Ess (Exam Scheduling System)

CHAPTER IV Presentation of Data, Software Product Analysis and Implementation The Existing System Dean 0 Manual Process Administrator Day of ExamSchedule Time Term Rooms Teachers Subjects Sections Figure 4. 1 Process of the Manual Scheduling The figure shows the existing system of AMA Computer College Lipa. The administrator will gather the data needed for the manual process of Scheduling. After gathering the data 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 system. Once the user entered to the system, the system is ready to accommodate the File Maintenance, Schedule Management, Schedule Browser and Reports. Prospective User The Administrator will act as the primary user of the proposed system. The primary user has access to all the features of the system which includes file maintenance, schedule managing, schedule browsing and generating reports.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

The primary user can add, edit, update and delete different transactions 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 that can be used in making the proposed study. Among all those software, the proponents decided to chose the SQL server 2008 for database, and Visual 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 more efficient storage of data and indexes including filtered indexes, 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 object oriented.

This is a major addition that VB6 and other earlier releases didn’t have. Security has become more robust in VB. NET.

System Design DFD (Data Flow Diagram) is used by the proponents to show the graphical representation 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 Flow 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 Level 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 Subjects | | | | | | | 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| | | | Filled 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 throughout the survey process. The proponents got a good approval of improving the existing system into the proposed one project. Part I. 1. Suitability The system’s appearance is suitable for its use Table 4. 1 SuitabilitySuitability| Number| of| | Percentage of| Angle| size| for Pie| | | Respondents| | respondents evaluating| Chart| | | | | | | | the suitability of the| | | | | | | | | system| | | | 4–Strongly Agree| 200| | | 200/229 x 100 = 87%| 87% of 360° = 320°| 3| – Agree| 29| | | 29/229 x 100 = 13%| 13% of 360° = 40°| 2| – Disagree| 0| | | 0| 0| | | 1| – Strongly| 0| | | 0| 0| | | Disagree| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Suitability| | | | | | | | | 13%| | | | | | | | | | | Strongly Agree| | | | | | | | | | Agree| | | | | | | | | | 87%| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Figure 4.

1 Pie Chart for System SuitabilityFigure 4. 1 shows that 87% or 200 of the respondents strongly agreed that the system is suitable and 13% or 29 of the respondents agreed in the suitability of the system. 2. Interoperability The system’s ICONs are all working Table 4. 2 Interoperability Interoperability| Number| of| Percentage of| Angle| size| for Pie| | | Respondents| respondents evaluating| Chart| | | | | | | the interoperability of the| | | | | | | | system| | | | 4–Strongly Agree| 199| | 199/229 x 100 = 87%| 87% of 360° = 313°| 3| – Agree| 30| | 30/229 x 100 = 13%| 13% of 360° = 47°| 2| – Disagree| 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| Percentage 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. System’s Usability The system is easy 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| | | | 4–Strongly 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| | | | 4–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| | | | | | | 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 – System’s Reliability 1. Accuracy 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| | | | 4–Strongly 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| | | | 4–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| | | | | | | 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 the system has ability to recover form failure and 14% or 31 of the respondents agreed in the recovery of the system. Part IV – System’s Efficiency 1. Resource BehaviorThe system provides an optimum utilization 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| | | | 4–Strongly 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| Percentage of| Angle| size| for Pie| | | Respondents| respondents evaluating| Chart| | | | | | | the time behavior of the| | | | | | | | system| | | | 4–Strongly 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. System’s Functionality Table 4. 10 System’s 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. System’s Usability Table 4. 11 System’s Usability Criteria| Strongly| Agree| Disagree| Strongly| Weighted| Rank| | Agree| | | Disagree| Mean| | Understandability| 229| 0| 0| 0| 4| 1| Learnability| 198| 31| 0| 0| 3. 86| 2| 3. System’s Reliability Table 4. 12 System’s 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.

System’s Efficiency Table 4. 12System’s 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| |