|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Disambiguated
- 2 Bias
- 3 Systems Analysis is a superset of Systems Analyst
- 4 This is part of a bigger topic... The SDLC
- 5 Why can't a subject be what it says?
- 6 Analysis
- 7 Alexander Bogdanov
- 8 Needs an apostrophe ("Systems' analysis")
- 9 Expert attention for rewrite
- 10 Systems Analysis vs Systems Engineering
- Systems analysis for computing? Should this article be 'disambiguated' from computer system design? --Richard@lbrc.org 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems like someone who's knowledgeble should rewrite the bit about something being proven, along with the exclamation point.
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
Surely Systems Analysis is a process while Systems Analyst is a job title?
EMRees 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 a really confusing piece. It seems to describe systems analysis - ie the break down of systems in a reductionist fashion. And later in the references to systems thinkers it seems to refer to a much more holistic systems thinking approach. Redwaterjug (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
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.
In Greek it's not "loosen up" but more like "break down" [Check here]
I got to this page via Alexander Bogdanov, where (as of 12:04, 1 April 2008) it says:
Bogdanov's innovative work on comparative study of economic and military power of European nations, written in 1912-1913, was the first interdisciplinary work ever on systems analysis, which he later merged with tectonics. In his work Bogdanov introduced modern principles of systems theory and systems analysis. However, his works on systems analysis were not translated at the time of his life, and were not known outside Russia for many years.
- I think the work of Alexander Bogdanov is overstated. There are some fanatic Wikipedia writers, who pushed his name in the systems theory article allready some time ago. -- Mdd (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Needs an apostrophe ("Systems' analysis")
It is 'the analysis of systems', yes? Whose analysis? The systems' analysis. So we put an apostrophe after the 's'. Plural systems, and they take the possesive; it's not that hard to get right. Or am I missing some jargon/industry-defined/other-reason-to-abuse-English reason that this is spelt "systems analysis"? (Oh, and I hope everyone gets the tone of friendliness with which I post this, because I'm really not trying to be a bore!) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 07:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's a title of a field of engineering. With titles (as with news headlines, etc.) one is allowed the option of simplifying pretty much any way one wants. I.e., if I write "SysAn", it's not a standard abbreviation, but it will be understood, anyhow. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Expert attention for rewrite
Sentences such as "an explicit formal inquiry carried out to help someone, referred to as the decision maker, identify a better course of action and make a better decision than he might have otherwise made" highlight why this article needs expert attention. That definition could apply equally to a psychological assessment, a job review, or an after-game football analysis.
The article contradicts itself -- while making hyperbolic and uncited assertions -- it says both that systems analysis is often prior to automation, but also that analysts "often modify, expand or document existing systems".
The article needs a broad perspective, historical, academic, pragmatic, and not to be founded on personal off-the-cuff statements and the work of a single author (Ritchey). Piano non troppo (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The overview section of the article is currently one paragraph comprised mostly of a comparison of the meaning of "analysis" versus "synthesis." This comparative analysis does not clearly contribute to the overall value of the article's topic. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Systems Analysis vs Systems Engineering
I'm I bit lost with what is being described here. Is this not just system engineering? It sounds very similar, just not applied to an engineering project application (e.g. requirements analysis etc.) Looking at the Soviet Space Programme since '57 they say that they were using 'Systems Analysis' the whole time, which is what we call now Systems Engineering. Many of the tools look the same (requirements leading to design down-select) as is the scope of the project management activity, life cycle management, etc. If that is the case then either there should be some merging or linking between these two topics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)