Location: United States, including San Francisco and New York. Employer listing checked: November 14, 2026.
Figma lists a full-time US Business Systems Analyst opening on its Customer Operations and Support team. The work centers on Zendesk administration, support routing, automation, and the integration between Decagon and Zendesk. The employer lists US hubs or remote work in the United States and asks for at least three years as a Zendesk administrator or in a relevant support systems analyst role.
Turn support problems into system requirements
A backlog can accumulate because volume increased, tickets are classified incorrectly, or work is routed to a team that cannot resolve it. Start your case study with evidence identifying the cause. Then explain where the change belonged: an intake form, a business rule, a queue design, or a training update. The posting expects hands-on administration as well as the judgment to select the right change.
Support tooling has to accommodate routing exceptions. Show that you can think about urgent requests, language groups, missing information, and access permissions before a rule goes live. A change that helps the average ticket can still create problems for a smaller queue. Describe how you checked those cases.
Prepare an integration example
The employer specifically mentions Decagon and handoffs into Zendesk. If you have configured the integration, explain what should happen when an automated conversation needs a person. Which information is carried into the ticket? What happens if a field is missing or an escalation goes to the wrong queue? Explain how you tested the route from start to finish.
If you have adjacent experience with another support automation product, be precise about the tool you used and the behavior you configured. Transferable concepts include defining escalation triggers, mapping fields, confirming ownership, and keeping a trace of what an agent or automation already tried. The application should describe those concepts through your own work rather than assuming adjacent experience satisfies a named requirement.
Explain safe rollout and measurement
Practice describing how you would introduce a routing change without moving every ticket at once. Identify a pilot group, baseline measures, and a way to detect whether tickets are being misclassified. State which changes can be reversed quickly and which would require a wider configuration review. Explain how the team would communicate the rollout to agents and support leads.
Go beyond average response time. A rollout can reduce response time in one queue while increasing reassignments in another. Compare measures that reveal the difference, such as transfer rates, queue age, or repeat contacts. A good documentation example makes the rules, owners, exceptions, and monitoring plan visible to the next administrator.
Tailor your application to the technical work
Use relevant terms such as Zendesk, Decagon, ticket routing, workflow automation, business rules, and change management where you have practical evidence. The listing identifies Zendesk certification as a plus. If you earned one, list it separately from your implementation examples. Let your project story establish the scope of your actual administration work.
Build an application around evidence the reader can verify
Start with a support routing change that improved handoffs. Draft three sentences before writing a résumé bullet. The first explains the problem in language a colleague outside your team would understand. The second states the decision you owned and why you chose it. The third gives the result and identifies what you know firsthand. If the outcome came from several people, say which part you can explain in detail. This exercise helps turn a broad claim into evidence you can discuss if the employer asks follow-up questions.
For this opening, consider preparing a sanitized workflow diagram showing classification, assignment, and escalation. You may use it to organize your interview answer even if you never send it. Include only information you are allowed to share. Replacing company names is insufficient if a chart or a unique deal detail still identifies the organization. A reconstructed example with synthetic data can show the process if you label it clearly and avoid presenting its figures as a past result. Give each entry a short caption that explains the decision it supported.
Review your story against ticket age, transfer rates, access permissions, and reassignment exceptions. Decide which facts are essential to understanding the work and which are background. A useful test is to describe your role in one minute, then ask someone to repeat back the problem, your contribution, and the outcome. Revise any part they cannot follow. After that, prepare a longer version that makes room for constraints and trade-offs without obscuring the main point.
Interview practice with a role-specific prompt
Practice question: How would you test that an AI handoff reaches an agent with enough context?
A revised assignment rule reduces the time it takes to place most tickets but increases the number of tickets an agent has to transfer. Pull examples of the transferred cases. Look at classification and ownership rules before tuning the general threshold. Explain how you would decide whether the gain for one group justifies the added work for another.
Build a second answer from your own work or studies. A useful starting point is a situation where automated escalation assigned some tickets to a queue that could not resolve them. Explain what made the situation difficult and what information you had at the time. Then describe your reasoning, including whether an action like testing edge cases and using a small pilot before changing all traffic would have made sense. If you made a different choice, explain the constraints. The goal is to show how you evaluate alternatives, make a decision, and learn from the result. A mixed outcome can be useful if you can account for it honestly.
To prepare follow-ups, review the field map, exception cases, and the comparison after rollout. Think about what each piece would verify. Interviewers can ask how you established the baseline, what happened when an assumption changed, or how you knew the project worked. If you do not have reliable numbers, identify something observable you can explain, such as a completed handoff, a passed test, or a change in the expected workflow. Keep a clear distinction between the facts you observed and the conclusions you drew from them.
Decide whether the opening fits your priorities
One question to ask the employer is: “How is ownership divided between support systems, engineering, and service leads?” Listen for an answer that gives examples, such as the first assignment, the people who will review your work, or the outcomes measured during onboarding. Make a note of anything the listing leaves open about location, work arrangements, availability, or the scope of the position. A written requirement on the official posting deserves more weight than an assumption based on the title alone.
Before submitting, read through the application as if you were the reviewer. Put the most relevant evidence where it can be found quickly. Check that job titles and dates agree across your résumé and application, that every link works without credentials, and that the selected draft names Figma correctly. Use the JobCraft AI résumé checker to review your document against the full posting, then make edits based on work you can demonstrate.
Official listing and application
Confirm the opening is still listed and follow the employer’s submission instructions. View the job and apply through Figma
