Jump to content

Talk:Systems analysis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 59.145.117.2 (talk) at 06:30, 28 February 2008 (Bias). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconSystems Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Disambiguated

Bias

Seems like someone who's knowledgeble should rewrite the bit about something being proven, along with the exclamation point.hggugh gugu ughug ughuhu ghugu gugu gughu ghuu ghuu guugu ghuhuhuhgu ghuu gugyu gyugyu

Systems Analysis is a superset of Systems Analyst

A Systems Analyst does Systems Analysis but Systems Analysis covers far more ground that the Systems Analyst implies.

One typically would NOT call in a Systems Analyst (as commonly used today) to determine the operational parameters for a manufacturing plant or process. But a practitioner of Systems Analysis would commonly be called upon to do so; particularly if they specialized in manufacturing systems.

Systems Analyst is also close to Business Analyst but we wouldn't desire to merge them also. Yet both perform Systems Analysis within their respective fields, business & computer systems.

Therefore I would NOT want these two separate pages to be merged into one.

Wpociengel 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC) wpociengel[reply]

Surely Systems Analysis is a process while Systems Analyst is a job title?

EMRees 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well pointed out, EMR, exactly what I thought on noticing the proposed merge. Concepts, ideas and systems should never be merged with the term used to describe the role of a person invloved in that field. Redirect or disambiguate but these simply cannot be merged as a matter of etymology.

Karlos303 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: these are two separate subjects that should remain so.

User:maxlittle2007 22:29, 01 April 2007

Therefore I challenge the definition of systems analysis given here. Whereas the expense of a system analyst needs a large scale system to justify it; someone has got to do the systems analysis even for smaller systems. Indeed, the advent of the mini-computer in the 1970s brought with it the new role of "analyst-programmer". Therefore you can talk about large scale for the analyst but for the analysis itself you can't limit it that way. User:SimonClinch 17:13, 21 May 2007

This is part of a bigger topic... The SDLC

This should be seen as part of the Systems Development Life Cycle.

Planning/Feasibility Study, Analysis, Design, Implementation, Evaluation, Maintenance. These are suggested items of the cycle and should of course be constructed by an expert on the topic.

Systems analyst should be a link from Systems Analysis and not merged with it for this purpose. It would otherwise be seen as an isolated topic when in fact it should be seen as part of the entire process instead. Some might argue that a Systems Analyst may indeed perform in isolation to the above however it is all one big cycle in the grand scheme of things.

Why can't a subject be what it says?

'Why can't a woman,' pleads Professor Henry Higgins, 'be more like a man?' And why can't an academic discipline be precisely what it says it is, not some preconceived notion of what it needs to be in order to attain some sense of dull, conventional academic respectability? Why can't 'systems analysis' mean simply that, the rigorous analysis of systems, at all points, in all ways, using any feasible methods, not some dull, humdrum homage to 'mathematical methods'? No wonder the systems operating within human society are so flawed and unimaginative if the science which purports to rectify them is restricted to focusing on mere 'mathematical methods.' How many times do ordinary people come up against things in our lives which are clearly wrong with 'the system'? And how many times, out of these, does it have a fig to do with mathematics?!

We have many problems in our lives and in the life of our society, all of which can be viewed in systems terms. But they only really start to become mathematical problems, as such, when they are, for the main part, solved.

Analysis

In Greek it's not "loosen up" but more like "break down" [Check here[1]]

Apomyzitis (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]