Friday, April 17, 2026

The boy with Wax Wings

The Boy With Wax Wings
His name was Icarus. And he was not a fool.
He was the son of Daedalus — the greatest craftsman and inventor in all of Greek mythology. The man who built the Labyrinth of Crete, who solved problems that no mortal had solved before. Intelligence ran in the family.
When King Minos imprisoned Daedalus and Icarus in a tower, Daedalus did what he always did — he thought his way out. He spent months collecting feathers dropped by birds on the windowsill. He shaped them with wax into two pairs of wings, large enough to carry a man. He tested every joint, every feather, every curve.
And before they leapt from the tower into the open sky, Daedalus took his son by the shoulders and said:
"Fly the middle path, Icarus. Too low and the sea's moisture will clog your wings. Too high and the sun's heat will melt the wax. The middle. Always the middle."
Icarus nodded.
Then he flew. And the sky was extraordinary. The wind was beneath him, the world was small below him, and the feeling — oh, the feeling of that altitude — was unlike anything a human being had ever known.
And he flew higher.
The wax began to soften.
The feathers began to separate.
And Icarus — brilliant, beloved, careless Icarus — fell into the sea.
What Aristotle Saw That Nobody Else Did
In 350 BCE, a philosopher in Athens was thinking about a completely different problem.
Aristotle was not thinking about mythology. He was thinking about virtue. About what it actually means to live well, to be good, to make decisions that hold up over time.
And he arrived at an idea so elegant that it has survived two and a half thousand years:
Virtue is not an extreme. It is the middle.
He called it the Golden Mean — mesotes in Greek. The idea was simple but profound. For every human quality, there are two ways to get it wrong — through excess and through deficiency. And the virtuous path is always the one between them.
Courage, for example, is not fearlessness — that is recklessness. And it is not excessive caution — that is cowardice. Courage is the middle. The person who feels appropriate fear and acts anyway.
Generosity is not squandering everything you own. And it is not miserliness. It is the middle — giving proportionately, thoughtfully, sustainably.
Aristotle was not describing a compromise. He was describing precision. The kind of precision that only comes from understanding both extremes clearly and choosing neither.
Icarus, had he lived to read Aristotle, might have recognised himself in those pages.
Every Project Has Its Icarus Moment
I want you to think about the last project you worked on — or watched unfold — and find the Icarus moment.
There is always one.
Sometimes it is a stakeholder who, intoxicated by the possibilities of a new system, promises the client a feature set that the team cannot realistically deliver. Flying too high. The sun is right there, warm and inviting, and the wax is already softening.
Sometimes it is a BA who has been burned before — by scope creep, by changing requirements, by projects that unravelled — and so becomes rigid. Every change request denied. Every new idea met with a formal change control form and a three-week impact assessment. Flying too low. Wings waterlogged. Nobody can move.
Sometimes it is a developer who over-engineers a straightforward feature into an architectural masterpiece that solves problems the project doesn't have. Flying too high again, in a different direction.
And sometimes — perhaps most painfully — it is a talented professional who is so afraid of being wrong that they never quite commit. They hedge every recommendation. They present seventeen options when the stakeholder needs one clear answer. Too low. Too careful. Too much sea spray.
The fall is different in each case. But the pattern is always Aristotle's.
The Golden Mean for Business Analysts
Let me make this concrete. Because Aristotle is useful precisely when he is specific.
On Scope:
Too rigid → You block legitimate change and frustrate stakeholders.
Too flexible → You absorb every new idea and the project loses its shape.
The Golden Mean → You have a clear process for evaluating change. You welcome new ideas through the right channel. You quantify impact before deciding. You protect the core while remaining genuinely open.
On Documentation:
Too detailed → Nobody reads it. It becomes a monument to effort that has no actual use.
Too sparse → Critical decisions go unrecorded. Misunderstandings multiply. The project runs on assumptions.
The Golden Mean → Documentation that is precise enough to be unambiguous and concise enough to be used. Every document serves a real reader with a real need.
On Stakeholder Management:
Too agreeable → You lose credibility. Stakeholders stop trusting your assessments because they know you will say yes to everything.
Too confrontational → You become the obstacle. People route around you.
The Golden Mean → You are the person who always gives an honest assessment. Who says "here is what I see, here is the trade-off, here is my recommendation." Who can push back with warmth and hold firm with grace.
On Confidence:
Too much → You stop asking questions. You assume you already know what the stakeholder means. You stop listening.
Too little → You cannot make a recommendation when one is needed. You second-guess every judgement call.
The Golden Mean → You ask questions until you genuinely understand. Then you commit to a clear, well-reasoned answer — and you own it.
The Moment Before the Leap
Here is what I find most heartbreaking about the Icarus story.
He knew.
His father had told him clearly. The instructions were not complicated. Fly the middle path. The warning was given in love, with precision, by the most intelligent man he had ever known.
And still, in the rush and the joy and the extraordinary feeling of altitude, he forgot.
I think about that in professional life. How many times do we know the middle path — we have been told, we have seen others fall, we understand the principle — and still, in the excitement of a new project or the pressure of a deadline or the flattery of a stakeholder who tells us we can do anything, we fly a little too high?
Or how many times, bruised by a past failure, do we fly deliberately low — safe, damp, going nowhere — because the height once cost us something?
Aristotle's answer to both is the same: Develop the habit of the mean. Practice it until it is not a conscious calculation but a second nature. The virtuous person, he said, is not the one who white-knuckles their way to the right decision. It is the one for whom the right decision has become natural.
That is what great Business Analysis looks like. Not a set of techniques. A cultivated way of thinking.
The Power Phrase to Carry With You
The next time you feel pressure to over-promise — to fly too high to please someone — say this:
"Let me give you my honest assessment rather than the answer that sounds best right now."
It takes courage to say. But it is always the middle path.
And it is the one that keeps your wings intact.
🌟 Quote to carry with you today:
"Virtue is the golden mean between two vices — one of excess and one of deficiency."
— Aristotle
🪞 Reflect on This:
Where in your work are you flying too high right now?
And where are you flying too low?
Leave a comment — I read every single one. And sometimes, just naming both extremes is enough to help you find the middle.
📌 If this was useful, share it with someone navigating a difficult project decision today.
Follow The Write Path for the full BA Philosopher series — ancient wisdom, modern business, every week.
Further Reading:
Nicomachean Ethics — Aristotle (~350 BCE)
Metamorphoses — Ovid (the original Icarus story in full)
Thinking, Fast and Slow — Daniel Kahneman (modern parallel to the Golden Mean in decision-making)
Next on The Write Path:
"The Gordian Knot — What Alexander the Great Can Teach You About Over-Engineered Requirements"

Thursday, April 16, 2026

The Myth of Sisyphus

The Myth of Sisyphus and the Business Analyst Who Never Gives Up


"One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
— Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (1942)

The Man and the Boulder
High on a barren hill in the underworld, a man pushes a boulder.
His muscles burn. His feet dig into the crumbling earth. Inch by inch, he climbs. The rock is enormous — rough, indifferent, ancient. But the man pushes on. He always does.
And then — just as the summit comes into view — the boulder slips.
It rolls back down. All the way to the bottom.
The man watches it go. He takes a breath. He walks back down.
And he begins again.
This is Sisyphus. King of Ephyra. The craftiest mortal who ever lived. In Greek mythology, he was condemned by the gods to this eternal, repetitive, seemingly pointless punishment — not for cowardice or weakness, but for his cleverness. He had outsmarted death itself, twice. The gods decided that a man that cunning deserved a fate that mocked his intelligence forever.
An eternity of effort. An eternity of futility.
The Philosopher Who Changed Everything
For centuries, the story of Sisyphus was read as a tragedy. A cautionary tale. Don't be too clever. Don't defy the gods. Accept your place.
Then, in 1942, a young French-Algerian philosopher named Albert Camus sat down in the middle of World War II — while Europe burned and meaninglessness seemed to be the only honest response to existence — and wrote something that changed the story forever.
He asked a question nobody had thought to ask:
What if Sisyphus is happy?
Not despite the boulder. Not in ignorance of his fate. But fully aware of it — eyes open, arms tired, fully awake — and still, somehow, at peace.
Camus argued that the struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. The boulder was Sisyphus's. The hill was Sisyphus's. The repetition was his. In owning it completely, he found something the gods had not anticipated — meaning.
He called this The Absurd. The collision between the human need for meaning and the universe's magnificent silence in response. And his answer was not despair. It was defiance through engagement.
One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
Now Let Me Tell You About a Business Analyst I Know
She spent three weeks gathering requirements for a new customer portal.
Stakeholder interviews. Workshop sessions. Use case diagrams. User stories carefully written, reviewed, and approved. She got sign-offs from five different people. She documented everything. She was thorough, diligent, and precise.
On Day 47 of the project — two weeks before development was due to wrap up — the Head of Marketing walked into the sprint review and said, pleasantly, as if suggesting a minor adjustment:
"Can we also make the portal work on tablets? Our customers are asking for it."
The room went quiet.
The developer exhaled slowly.
The project manager looked at the ceiling.
The BA — let's call her Riya — felt something sink in her chest.
Because she knew what this meant. More requirements. More design. More testing cycles. More timeline. More budget conversations. The boulder had rolled back down.
This, my friend, is scope creep. And every Business Analyst who has ever lived knows this exact feeling.
What Scope Creep Really Is
Scope creep is not always malicious. That is the important thing to understand.
The Head of Marketing was not trying to derail the project. She genuinely believed her request was small. Reasonable. Helpful, even. The gap between what she thought she was asking for and what she was actually asking for — that gap is where projects get into trouble.
Scope creep happens when:
New requirements enter the project without going through formal approval
Stakeholders assume "small changes" carry no real cost
The BA hasn't established clear boundaries early enough
Everyone is so focused on moving fast that nobody stops to ask what this change actually costs
It is almost never one dramatic moment. It is a dozen small moments. A "can we just add..." here. A "what if it also did..." there. Each one seems minor. Together, they are a boulder.
The Camus Shift — Owning the Process
Here is where the philosophy becomes practical.
There are two ways a BA can respond when the boulder rolls back down.
The first way: Panic. Frustration. A quiet resentment that builds over weeks. A sense of powerlessness — that all this work, all this careful documentation, can be undone by one casual conversation in a meeting room.
The second way: What Camus saw in Sisyphus.
The boulder is mine. The hill is mine. The process of pushing it is mine.
This is not passive resignation. It is something much more powerful — it is ownership. The BA who owns the process does not see scope creep as a betrayal. She sees it as information. A signal that something was not clear enough, not documented firmly enough, not communicated broadly enough. And she uses that information to push the boulder more skilfully next time.
The boulder didn't change. Your relationship with it did.
Five Ways to Handle Scope Creep Like Sisyphus (With a Strategy)
1. Define what's in and what's out — in writing, on Day 1
Your Scope Statement is your contract with the project. Get it approved by everyone who matters. When someone asks for something new, you now have a document to point to — not a memory, not a verbal agreement, an actual approved document. That changes the entire conversation.
2. Never say no — say "let's understand the impact"
The moment you say no to a stakeholder, you become the obstacle. Instead, become the analyst. "That's interesting — let me map out what this would mean for our timeline and budget, and we can make an informed decision together." You are not blocking the idea. You are giving it the analysis it deserves.
3. Create a Parking Lot
A Parking Lot is simply a documented list of ideas that came up during the project but were not in the original scope. It is one of the most powerful tools a BA has — because it allows you to say yes to the idea while saying not yet to the implementation. Stakeholders feel heard. The project stays on track.
4. Quantify everything
Vague requests feel small. Quantified requests feel real. "Adding tablet support will require two additional weeks of development, one week of testing, and approximately ₹80,000 in extra resource cost." Suddenly the conversation is about choices and trade-offs, not about whether the BA is being difficult.
5. Use a formal Change Request process
Every change — no matter how small — should go through a documented approval process. This protects the BA, the project, and the stakeholders. It creates a paper trail. And it forces everyone to slow down and think before they ask for the moon.
The Power Phrase You Need Today
When a new request lands on your desk, before you say anything else, say this:
"That's a great point — let me understand the impact of this change before we decide."
Not panic. Not yes. Not no.
Clarity first. Always.
A Final Word From the Hill
Sisyphus pushes his boulder every day. And every day it rolls back down.
But Camus tells us that in the moment between the boulder rolling down and Sisyphus walking back to the bottom to begin again — in that brief, quiet moment — Sisyphus is stronger than his fate. He is conscious of it. He owns it. And in owning it, he is free.
The best Business Analysts I have known carry something of Sisyphus in them.
Not the punishment. The posture.
They know the boulder will roll back sometimes. They know requirements will change, stakeholders will shift, and careful work will sometimes need to be redone. And they have made peace with that — not because they don't care, but because they care enough to keep going anyway.
Your boulder is yours. Push it with intention. Push it with skill.
And when it rolls back down — take a breath, walk to the bottom, and begin again.
One must imagine the BA happy. 😊
🌟 Quote to carry with you today:
"One must imagine Sisyphus happy." — Albert Camus
🪞 Reflect on This:
What is the boulder you keep pushing in your work right now?
A process that keeps breaking? A requirement that keeps changing?
Tell me in the comments — I read every single one.
📌 If you found this useful, share it with a colleague who needs it today.
Follow The Write Path for the full BA Philosopher series — where ancient wisdom meets modern business.
Further Reading:
The Myth of Sisyphus — Albert Camus (1942)
A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (BABOK) — IIBA
The Art of Asking the Right Questions — explore any Socratic method primer
Next on The Write Path:
"You Are Not Atlas — The Sanskrit Wisdom That Every Overburdened BA Needs"
Tags: Business Analysis, Scope Creep, Philosophy, Camus, Greek Mythology, Career Growth, BA Tips, The Write Path

Sunday, March 22, 2026

Structured writing



Structured Note-Taking – Core Principles

1. Overview

Structured note-taking is about organizing information clearly so it’s easy to read, revise, and expand. It follows a consistent hierarchy using headings, subheadings, and logical formatting.


2. Key Elements of Structured Notes

2.1 Indentation

  • Use indentation to show hierarchy of ideas
  • Main topics → no indent
  • Subtopics → indented
  • Sub-subtopics → further indented

Purpose:
Helps visually separate levels of information and improves readability.


2.2 Headings and Subheadings

  • Use clear headings for main topics
  • Use subheadings to break topics into smaller sections

Structure Example:

  • Heading
    • Subheading
      • Sub-subheading

Purpose:
Creates a logical flow and makes navigation easier.


2.3 Introductory and Summary Lines

  • Each topic should begin with a short introduction
  • Each topic should end with a brief summary or conclusion

Purpose:

  • Introduction → sets context
  • Summary → reinforces understanding

2.4 Bullet Points

Use when listing items that are:

  • Related but not sequential
  • Independent points

Example Uses:

  • Features
  • Characteristics
  • Key ideas

2.5 Numbered Lists

Use when describing:

  • Steps in a process
  • Procedures
  • Ordered actions

Example Structure:

  1. Step one
  2. Step two
    1. Sub-step
    2. Sub-step

Purpose:
Shows sequence and dependency.


2.6 Separate Notes

  • Use when content does not fit into:
    • Bullet points
    • Numbered lists

Examples:

  • Explanations
  • Observations
  • Special remarks

3. Recursive Structure of Notes

Structured notes follow a repeating pattern at every level:

Pattern:

  • Topic
    • Introduction
    • Detailed content
    • Summary

Applies to:

  • Main topics
  • Subtopics
  • Even smaller sections

Purpose:
Ensures consistency and clarity throughout the notes.


4. Conclusion

Structured note-taking is a layered system where:

  • Information is organized hierarchically
  • Each section is self-contained with intro and summary
  • Lists and formatting enhance clarity

This method creates notes that are not just readable—but reusable and scalable.


If you want, I can turn your next lecture into this format automatically… or even upgrade this into a template you can reuse daily 📘✨