Professionals · code 2511
Systems analysts
AI can write the specification. Getting everyone to agree what they need is still analysis.
Writing functional specs and linking up an organisation's systems are where AI could take a fair chunk. Rolling out and extending systems are mostly out of its reach.
What they actually do (and what else they get called)
Systems analysts conduct research, analyse and evaluate client information technology requirements, procedures or problems, and develop and implement proposals, recommendations, and plans to improve current or future information systems. Tasks include - (a) consulting with users to formulate document requirements and with management to ensure agreement on systems principles; (b) identifying and analysing business processes, procedures and work practices; (c) identifying and evaluating inefficiencies and recommending optimal business practices and system functionality and behaviour; (d) taking responsibility for deploying functional solutions, such as creating, adopting and implementing system test plans; (e) developing functional specifications for use by systems developers; (f) expanding or modifying systems to improve workflow or serve new purposes; (g) coordinating and linking the computer systems within an organization to increase compatibility. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Business analyst (IT) - Computer scientist - Information systems analyst - Systems consultant - Systems designer (IT) Some related occupations classified elsewhere: - Systems administrator (computers) - 2522 - Communications analyst (computers) - 2523 - Network analyst - 2523
- integration engineer
- data scientist
- ICT consultant
- ICT intelligent systems designer
- ICT research consultant
- ICT system integration consultant
- ICT business analyst
- ICT system developer
- data analyst
- enterprise architect
- ICT system analyst
- ICT system architect
- ICT business analysis manager
- green ICT consultant
- computer scientist
- user experience analyst
- embedded system designer
- IT auditor
Job titles from the EU's ESCO list. Search for any of them on the jobs page and you'll end up here.
51 / 100
Changing significantly
AI could do a real share of the everyday tasks. The job is changing shape, not vanishing.
Not the odds you keep your job. It's how much of the everyday work still needs a person, out of 100.
The ILO's official verdict: Exposed: Gradient 2
372 of 427 for holding up against AI
Not quite your week? Make it yours ↓
Why this score?
The ILO rated each of this job's 7 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 49 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 49 = 51.
That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Exposed: Gradient 2”: A good share of the tasks are affected.
This job rates 24.7 out of 100 for how hands-on it is. The score above only looks at AI tools, not robots, but for work this far from the physical that matters less.
from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use
Man v Bot · compare
Who holds up better?
Systems analysts 51
vGo on, try your partner's job. Or your sibling's. We won't tell.
Man v Bot
Where the bot helps, and where the human wins
Bot
What AI takes
The routine stuff. You may not miss it.
- Functional specifications.
- System integration.
- Test plans.
Man
What people still do better
Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.
- Understanding what users need.
- Getting agreement from managers.
- Judgement about trade-offs.
Both
What's arriving
New work that only exists because the AI does.
- Building AI into business systems.
- AI agents that connect systems.
- Data science roles.
Written by a human, from the ILO's task ratings below. Yes, we see the irony. Read it as one person's take.
Meet your two rivals
They're not the same machine. AI software can only reach the parts of a job done on a screen or in words. A chatbot can't climb a ladder. A robot might, one day, if it doesn't fall off.
The AI
Lives in a screen. Never had to fix a boiler.
Threat level: Medium
58 could do without you
It could take over some of the work, and help with more. It could help with 77 of 100.
The robot
The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.
How much it matters here: Lower
25 how hands-on
Not much of this job needs hands, so the robot can sit this one out.
So could a robot do the physical part?
Less than half of this job is hands-on. Robots still matter, but for a smaller part of the work, so we don't sort it any further.
Robots hate fiddly work in awkward spaces. On that measure, this job scores 24 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.
hands-on
and cramped
Kind of hands-on work Less than half hands-on
The small print
They aren't a robot score, and nothing on this page is. Nobody measures how far robots have got well enough to put a number on it. These are the closest thing we have: how hands-on the job is, and how much fiddly, cramped work it takes, which is what Frey and Osborne found hardest for machines.
From O*NET, averaged across 3 US jobs .
finger skill 37.1 · hand skill 22.7 · cramped spaces 11.8 · averaged · rule: hands-on under 50
estimated O*NET 31.0 BLS occupational crosswalk chain ISCO-08 to 2010 SOC (Aug 2012, rev. Jun 2015); 2010 to 2018 SOC (Nov 2017); O*NET-SOC 2019 taxonomy data 0.8-observed-use measures chosen by Frey & Osborne (2017) · the grouping is a sorting, not a measurement
The job, task by task
Every job is really a bundle of tasks. Here's this one unpacked, with how much of each AI could do, out of 100. The score is the average, and averages can hide a lot.
AI's favourite task here scores 56, against an average of 49. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.
- 56
Developing functional specifications for use by systems developers
Medium - 55
Coordinating and linking the computer systems within an organization to increase compatibility.
Medium - 50
Consulting with users to formulate and document requirements and with management to ensure agreement on systems principles
Low - 49
Identifying and evaluating inefficiencies and recommending optimal business practices and system functionality and behaviour
Low - 46
Identifying and analysing business processes, procedures and work practices
Low - 45
Taking responsibility for deploying functional solutions, such as creating, adopting and implementing system test plans
Low - 44
Expanding or modifying systems to improve workflow or serve new purposes
Low
7 tasks · the High to Very Low labels are the ILO's
from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use
New · the weekly task audit
Your week, your score
The score above assumes systems analysts spend the same time on every task. You don't. Slide each task to how much of your week it takes, and we'll re-weight the same ILO ratings to fit your job.
- Some
- Some
- Some
- Some
- Some
- Some
- Some
Your score
51 / 100
Same as the job as a whole, so far.
Move the sliders to make it yours.
The job as a whole: 51 / 100
Link copied.
Nothing you enter leaves your browser. The link just carries your slider positions.
Sidekick or replacement?
A tool that makes you faster is a very different thing from one that does the task while you watch. Jobs and Skills Australia measured the two separately, which is handy.
- AI helps you
- 77
- AI does it for you
- 58
Sidekick wins, by 19 points.
How good a match is this?
One Australian job matches, but only partly: not everyone in it does this job. Treat the numbers as a rough guide.
estimated Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.8-observed-use matched to Australian jobs 2611
Meanwhile, in real life…
Everything else here is about what AI could do. This is what people actually did. When they asked Claude for help with this kind of work, did they hand the whole task over, or roll their sleeves up and work through it together?
Out of every 100 conversations
worked through it together handed it over
The small print
Anthropic publishes this about its own product, and it doesn't feed into any score here. These are people who use Claude, not workers in general, so little use here doesn't mean AI can't reach the job. This job makes up 2% of the conversations.
The data is sorted by US job, and this one matches 3 of them. We've combined them, counting each by how often it comes up in the conversations, so the busiest one counts most.
These two add up to 100. The bars elsewhere on the page don't, because each is scored on its own, so we don't put them side by side.
observed use Anthropic Economic Index release 2026-06-26, period beginning 2026-05-01 data 0.8-observed-use 2026-05-01 · Anthropic, about its own product
So, should systems analysts be worried?
Short answer: not worried, but paying attention. The job is changing.
Parts of the job are changing. Functional specifications and linking systems are rated Medium; requirements, business practices, processes, deployment and extending systems are Low. AI writes specs and code faster; understanding people and processes stays human.
Worth remembering: we score tasks, not jobs. When AI takes on a task, the job usually reshuffles around it rather than vanishing.
How are the neighbours doing?
There are 92 jobs in the “Professionals” family, averaging 61. This one is below the family average.
- Creative and performing artists not e… 87
- Veterinarians 86
- Dentists 85
- Religious professionals 83
- Dancers and choreographers 81
- Health professionals not elsewhere cl… 81
- Early childhood educators 79
- Visual artists 79
- Paramedical practitioners 77
- Optometrists and ophthalmic opticians 76
- Audiologists and speech therapists 76
- Nursing professionals 75
- Primary school teachers 74
- Specialist medical practitioners 73
- Environmental and occupational health… 72
- Musicians, singers and composers 72
- Social work and counselling professio… 72
- Physiotherapists 72
- Special needs teachers 72
- Farming, forestry and fisheries advis… 72
- Generalist medical practitioners 71
- Mining engineers, metallurgists and r… 71
- Secondary education teachers 70
- Midwifery professionals 70
- Civil engineers 70
- Engineering professionals not elsewhe… 70
- Judges 69
- Electrical engineers 69