Sign-up today to join over 3 million learners already on ALISON:

ALISON: Diploma in Project Management

Questions & Answers about System development life cycle - The analysis phase

The Question must be about:
- Module: System development life cycle
- Topic: The analysis phase

Latest Questions

  • Samuel Kofi Odoi Ghana Analysis phase in SDLC is however essential because, without this phase problems can not be identify.
    2014-08-14 21:08:39

  • Elliot Nombayeka South Africa When does the business case become in the analysis?
    2014-08-13 13:08:11

    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan Just soon after planning phase.
      2014-08-24 20:08:15
    • Samuel Kofi Odoi Ghana It should be the early stage of in the process of development..
      2014-08-14 21:08:07
  • Alexander Njoku Nigeria IN all this processes of system development life cycle shows the planning procedure, but what are they mains of escalating undesired issues on this analysis?
    2014-07-25 12:07:39

    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan It means spreading wrong desire issues.
      2014-08-24 20:08:00
  • Vikram Vasant Rotkar United Kingdom How to escalate issues realized in the analysis phase?
    2014-07-21 17:07:54

    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan To make decision whether to do project or not.
      2014-08-24 20:08:09
  • Robert Hesketh United Kingdom What % of budgetary effort would you say is likely for the analysis phase of a software project?
    2014-07-21 15:07:17

    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan Just about 20%.
      2014-08-24 20:08:49
  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:28

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:14

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:45

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:27

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:08

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:56

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-20 18:07:53

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-20 18:07:38

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-20 18:07:42

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-20 18:07:30

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-20 18:07:06

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia PERT and CPM Project managers frequently face the task of controlling projects that contain unknown and unpredictable factors. When the projects are not complex, bar charts can be used to plan and control project activities. These charts divide the project into discrete activities or tasks and analyze each task individually to indicate weekly manpower requirements. As the work goes forward, progress is charted and estimates are made on the effects of any delays or difficulties encountered during the completion of the project. In the mid-1950s more sophisticated methods of project planning and control were developed. Two systems based on a network portrayal of the activities that make up the project emerged at about the same time. PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) was first used in the development of submarines capable of firing Polaris missiles. CPM (the Critical Path Method) was used to manage the annual maintenance work in an oil and chemical refinery. Many variations and extensions of the two original techniques are now in use, and they have proved particularly valuable for projects requiring the coordinated work of hundreds of separate contractors. The use of project planning and control techniques based on PERT or CPM are now common in all types of civil engineering and construction work, as well as for large developmental projects such as the manufacture of aircraft, missiles, space vehicles, and large mainframe computer systems.
    2014-07-20 17:07:38

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia PERT and CPM Project managers frequently face the task of controlling projects that contain unknown and unpredictable factors. When the projects are not complex, bar charts can be used to plan and control project activities. These charts divide the project into discrete activities or tasks and analyze each task individually to indicate weekly manpower requirements. As the work goes forward, progress is charted and estimates are made on the effects of any delays or difficulties encountered during the completion of the project. In the mid-1950s more sophisticated methods of project planning and control were developed. Two systems based on a network portrayal of the activities that make up the project emerged at about the same time. PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) was first used in the development of submarines capable of firing Polaris missiles. CPM (the Critical Path Method) was used to manage the annual maintenance work in an oil and chemical refinery. Many variations and extensions of the two original techniques are now in use, and they have proved particularly valuable for projects requiring the coordinated work of hundreds of separate contractors. The use of project planning and control techniques based on PERT or CPM are now common in all types of civil engineering and construction work, as well as for large developmental projects such as the manufacture of aircraft, missiles, space vehicles, and large mainframe computer systems.
    2014-07-20 17:07:22

  • Raymond Siwale Botswana can anyone do the analysis phase or skilled people are required?
    2014-07-17 11:07:05

    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan An analysis required skilled people.
      2014-08-24 20:08:34
  • Momoh S. Kamara Sierra Leone Why system development life cycle is important in project management?
    2014-07-15 19:07:20

    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan It very important for achievement of project objectives and goal.
      2014-08-24 20:08:07
Loading Menu