I've worked with (exactly) one excellent business analyst. She really pulled the work together and provided both coherence and context. In that, she essential

I've worked with (exactly) one excellent business analyst. She really pulled the work together and provided both coherence and context. In that, she essentially filled aspects of the project manager role, even if and as there were separate project managers (more than one, for example, an a particularly large and critical endeavor). In my opinion, formed while observing this and her work, it came down to the person, not the role. She was excellent and conscientious in her work; the role was subsidiary (although useful in giving her the influence she needed to get what she needed -- politely and cooperatively, for the most part -- from people). (I'll add that communication with her was a genuine two way street; team members could and did use communication with her to push ideas and concerns upstream, where they would actually, genuinely be considered and not infrequently acted upon.) Most other people filling such roles: More or less what the parent describes, in my experience. The better ones were at least honest about this, not full of themselves, and served as "project memory" and "reminders" for project members juggling so many things that they might otherwise -- rather occasionally, as opposed to regularly -- let something slip through the cracks. Fortunately, I was on some pretty senior teams, and the "devs" were plently able to plan and coordinate, themselves; they also could and did push back against management mis-steps. In many cases, the analyst or PM could to some extent become an "interface" to the organization and general management. The dev team mostly planned and got stuff done, and the analyst/PM was the one to spend their time in some of those less than fulfilling higher level... "status" meetings.