Over the past four decades, I have interviewed many systems analysts in many different industries. I liked their knowledge of their business and the systems they developed, but I also met a lot of failed people. When I think of the best of them, I think of the commonalities that I can narrow down to three areas:
1. They are in line with their actions. This is not to say that they have a degree in entrepreneurship, although some have done so, but they have found the time to study entrepreneurship and feel like managers, employees and other employees. In other words, he took the initiative to take on the duties and responsibilities of end-users. Duotech is the right platform to become software QA engineer or business analyst.
Unsuccessful people, on the other hand, used to look for technical solutions and try to strangle people who had little idea of their applicability in solving specific business problems. As a result, users of user departments tend to oppose such technical solutions, even sabotaging efforts to implement them.
2. They are able to conceptualize and obtain an analytical basis. Although they appreciate the need for details, they are able to think extensively and find practical solutions. Couples, on the other hand, can be easily distracted in minutes.
3. They have strong communication skills, both oral and written, which allow them to interview people effectively, formulate problems and solutions, and be very convincing. Unsuccessful people have difficulty communicating at any level.
You will notice that I have not included technological knowledge in the specialty. Better analysts understand the need to monitor technology trends, but they do not. Basically, they understand that technology is physical in nature and that it is changing dynamically. Instead, they focus more on the logical problem of the business and how to solve it. In short, he believed that "there are a million ways and one way to peel a cat."
There is a long-standing controversy over who makes up the best analysts: the business school or the school of computer science. While I've seen some good people from both ends of the spectrum, some of the best analysts I've met aren't from either school. Instead, I saw them come from completely different backgrounds, including library science, music, engineering, and math. However, disciplines based on the dominant science allow for creativity.
Honestly, I haven't met many successful analysts who have completed programming classes because they usually only see things through the eyes of a computer. They think that the only legitimate business problems that can be solved are those that can be solved using the latest technology; Everything else is considered illogical. I call it the "dog's tail wagging" philosophy.
One of the best analysts I have ever met was a young woman from Wisconsin who worked for a government agency. This particular agency tried to fix a large financial system that came to a standstill after several months, and quite a few people took part in the project.
To break the deadlock, the director entrusted the project to the new analyst, but gave him the freedom to work independently. Within three months, he systematically documented the existing system, taking into account its strengths and weaknesses, defined the requirements and developed a completely new system, which was later transformed into programming for implementation. In other words, she was able to do it alone in three months, which the whole project team could not do twice. She was organized, able to visualize and was disciplined.