Ess (Exam Scheduling System)

CHAPTER IV Presentation of Data, Software Product Analysis and Implementation The Existing formation doyen 0 manual(a) Process Administrator Day of ExamSchedule era Term dwells Teachers Subjects Sections accede 4. 1 Process of the Manual Scheduling The figure shows the existing outline of AMA information processing remains College Lipa. The administrator will gather the information needed for the manual process of Scheduling. After gathering the selective information the administrator will manually do the schedule. The Proposed System 0 Computerized Scheduling Dean Administrator File MaintenanceSchedule Schedule Management Figure 4. Process of the Proposed System The figure shows the content of the proposed administration. Once the single-valued functionr entered to the establishment, the system is ready to accommodate the File Maintenance, Schedule Management, Schedule Browser and Reports. Prospective User The Administrator will act as the principal(a) put onr of the p roposed system. The primary user has access to all the features of the system which includes file maintenance, schedule managing, schedule browsing and generating reports. The primary user can add, edit, update and delete different proceeding of all the features mentioned above.The user also allows to print all the reports that was produced by the system. Components of the Proposed System In Software Product Analysis in Chapter III, the proponents discussed the different possible software program that can be used in making the proposed study. Among all those software, the proponents decided to chose the SQL server cc8 for database, and optical Basic . Net 2005 as the programming language. The proponents prefer to use the SQL Server 2008 over other databases it provides much faster Full-Text Search capability and much faster processing once SQL Server 2008 features are used.In addition, SQL Server 2008 provides for much efficient storage of data and indexes including filtered index es, wide tables, sparse columns, and page level compression. In terms of programming language use, the proponents used Visual Basic. Net 2005 because the Visual Basic. Net is one of the most popular languages used in the software development industry. VB. Net provides managed code execution that runs under the Common Language Runtime (CLR), resulting in robust, stable and secure applications. VB. NET is free threading against theVB single-threaded apartment feature. All features of the . NET framework are readily available in VB. NET. VB. NET is totally objective oriented. This is a major addition that VB6 and other earlier releases didnt have. Security has become more robust in VB. NET. System Design DFD (Data flux Diagram) is used by the proponents to show the graphical authority of the flow of data through the system. This is also used in visualizing of data processing. The context is the summary of DFD of the existing and proposed Data feed Diagram (DFD).This is the commonly used system modeling tools, particularly for the operational system in where the functions are paramount important and more complex than the data that system manipulates. The context is the summary of the Data Flow Diagram (DFD) of proposed system. The DFD (Data Flow Diagram) is shown in figure 4. 1 Data Flow Diagram of the Proposed System train 0 1. 0 Course Year Section Rooms Subject Teacher 3. 0 Generate Reports 2. 0 Process Schedule for Term Dean Administrator Processed Schedule Schedule Figure 4. 3 Level 0 of Data Flow Diagram Figure 4. 3 shows the overview process as a whole.It starts from the Admin, the user, with corresponding data that goes to different menus provided by the system. These are basically the primary inputs to be processed by the system which creates reports. This diagram is mainly the representation of the software developed. Level 1 of Process 1 File Maintenance 1. 1 Add Course Dean 1. 2 Add Year 1. 3 Add Rooms 1. 4 Add S ubjects 1. 5 Add Teachers 1. 6 Add Section Figure 4. 4 Level 1 of Data Flow Diagram The diagram Level 1 shows the procedure of accessing the file maintenance.The diagram shows how to add, edit, update and delete a data. It provides space for the user to input new data to the database. Level 2 Process 2 Schedule Management 2. 1 2. 2 DEAN School Year holded up Saved Fill up Schedule Update D6 Schedule Year schedule schedule Section Subject List form Room Updated Day Schedule Time Schedule 2. 3 Schedule Print Report STUDENTS Figure 4. 5 Level 2 of Data Flow Diagram The diagram Level 2 shows the procedure of accessing the Schedule Management. The user will fill up the schedule form. After making the schedule, the user can also print the report. Level 3 Process 3 Generate Reports D7 Schedule Saved Schedule Section Schedule 3. 2 3. 1 DEAN Generate Schedule Generate Room Section Reports Schedule Reports Room Schedule Schedule Students Figure 4. 6 Level 3 of Data Flow Diagram The diagram Level 5 shows the corresponding procedures that the system provides under the report button. It shows the section schedule and room schedule reports. System Evaluation Report The respondents of this study responded so well end-to-end the survey process. The proponents got a good approval of improving the existing system into the proposed one project. Part I. 1. Suitability The systems appearance is suitable for its use tabularise 4. 1 SuitabilitySuitability Number of Percentage of rake size for Pie Respondents respondents evaluating map the suitability of the system 4 strongly add 200 200/229 x 100 = 87% 87% of 360 = 320 3 assort 29 29/229 x 100 = 13% 13% of 360 = 40 2 disagree 0 0 0 1 strongly 0 0 0 discord Suitability 13% potently coincide associate 87% Figure 4. 1 Pie map for System SuitabilityFigure 4. 1 shows that 87% or 200 of the respondents strongly concur that the system is suitable and 13% or 29 of the respondents hold in the suitability of the system. 2. Interoperability The systems ICONs are all working parry 4. 2 Interoperability Interoperability Number of Percentage of Angle size for Pie Respondents respondents evaluating Chart the interoperability of the system 4powerfully equalize 199 199/229 x 100 = 87% 87% of 360 = 313 3 outfit 30 30/229 x 100 = 13% 13% of 360 = 47 2 take issue 0 0 0 Strongly 0 0 0 Disagree Interoperability 13% Strongly Agree Agree 87% Figure 4. 2 Pie Chart for System Interoperability Figure 4. 2 shows that 87% or 199 of the respondents strongly agreed that the system is working and 13% or 30 of the respondents agreed in the interoperability of the system. 3. Compliance The system supports the performance they need. Table 4. 3 Compliance Compliance Number of Percenta ge of Angle size for Pie Respondents respondents evaluating Chart the compliance of the system Strongly Agree 198 198/229 x 100 = 86% 86% of 360 = 310 3 Agree 31 31/229 x 100 = 14% 14% of 360 = 50 2 Disagree 0 0 0 1 Strongly 0 0 0 Disagree Compliance 14% Strongly Agree Agree 86% Figure 4. 3 Pie Chart for System Compliance Figure 4. 3 shows that 86% or 198 of the respondents strongly agreed that the system supports the system they need and 14% or 31 of the respondents agreed in the compliance of the system. Part II 2. Systems Usability The system is liberal to use and navigate Table 4. 4 UnderstandabilityUnderstandability Number of Percentage of Angle size for Pie Respondents respondents evaluating Chart the understandability of the system 4Strongly Agree 229 229/229 x 100 = 100% 100% of 360 = 360 3 Agree 0 0 0 2 Disagree 0 0 0 1 Strongly 0 0 0 Disagree Understandability Strongly Agree 100% Figure 4. 4 Pie Chart for System Understandability Figure 4. 4 shows that 100% or 229 of the respondents strongly agreed that the system is easy to understand. . Learnability The system is easy to use and navigate Table 4. 5 Learnability Learnability Number of Percentage of Angle size for Pie Respondents respondents evaluating Chart the learnability of the system 4Strongly Agree 198 198/229 x 100 = 86% 86% of 360 = 310 3 Agree 31 31/229 x 100 = 14% 14% of 360 = 50 2 Disagree 0 0 0 1 Strongly 0 0 0 Disagree Learnability 14% Strongly Agree Agree 86% Figure 4. 5 Pie Chart for System Learnability Figure 4. shows that 86% or 198 of the respondents strongly agreed that the system is easy to use and navigate and 14% or 31 of the respondents agreed in the navigation of the system. Part III Systems reliability 1. the true The system gives an accurate output. Table 4. 6 accuracy Accuracy Number of Percentage of Angle size for Pie Respondents respondents evaluating Chart the accuracy of the system 4Strongly Agree 200 200/229 x 100 = 87% 87% of 360 = 313 3 Agree 29 29/229 x 100 = 13% 13% of 360 = 47 2 Disagree 0 0 0 Strongly 0 0 0 Disagree Accuracy 13% Strongly Agree Agree 87% Figure 4. 6 Pie Chart for System Accuracy Figure 4. 6 shows that 87% or 200 of the respondents strongly agreed that the system gives accurate output and 13% or 29 of the respondents agreed in the accuracy of the system. 2. Recovery The system has ability to recover form failure. Table 4. 7 Recovery Recovery Number of Percentage of Angle size for Pie Respondents respondents evaluating Chart the recovery of the system 4Strongly Agree 198 198/229 x 100 = 86% 86% of 360 = 310 3 Agree 31 31/229 x 100 = 14% 14% of 360 = 50 2 Disagree 0 0 0 1 Strongly 0 0 0 Disagree Recovery 14% Strongly Agree Agree 86% Figure 4. 7 Pie Chart for System Accuracy Figure 4. 7 shows that 86% or 198 of the respondents strongly agreed that th e system has ability to recover form failure and 14% or 31 of the respondents agreed in the recovery of the system. Part IV Systems competency 1. Resource BehaviorThe system provides an optimum enjoyment of the resources. Table 4. 8 Resource Behavior Resource Number of Percentage of Angle size for Pie Behavior Respondents respondents evaluating Chart the resource behavior of the system 4Strongly Agree 195 195/229 x 100 = 85% 85% of 360 = 306 3 Agree 34 34/229 x 100 = 15% 15% of 360 = 54 2 Disagree 0 0 0 1 Strongly 0 0 0 Disagree Resource Behavior 15% Strongly Agree Agree 85% Figure 4. 8 Pie Chart for System Resource Behavior Figure 4. shows that 85% or 195 of the respondents strongly agreed that the system provides an optimum utilization of the resources and 15% or 34 of the respondents agreed in the resource behavior of the system. 2. Time Behavior The system responses on time or as needed. Table 4. 9 Time Behavior Time Behavior Number of Percent age of Angle size for Pie Respondents respondents evaluating Chart the time behavior of the system 4Strongly Agree 201 201/229 x 100 = 88% 88% of 360 = 317 3 Agree 28 28/229 x 100 = 12% 12% of 360 = 43 2 Disagree 0 0 0 Strongly 0 0 0 Disagree Time Behavior 12% Strongly Agree Agree 88% Figure 4. 9 Pie Chart for System Time Behavior Figure 4. 9 shows that 88% or 201 of the respondents strongly agreed that the system responses on time or as needed and 12% or 29 of the respondents agreed in the time behavior of the system. System Evaluation for AMACC Lipa Campus Students 1. Systems Functionality Table 4. 10 Systems Functionality Criteria Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Weighted Rank Agree Disagree Mean Suitability 200 29 0 0 3. 7 1 Interoperability 199 30 0 0 3. 87 1 Compliance 198 31 0 0 3. 87 2 2. Systems Usability Table 4. 11 Systems Usability Criteria Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Weighted Rank Agree Disagree Mean Understandability 22 9 0 0 0 4 1 Learnability 198 31 0 0 3. 86 2 3. Systems Reliability Table 4. 12 Systems Reliability Criteria Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Weighted Rank Agree Disagree Mean Accuracy 200 29 0 0 3. 87 1 Recovery 198 31 0 0 3. 86 2 4. Systems Efficiency Table 4. 12Systems Efficiency Criteria Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Weighted Rank Agree Disagree Mean Resource Behavior 195 34 0 0 3. 85 2 Time Behavior 201 28 0 0 3. 88 1 Over-all System Evaluation of AMACC Lipa Campus Students Table 4. 13 Over-all System Evaluation of AMACC Lipa Campus Students Criteria Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Weighted Rank Agree Disagree Mean Functionality 199 28 0 0 3. 88 1 Usability 142 31 0 0 3. 82 2 Reliability 199 30 0 0 3. 87 1 Efficiency 198 31 0 0 3. 6 3 Table 4. 26 Verbal Interpretation of Evaluation Result Option Scale Verbal Interpretation 4 3. 50 4. 00 Strongly Agree 3 2. 55 3. 54 Agree 2 1. 55 2. 54 Disagree 1 1. 00 1. 54 Strongly Disagree Table 4. 27 Interpretation of Over-all Evaluation of AMACC Lipa Campus Student Criteria Weighted Mean Verbal Rank Interpretation Functionality 3. 88 Strongly Agree 1 Usability 3. 82 Strongly Agree 2 Reliability 3. 87 Strongly Agree 1 Efficiency 3. 86 Strongly Agree 3 Average Strongly Agree