Together they describe a complete practice: the artefacts, the requirements discipline that runs through them, the decisions they exist to serve, the technique that produces them, the AI that scaffolds them, and the rhythm that keeps the whole thing running without you.
The horizontal axis is how consistently you do it — the CMMI maturity ladder, unchanged. It's the same five levels in every NIST and cyber assessment your sponsors have seen, so the score needs no translation in a steering committee.
Score each dimension 1 to 5. Average them for a single practice score. That number places you on the archetype climb — from an Author Factory, where output dies with the author, to an Architect Practice, where the system produces the work.
The point of a maturity score is not the number. It's the next move it makes obvious.
The CMMI levels are generic by design. Here they are translated for a business analysis practice — what the room actually looks like at each rung.
Read across a row to see what maturing one capability actually looks like. Score each dimension against the cell that best describes your practice today — not your best project, your typical one.
| Dimension | 1Initial | 2Managed | 3Defined | 4Quant. Managed | 5Optimizing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foundation & Artefacts | No standard set; each BA invents their own artefacts per project. | A consistent artefact set within teams; no shared spine across them. | The seven core artefacts are standard org-wide, held by one traceability spine. | Artefact coverage and quality are measured; gaps caught before review. | The artefact system flexes by context and improves itself each cycle. |
| Requirements & Traceability | Requirements as ad hoc lists; no naming, no traceability. | Local naming and registers; traceability patchy and manual. | Org naming convention and DoR/DoD; requirements traceable to decisions and tests. | Traceability coverage and requirement quality tracked as metrics. | Traceability is live and queryable; exceptions are deliberate, not accidental. |
| Decision Integrity | Decisions undocumented; who decided and why is lost. | Decisions logged on some projects; decision rights still ambiguous. | Decision rights explicit; decisions made, tested and verified by design. | Decision cycle time and reversal rates are measured. | The practice learns from its decisions; bad calls surface and correct fast. |
| Technique & Analysis | One or two familiar techniques applied to everything. | A working toolkit per BA; choice driven by habit, not fit. | Technique matched to context from the full BABOK modelling toolkit. | Technique effectiveness reviewed; weak spots targeted with training. | The practice sharpens its own craft — technique evolves with the work. |
| AI Leverage | AI used ad hoc or not at all; output unverified. | Individuals use AI for drafts; no shared prompts or guardrails. | AI runs the scaffolding on a shared standard; judgment stays with the BA. | AI leverage measured against quality and rework rates. | The AI maturity arc is managed deliberately; humans escalate where judgment matters. |
| Operating Rhythm | No cadence; work depends on who's in the room. | Teams have a rhythm; it doesn't survive turnover or transfer. | A shared operating rhythm runs the practice independent of any one person. | Rhythm health measured; bottlenecks and key-person risk tracked. | The practice runs and improves without its architect — it scales, not staffs. |
The average of your six dimensions places the whole practice on one of four archetypes. This is the climb the MVBA framework is built to make — from output that depends on people to a system that doesn't.
Individual BAs author documents ad hoc. Output is only as good as who wrote it, and it dies when they leave the room.
High volume, no system. The practice produces a lot of artefacts and mistakes the activity for progress. Nothing compounds.
A shared floor exists and most projects run on it. Rigour is still uneven and transfer is partial — but the spine is there.
The system produces the work. New people are productive on the scaffold in days, and the practice scales without adding headcount.
This is the output that goes in front of a COO or transformation sponsor — the same shape as a NIST CSF assessment, but for your BA practice. Figures below are illustrative; the MVBA Practice Score generates yours.
Reading it: a 3.1 practice has built the floor (Defined) and is climbing toward Architect. The next move is obvious — AI Leverage at 2.8 is the drag, so that's where the year's investment goes.
Twelve questions, one screen each. Get your six-dimension breakdown and your archetype in under five minutes.
Take the assessment →The full field guide behind every dimension in this model — the artefacts, the spine, the decision integrity, the operating rhythm.
Read the guide →