Information Systems Methodologies

Assignment 1

Systems Analysis

F21IF1

Boris Mocialov

Sören Pollakowski

Yernar Akshabayev

Assem Madikenova

Max M Baird

Heriot – Watt University, Edinburgh

October 2014

Date: 03.10.14 by 1PM

Table of contents

1   INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3  

2   EVOLUTION OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 3  2.1   ORIGINS ....................................................................................................................................... 3  2.2   DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 4  2.3   APPLICATION, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGIES ..................................................................... 5  

2.3.1   RAND Organisation ............................................................................................................ 6  2.3.2   International Institute of Applied System Analysis .............................................................. 6  2.3.3   Analysing business processes .............................................................................................. 7  2.3.4   Analysing IT Systems ........................................................................................................... 9  

2.4   EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................. 10  

3   CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 11  

4   BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................... 13  

1 Introduction We will start this essay by discussing the origins of the term systems analysis based on our

findings and continue to look at how the term is applied in different environments. Many

authors elaborate in finding the overall term, which has meaning in the context of their own

discussions as the term allows such indefinite boundaries. In definitions chapter of our essay

we will look at various interpretations of the term presented by different authors and compare

them based on their point of views. Before we consider particular applications, we aim to be

as general as possible about the origins and definitions of the term. Then we focus on some

specific applications of the term under the spotlight together with the reason for executions of

system analysis in one or the other environment and by which means the execution

proceeded. It is important to point out that the list of applications we will look at is not final;

its objective is to show examples of system analysis usage in different sectors. The essay then

ends with an evaluation of applying systems analysis in different environments and looks at

their advantages and disadvantages.

2 Evolution of Systems Analysis 2.1 Origins

Earliest application of the term as a scientific method is discussed in article by Tom Ritchey

(Ritchey, 1996, P. 2) where he presents study performed by Bernhard Riemann, who performs

analysis and synthesis as scientific methods in his work "The Mechanism of the Ear". B.

Riemann both presents a better method for study of a subject and considers wider applications

of such. (Ritchey, 1996, P. 4) Ritchey gives general definition to analysis and system, saying:

analysis breaks down a complex entity into its atomic components. (Ritchey, 1996, P. 1)

Ritchey emphasises on synthesis, as a scientific method, which goes in hand with analysis and

says that analysis and synthesis complement each other and you cannot do one without the

other. (Ritchey, 1996, P. 1) Presented definitions are variations of definition by G.W. Leibniz,

quoted later: "Synthesis is a process in which we begin from principles and build up theorems

and problems, while analysis is a process in which we begin with a given conclusion or

proposed problem and seek the principles by which we may demonstrate the conclusion or

solve the problem" (Ritchey, 1996, P. 16) Synthesis in articles by other authors in the field,

we have considered writing this essay, is a method for assembling pieces left after the analysis

step. Ritchey stresses on that while synthesis and analysis may be regarded as two opposite

methods, they complete each other in the overall process (Ritchey, 1996, P. 1) Ritchey cites

Riemann to show that analysis and synthesis are expressed as cause and effect - internal

processes are regarded as causes while the whole system is seen as effect. (Ritchey, 1996, P.

9) In general terms, as Ritchey writes, "system is any circumscribed object which consists of a

number of parts/components which, in some way or another, work together in order to

produce an overall effect or behaviour" (Ritchey, 1996, P. 6). T. Ritchey in his definition, as

we have noticed, considers systemic properties, such as: Boundary, Inputs/Outputs,

Transformation and a hint of a Purpose.

We regard this article suitable for our essay because B. Riemann in his work decomposes a

system as a whole to perform analysis on every sub-component system has to offer, which

constitutes the epistemological approach to process of system analysis.

In the book “Policy Analysis of Multi-Actor Systems”, authors explicitly write that RAND

organization is the founder of system analysis as a method (Enserink, B., Hermans, L.,

Kwakkel, J., Thissen, W., Koppenjan, J., & Bots, P. (2010), p.52), which we disagree with

backing up our disagreement with the work of B. Riemann in "The Mechanism of the Ear",

who in his turn cites Isaac Newton and Johann Friedrich Herbart as historical references.

(Ritchey, 1996, P.10).

2.2 Definitions

There are multiple definitions of the term systems analysis; this section presents some

definitions as perceived by key systems thinkers and is therefore subjective in this regard. The

definitions show some similarities but are also contextualized within a domain as perceived

by the author.

A very basic definition by Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald is that in “systems analysis, all influences

and constraints in a system are identified and evaluated in terms of their impact on the various

„decision points“.” (Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, 1973, P. 9) This definition, in our opinion,

serves as core for other more encompassing definitions without going into as much detail.

The International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) emphasizes that systems

analysis it is not synonymous with modelling, not about exposing weakness and is not purely

scientific or mathematical in nature. According to IIASA “systems analysis is a problem-

solving process in which many people take part; scientists of relevant disciplines,

stakeholders and decision makers. These are not just problems per se, but problems along

with all the attendant factors and concepts they encompass”. (Hordijk, 2007) Essentially,

IIASA presents a definition which perceives systems analysis as being comprised of different

weltanschauungs of everyone involved where each weltanschauung must be considered.

Boucher and Quade precede their interpretation by admitting an absence of a formal

definition and proceed to state systems analysis as “as a systemic approach to helping a

decision maker choose a course of action by investigating his problem, searching out

objectives and alternatives, and comparing them in the light of their consequences, using an

appropriate framework - in so far as possible analytic - to bring expert judgement and

intuition to bear on the problem”. (Quade & Boucher, 1968, P. 2)

Boucher and Quade’s definition appears quite similar to IIASA’s but differs in a key way. In

our view, IIASA considers a realistic, or perhaps more common, nature of systems analysis;

one that implicates multiple world views. While Boucher and Quade provide a similar

definition, it gives the impression of being narrowed only to the weltanschauung of a single

individual.

Hoag also precedes his perception of systems analysis by stating the non-existence of a

precise, commonly accepted definition. Hoag’s understanding follows as “a systematic

examination of a problem of choice in which each step of the analysis is made explicit

wherever possible”. (Hoag, 1956, P. 2) Here we are missing the reconciliation of different

worldviews and the broad usage of different methodologies, but he points out that the tacit

knowledge an analyser gets by analysing a system , should be made explicit as much as

possible. This is necessary in order to have a basis for a common discussion about the

problems that have to be solved.

The perceptions reveal systems analysis as interdisciplinary and multidimensional. This

makes the establishment and acknowledgement of a common definition (common definition,

in our opinion, should include all points that influence systems analysis) a complex

undertaking. Each definition examined in this section focuses on different aspects, and can all

be considered correct when taken in the context of which they were given.

2.3 Application, objectives and methodologies

The research on systems analysis has focused on many different aspects. An article by Lippert

and Anandarajan (Lippert and Anandarajan, 2002) even distinguishes between research done

by practitioners and academics on systems analysis and comes to the conclusion that

depending on the background of the author, the results vary strongly. They concluded that

academics seemed to focus strongly on the planning of the analysis, whereas practitioners

prefered to investigate tools and methods. Both groups did though not do any research on the

cultural or contextual aspects influencing an analysis. As seen in chapter 2.2 of this essay the

term systems analysis has a widespread meaning. The application and execution of the

methodologies varies also depending on where they are applied. This means the boundaries of

what system analysis should include depend very strongly on the author's world view. We

will therefore give some examples of different forms of the application in different

environments.

2.3.1 RAND Organisation

RAND was the first organisation that applied systems analysis explicit in a broader context of

military and political decisions. It evolved from operations research (OR), which were mainly

quantitative models in order to optimise a specific process. (Quade & Boucher, 1968, P. 4)

Systems analysis added a more broad perspective by adding qualitative methods, future

uncertainties, involving politics, questions of national security and long term strategic goals to

analyse a certain task. In this case especially the development of new weapon system. (Quade

& Boucher, 1968, P. 3) The insight that the overall defense planning was much too complex

for pure quantitative methods lead to the acceptance of a broader method. (Quade & Boucher,

1968, P. 14) This meant that the qualitative, verbal methods gained the most importance in the

military analyses and the classical quantitative models, such as game theory, linear and

dynamic programming, network theory and monte carlo methods only complemented these.

(Quade & Boucher, 1968, P. 15)

2.3.2 International Institute of Applied System Analysis

One important part to successfully analysing a system is involving and reconciling all the

different Weltanschauungs by the different stakeholders. The IIASA was found in 1972 by

representatives of 12 different countries. The USA and the USSR were two leading countries

in this process, which shows the effort to reconcile two very opposite world views. The

objective was to approach global socio-economic and environmental issues by reconciling

different political views as well as scientists and experts from various disciplines.

(International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, History of IIASA) They wanted to

include as many world views as possible when dealing with global issues. One of the key

books in system analysis, the “Handbook of System Analysis” by Quade & Miser was also

sponsored by this organisation. (Hordijk, 2007, P. 14f.) Even though they pointed out that

systems analysis has no fixed form and is underlying several changes as systems constantly

change as well, they have a nine-step framework that can be used as guideline for analysing a

particular system. Hordijk, 2007, P. 15)

1. Data collection (existing knowledge or doing research)

2. Determine goals of everyone involved in the system

3. Develop possible solutions for fulfilling goals

4. Reconsider problem with gained knowledge

5. Evaluate the consequences of different solutions

6. Comparison of different solutions

7. Make results available to everyone involved in the system analysis process

8. Follow-up assistance

9. Final evaluation

We will later in this essay introduce two other frameworks, to show that the general sequence

in executing a systems analysis seems to be very similar, but do add some other aspects and

have another level of detail. This can be seen under the aspect that also a framework for

systems analysis should be able to adapt to a specific situation, as well as systems must have

requisite variety. But they all follow the basic structure of analysis + synthesis.

Whilst analysing a system the Institution uses a lot of different quantitative and qualitative

methods in order to make profound evaluations. But also the development of tools is a part of

the process, as there are not always methods available in order to investigate a problem.

(International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Models, Tools & Data)

2.3.3 Analysing business processes

Organisations are one of the most common and also complex systems in our perception. In

this chapter we will give two examples of systems analysis in the environment of an

organisation. Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald have proposed a systematical approach by providing a

guideline how to get to the bottom of problems within organisations and how to redesign the

system to solve them. So we have again a combination of analysis and synthesis. In

comparison to the IIASA the authors add the thought out that before executing a substantial

analysis and redesign there should a feasibility study in order to save time and money.

(Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, 1973, P. 30ff.) For the actual analysis they have created a ten-step

framework as a guideline. (Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, 1973, P. 23) Bingham & Davies on the

other hand propose a six-step framework in which the first step is the project selection.

(Bingham & Davies, 1978, P. 5) So the sources provide like the IIASA frameworks that

should be used as a guideline on how to approach a systems analysis with some similarities

but also different steps and level of detail (compare Picture 1).

Picture 1 – Comparison of systems analysis approach by Fitzgerald&Fitzgerald and Bingham&Davies

adapted from (Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, 1973, P. 23) (Bingham & Davies, 1978, P. 5)

In addition both books quote a variety of techniques that can be used when analysing a

system. Examples are: fact gathering (e.g. Interviews, books, reports, […]), charting

(Procedure charts, flow charts,[…]) or simulation. (Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, 1973, P.

225ff.) & (Bingham & Davies, 1978, P. 43ff.) These can be categorised as more qualitative

methods. The IIASA uses contrary many quantitative methods and even delope some tools, to

calculate the impacts of certain events on the system.

These approaches are quite similar to the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) that is

often used when developing information systems for companies. The earliest SDLC approach

was by the National Computing Centre (NCC) in the UK in the late 1960s. (Avison &

Fitzgerald, 2003, P. 19) The steps in this approach, which is also referred to as

classical/conventional systems analysis or the waterfall model, are: “feasibility study, systems

investigation, systems analysis, systems design, implementation and review and

maintenance.” (Avison & Fitzgerald, 2003, P. 17) In the following chapter we will write more

about analysing IT systems.

2.3.4 Analysing IT Systems

In this chapter we introduce some alternative methods for analysing systems to the classical

waterfall approach, where you follow a framework, as a step by step introduction to analysing

systems. These methods are based on the object-oriented programming and a continuous

feedback in the development phase. We consider the inclusion of this chapter paramount since

most contemporary literature makes heavy reference to, and uses examples of, IT systems.

We consider IT systems a domain which benefits heavily from the application of systems

analysis methodologies, therefore providing a brief overview of methodologies specific to the

domain cannot be omitted.

The development of IT systems encompasses an analysis phase to which there are several

employable analysis methodologies: structured analysis, object-oriented analysis and agile

methods (Shelly & Rosenblatt, 2012, P. 22) The aforementioned methodologies are by no

means a finite list; other methodologies may be identified and implemented where the system

developer is free to alternate among several in an attempt to gain better perspectives.

Organisations may also originate their own approaches and techniques; in essence there is no

universal methodology which can be applied to every analysis situation. It therefore means

that a key aspect of executing systems analysis entails understanding the problem and then

choosing the most appropriate analysis technique based on that understanding. It is important

to realize that the established understanding only portrays a specific analyst’s current view of

the system. This understanding may vary among analysts.

Structured analysis examines a system from the viewpoint of its data flow and models this

system as an entity which transforms its data flow while addressing the structure and

organisation of the data (Shelly & Rosenblatt, 2012, P. 22) In essence, the processes and data

are treated as separate components. In contrast, object oriented analysis merges the data and

processes into objects and depicts the communication among these objects. This analysis

methodology of establishing objects to model real world processes and operations has the

advantage of facilitating a smooth transition to the object oriented paradigm of software

development. While the structured and object oriented approaches attempt to establish a

representation of a complete system, the agile method seeks to perform analysis incrementally

through the creation of prototypes which constantly adjust to requirements (Shelly &

Rosenblatt, 2012, P. 25) Adaptive planning is a feature of this approach where requirements

and solutions constantly evolve and earlier versions are merged into the final project.

2.4 Evaluation So in summary it can be stated that systems analysis tries to give some structure to complex

systems by using analytical, scientific methods from several disciplines. (Quade & Boucher,

1968) It supports the process of making assumptions and expectations explicit so that all

stakeholders involved in a system have the same basis for discussion. (Enserink, Hermans,

Kwakkel, Thissen, Koppenjan, & Bots, 2010, P. 52) It helps to reconcile the different

worldviews of these stakeholders which could be a step to objectivise. This goes back to the

idea in Socratic dialogues, where Socrates tries to find out the truth by comparing point of

views in critical way to reach objectivity (dialectic).

Systems analysis makes it possible to make long-term planning in systems with uncertain

future prospective instead of short-term reaction to occurring events. (Quade & Boucher,

1968)

A successful systems analysis is dependent on the person or the people analysing it whether

they are able to reconcile all world views and apply the most relevant methodologies. In our

opinion there is no right or wrong approach to analysing a system, but an analyst always has

to consider what the objective of the analysis is and depending on this and the analysed

system choose the most relevant methodologies. The structured waterfall approach that is

supplied by the IIASA and two other authors in our essay, could be seen as an overall

schedule for a systems analysis, but analysing specific areas might require different

approaches, like the agile or object-oriented methods.

On the other hands there are clear boundaries to systems analysis. It can never be a complete

analysis of a system because time and budget are usually limited and systems are changing

and adapting (requisite variety / adaptive content) persistently. (Enserink, Hermans, Kwakkel,

Thissen, Koppenjan, & Bots, 2010, P. 52) This makes it also difficult to choose which

methods are actually the most relevant for a particular case, so an analyst has to figure out

which methods are appropriate before executing them. The Weltanschauung of the system

analyst has also massive influence on the type of analysis and as Gödel already pointed out,

even though somebody might think he fully understood the system, the system will be

incomplete or contradict itself.

3 Conclusion Our investigation of systems analysis brings us to the conclusion that it is a term which is

difficult to precisely define because systems are built for people where weltanschauung plays

a major role. When building for users a consensus needs to be agreed upon. Even with the

identification of a boundary there are variations in perception even if there is an individual

weltanschauung since this person’s perception may change with the acquirement of additional

knowledge of the system. Boundaries may be easy to identify in small, simple systems but

system analysis is not always applied to such simplistic systems.

After analysing different applications of system analysis, we are able to see how

organisations, sectors, etc. wrap up the term with extra procedures to give it more

comprehensible meaning, within their own context, may it be a methodology or something

else. Systems analysis has a variety of approaches on how it is to be executed because of the

the variation of the factors within the systemic properties. Systems analysis encompasses

many different quantitative and qualitative methodologies that can be used for analysis and

the analyst has to choose the most relevant for the current context.

In our essay we show how systems analysis has evolved starting to explain the different

meaning of system, analysis and synthesis, then the first application by Riemann and when

RAND used operations research as a basis to apply systems analysis in broader environment

to develop new weapon systems. Furthermore the application of systems analysis in other

sectors added new methodologies and guidelines on how to proceed. Most of the presented

examples follow the structured analysis method, but in chapter 2.3.4 we introduce two

different methods. Object-oriented that perceives the system as a set of objects that could be

mapped to real world entities and their relationships. The agile methods adapt the current

system as new requirements emerge.

When you analyse problems in a system, the systems analysis approach is usually applied,

even if it just considers small problems that people might be able to solve by intuition. Most

people still try to base their judgment on why this problem occurs on as much objective

arguments as possible. It is easier for people to break a system down into atomic parts and

understand those individually, than to perceive the system as a whole. (ex. when we look at a

picture, our brain assembles separate bits of that picture into one). You can argue that these

arguments will never be objective, as they are only based on previous experiences of people

(Hume). But we think that quantitative and qualitative tools and methods can assist in order to

get to the bottom of a problem and understanding the system, as they make observations

explicit and are thereby open to a critical discussion. Still they are limited as it is not possible

to include all influencing systemic properties in a method or even an analysis as it is limited

by perception, time and money.

4 Bibliography Avison, D., & Fitzgerald, G. (2003). Informations Systems Development: Methodologies,

Technieques and Tools (3rd edition ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw HIll.

Bingham, J., & Davies, G. (1978). A Handbook of Systems Analysis (2nd edition ed.). London

and Basingstoke: MacMillan Press Ltd.

Enserink, B., Hermans, L., Kwakkel, J., Thissen, W., Koppenjan, J., & Bots, P. (2010). Policy

Analysis of Multi-Actor Systems. The Hague: Lemma.

Fitzgerald, J., & Fitzgerald, A. (1973). Fundamentas of Systems Analysis. London and

Basingstoke: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Hoag, M. W. (1956, 04 18). U.S. Air Force. Project RAND. Research Memorandum. An

introduction to systems analysis. Santa Monica.

Hordijk, L. (2007, Winter). What is systems analysis? (A. International Institute for Applied

Systems Analysis A-2361 Laxenburg, Ed.) Options Magazine , p. 14-15.

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. (2014, 09 29). History of IIASA.

Retrieved 09 29, 2014 from www.iiasa.ac.at:

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/whatisiiasa/history/history_of_iiasa.html

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. (2014, 05 19). Models, Tools & Data.

Retrieved 09 29, 2014 from www.iiasa.ac.at:

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/modelsData/Models--Tools--Data.en.html

Lippert, S., & Anandarajan, M. (2002, 12 31). Systems Planning and Analysis Research 1970

to 2002: A Comparison of Acedemic and Practioner Activities. (A. f. Systems, Ed.) Barcelona.

Quade, E. S., & Boucher, W. I. (1968). Systems Analysis and Policy Planning Application in

Defense. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.

Ritchey, T. (1996). Analysis and Synthesis: On Scientific Method - Based on a Study by

Bernhard Riemann. Retrieved 09 20, 2014 from www.swemorph.com:

http://www.swemorph.com/pdf/anaeng-r.pdf

Shelly, G. B., & Rosenblatt, H. J. (2012). Systems Analysis and Design (9th Edition ed.).

Boston: Course Technology - Cengage.