A systems analyst attended a week-long workshop on structured analysis. When she returned to her job, she told her boss that structured analysis was not worth the time to learn and use on the job. Her view was that it was too academic and had too much new terminology to be useful in a practical setting. Do you agree or disagree? Defend your position.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Students typically support both positions. There are some arguments for agreeing with the systems analyst's viewpoint. First, if the organization already has a systems analysis methodology that works effectively, there is no reason to introduce a new approach.
Second, just because some people find structured analysis to be useful does not mean that the organization will find it to be useful.
Third, learning and adopting any new method involves time and cost, which need to be identified and allocated. Fourth, before the introduction of structured analysis, other systems analysis methodologies were used, so there probably will be other new approaches in the future to replace structured analysis.
Some arguments for disagreeing with the systems analyst's viewpoint follow. First, many companies use structured analysis and many experts endorse this approach, so structured analysis must be an effective approach.
Second, if the company currently does not have a standard systems analysis methodology, structured analysis is as good as any methodology, and a standard approach would be beneficial to the company.
Third, learning something new is good, even if the company only ends up questioning what they currently do and how they do it.
Fourth, the company must keep up-to-date in order to handle Web-based research, understand technology developments, and communicate effectively with other IT professionals.