When developing an analysis model, the notation itself does not suffice for determining the content of the analysis model and the end of the analysis process. For this, the goals and intents of the analysis model are used, either implicitly or explicitly. In this report we take a look at various possibilities to define the term analysis and the goals of the analysis model. We start with considering the reference model of the problem solving cycle. We examine the definitions that refer to analysis as the "what" in opposite to the "how", or as the problem definition phase of a problem solving cycle. We then continue with a discussion of various criteria (like technology independence, real word model, unambiguous or essential model) that are often used to specify the goals of an analysis model. Difficulties that arise with these criteria are that they cannot be combined arbitrarily and that some of them are very vague; we propose therefore also some more concrete formulations. In the last part of the report we take a closer look at some misconceptions and intent clashes that are due to a too idealistic model of the software development process. Objective real world models, analysis models that are stable after the analysis phase and analysis models that are equal to the high-level view of the final software system are often attempted, but are normally not realistic. This leads to intent clashes with the desire for a seamless and easy controllable development process. We explain these intent clashes and we also describe the three different approaches taken by software development methods to cope with these intent clashes.