The business of building systems has changed. A time once existed when computer literacy, technical know-how, and programming skills were all it took to become a successful information systems professional. In many companies, this is still the case. But slowly, yet steadily, a new breed of systems professional is beginning to emerge. Technical skills are no longer enough. Business knowledge, communication ability, and a client centered perspective are becoming more and more important. With computer systems playing an ever increasing role in the management and the competitiveness of companies of all sizes, the information systems professional no longer just serves the company, in many case he or she has a major influence on the way business is conducted.
What does this mean for today's systems professional? It means the burden of keeping up is even more challenging than ever! Systems professionals must increasingly view themselves as business problem solvers and business enablers, not just technicians. Computing power has become a part of corporate strategy, and the system builders are charged with creating the business information systems "vision" and making it a reality. Add to this the vast array of technical platforms, programming languages, databases, and system building methodologies which are available in today's marketplace, and the job becomes somewhat overwhelming! So how should the computing professional approach these challenges?
First, today's system builder must adopt a more business centered philosophy, and second, he or she must exercise discipline and flexibility as the company moves through the system building lifecycle. But which lifecycle? Traditional System Building Approaches, Information Engineering, Object Oriented Design, Rapid Application Development, and a host of others all possess inherent strengths and weaknesses. Which one is best? How should these approach decisions be ma-de?
Unfortunately, no easy answers exist to these questions. Depending on circumstances and experience, one approach may be preferable over another. In other situations, a sampling of techniques and methods from one or more of the current approaches may be appropriate. What follows within this web site is a mix. Some of the strengths from the traditional lifecycle are still present, the foundation of structured analysis is present, many of the advantages of information engineering have been incorporated, and the new paradigms of object-oriented analysis, design and programming are included.
The main criteria for discussion here is one of practicality. What are the approaches which make most sense in today's business climate, and which will yield the greatest productivity results given the ever increasing quality demands of the business clients. The other consideration for inclusion here is that the selected philosophies and approaches are proven and they work. They have been developed from actual IS implementation and support experiences.
First, today's system builder must adopt a more business centered philosophy, and second, he or she must exercise discipline and flexibility as the company moves through the system building lifecycle. But which lifecycle? Traditional System Building Approaches, Information Engineering, Object Oriented Design, Rapid Application Development, and a host of others all possess inherent strengths and weaknesses. Which one is best? How should these approach decisions be ma-de?
中
ma-de为m a d e（去除空格），（因为涉及到站中表情，因此我在其中加入-，给大家带来不便，敬请谅解:-)）
