Systems analysis and design: How does a systems analyst typically design a new information system for an organization?

Difficulty: Easy

Correct Answer: Identify subsystems and define interfaces between those subsystems

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
Systems analysis and design aims to translate business objectives into a reliable technical solution. A hallmark of professional practice is decomposition: breaking a complex system into manageable subsystems with clearly defined responsibilities and interfaces. This approach improves maintainability, parallel development, and risk control.


Given Data / Assumptions:

  • The organization needs a new information system.
  • The analyst must choose a design approach that supports clarity, change, and testing.
  • Subsystems can be processes, services, modules, or components owned by teams.


Concept / Approach:
Top-down analysis starts with business processes and user goals, then groups related capabilities into subsystems (for example, order capture, pricing, inventory, billing, reporting). Interfaces between subsystems specify data exchanged and events triggered. The result is loose coupling and high cohesion, which enable independent evolution and simpler testing. This mirrors principles used in structured analysis, service orientation, and modern microservices.


Step-by-Step Solution:

Identify core business capabilities and stakeholders.Cluster related functions into cohesive subsystems.Define interfaces (inputs, outputs, contracts, events) between subsystems.Specify responsibilities, constraints, and performance targets for each subsystem.Iterate with users to validate boundaries and information flows.


Verification / Alternative check:
Decomposition and clear interfaces are consistent with well-known methods such as Structured Systems Analysis, UML component diagrams, and domain-driven design contexts. Pilot implementations and integration tests confirm correctness of the boundaries and contracts.


Why Other Options Are Wrong:

  • Adopting an unrelated off-the-shelf system ignores fit-gap and design.
  • Monolithic development increases complexity and reduces agility.
  • Only proposing alternatives without interfaces fails to produce a design.


Common Pitfalls:
Over-fragmentation (too many tiny subsystems) or poorly specified interfaces causing tight coupling. Skipping stakeholder validation leads to misaligned boundaries.


Final Answer:
Identify subsystems and define interfaces between those subsystems

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion