Systems Analyst vs Systems Administrator

W Stewart

Basically I'm trying to understand the difference between Analyst, Administrator and Engineer.

I found a job through a recruiter that was advertised as Linux Administrator. I believe over the phone the recruiter mentioned that they wanted a systems engineer but couldn't find anybody qualified so they decided to compromise on the years of experience. The official title on the offer letter is Systems Analyst. Now I'm aware that title's can mean anything these days and I'm fine with either since I'll still be working with linux, java and aws. It's also a growing company so I'll probably be doing a little of everything but I'm just wondering how those two titles compare to each-other.

From what I've read, it seems that a Systems Analyst designs and implements technologies that meet the needs of a business whereas a systems administrator takes care of daily maintenance of a system. Is one title usually more preferred than the other? Also, what's the difference between a Systems Analyst and a Systems Engineer since that description is pretty close to my understanding of what a Systems Engineer does?

I'm really just trying to figure out if this role is an advancement from my previous role of Jr Systems Administrator. The pay is definitely better as well as the responsibilities. I'll ask about it when I start on the 12th but I'm thinking that systems analyst might be a step below systems engineer in this job and administrator may or may not even be a title. They did mention that I would move up pretty quickly as well so that's definitely a plus if there's an engineer title in my future.

TheProf

You're right, titles don't really mean much. But typically, from what I see (used to be an analyst), his or her job lies more on the capacity planning and integration.

Design work is more focused on architecture roles, where the architect would typically works with the analysts or SMEs to provide a solution. System Administrators do mainly ops and project work, again, it varies from company to company. The best thing to do, would be to look at the responsibilities to have a better understanding of the role.

Also keep in mind, that some organizations use titles as a way to gauge your salary bracket. For example, let's say you're an admin and you're in bracket A, you would be making somewhere between 45,000-65,000 based on your experience. If you're in bracket B (Systems Analyst), you could be making 60,000-80,000, and so on. So even though the title might sound like something interesting, it's also important to note these factors.

networker050184

I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it. One companies analyst is another engineer.

iBrokeIT

networker050184 wrote: »

I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it. One companies analyst is another engineer.

I'm going to second this statement. There is no standardizaion of titles, not even close. In fact, completely ignore them. Focus on what they have spelled out for job duties and where you fit into the IT organization. A few of the smaller companies I worked at I was THE IT guy and didn't really give me title, they just said use what ever works for you (LOL!).

RHEL

TheProf wrote: »

You're right, titles don't really mean much. But typically, from what I see (used to be an analyst), his or her job lies more on the capacity planning and integration.

Design work is more focused on architecture roles, where the architect would typically works with the analysts or SMEs to provide a solution. System Administrators do mainly ops and project work, again, it varies from company to company. The best thing to do, would be to look at the responsibilities to have a better understanding of the role.

Also keep in mind, that some organizations use titles as a way to gauge your salary bracket. For example, let's say you're an admin and you're in bracket A, you would be making somewhere between 45,000-65,000 based on your experience. If you're in bracket B (Systems Analyst), you could be making 60,000-80,000, and so on. So even though the title might sound like something interesting, it's also important to note these factors.

From my experiences in pay... Engineer >= Admin > Analyst

Example: My first job as a Linux Systems Admin for a major corporation -- I applied to be a Linux/UNIX Systems Administrator, I was absolutely doing sysadmin work, however, HR had my title as systems analyst (much like the OP in this thread)... Why? I later found a database of salary grades for professional IT staff... S01, S02, S03, S04, etc... I was a S01. The title Systems Administrator started at S02. This means that even though I was hired to be a sysadmin, I was categorized as an analyst by HR to fit my pay range... Pretty sneaky.

My next job, working as a UNIX systems administrator, I came back from vacation to find that a re-org ha happened and my title was now Systems Engineer. I was told this was a "promotion."

The admin title essentially went away, but we still had analysts. Analysts were basically call center first responders who did initial troubleshooting. According to the new vision, the analysts (1st tier) were suppose to handle 98% of issues before getting to engineers (3rd tier) for the remaining 2% of issues. As far as pay, I was paid as an engineer the same I was as an administrator. Admins/engineers were 2-3 pay tiers above analyst.

That being said, titles are BS most of the time anyway. My opinion though is that you're being labeled an analyst because HR has established pay grades for each title within the org and they've placed/labeled you by where you stand in pay. Just a hunch from personal experience.

N2IT

Worked in an environment where the system administrators programmed some of the in house web apps. The same company the business analyst were more like admin assistants and the solution architect made spreadsheets all day long.

I agree titles are important but can't be trusted.

My definition of these titles are as follows

System Analyst - Works with supporting the application. Usually I have seen them more like tier 3 support. Usually have read access to the database and look for data integrity issues etc. Also provide software testing and analysis

System Administrator - Set up user accounts, building servers, print and file servers, etc. Manage the Windows infrastructure. This can be on the Nix side as well.

System Engineer Design, Architecture (I honestly don't know much about this role I have never done it, I have performed the other two to some degree).

pram

I'm a Systems Analyst and the description in the OP is pretty close. We don't do operations, the majority of my tasks revolve around design, integration, and implementation. We then hand off the finished product/specs/docs to the operations team where the System Admins work.

At my company, Architect is just a title given to senior Analysts.

TheProf

RHEL wrote: »

From my experiences in pay... Engineer >= Admin > Analyst

Example: My first job as a Linux Systems Admin for a major corporation -- I applied to be a Linux/UNIX Systems Administrator, I was absolutely doing sysadmin work, however, HR had my title as systems analyst (much like the OP in this thread)... Why? I later found a database of salary grades for professional IT staff... S01, S02, S03, S04, etc... I was a S01. The title Systems Administrator started at S02. This means that even though I was hired to be a sysadmin, I was categorized as an analyst by HR to fit my pay range... Pretty sneaky.

My next job, working as a UNIX systems administrator, I came back from vacation to find that a re-org ha happened and my title was now Systems Engineer. I was told this was a "promotion."

The admin title essentially went away, but we still had analysts. Analysts were basically call center first responders who did initial troubleshooting. According to the new vision, the analysts (1st tier) were suppose to handle 98% of issues before getting to engineers (3rd tier) for the remaining 2% of issues. As far as pay, I was paid as an engineer the same I was as an administrator. Admins/engineers were 2-3 pay tiers above analyst.

That being said, titles are BS most of the time anyway. My opinion though is that you're being labeled an analyst because HR has established pay grades for each title within the org and they've placed/labeled you by where you stand in pay. Just a hunch from personal experience.

^This.

Honestly, the work is what matters first, salary second. Just need to be careful that you're not undervalued (happened to me in the past as well), and if you are, it's up to you to decide if you want to stay.

--chris--

networker050184 wrote: »

I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it. One companies analyst is another engineer.

A job I just applied too: Clinical analyst II = Desktop support in a Hospital

I found that ignoring job titles and spending 20-30 seconds skimming the requirements will give me a better idea of what skill set the hiring staff are looking for. I've found a few gems on job boards that I think other people have over looked because of the terrible names for the positions.

W Stewart

Yeah I'm thinking the title may just be do to the salary. I'm the one that asked for 55k in the first place and I was told by the recruiters that the low salary I was asking for would be perfect since I had less than the five years of experience requested. Every new job I get is usually a ridiculous bump in salary and at the same time it also makes it apparent to me how much I was being low balled in my last position. It's still an 11k salary bump so I'll just be sure to ask for a raise and a promotion within a year.