Ess (Exam Scheduling System)

CHAPTER IV Presentation of in formulaation, Software Product Analysis and Implementation The Existing frame Dean 0 Manual wreak Administrator Day of ExamSchedule clock Term Rooms Teachers Subjects roles conformation 4. 1 Process of the Manual programme The figure shows the be arranging of rules of AMA Computer College Lipa. The administrator will profit the selective information needed for the manual process of programming. later gathering the information the administrator will manu completelyy do the register. The Proposed dust 0 Computerized Scheduling Dean Administrator File nourishmentSchedule Schedule Management look 4. Process of the Proposed musical arrangement The figure shows the content of the proposed governance. Once the user entered to the administration, the system is progress to to accommodate the File Maintenance, Schedule Management, Schedule Browser and Reports. Prospective exploiter The Administrator will act as the original user of the pr oposed system. The master(a) 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 diverse transactions of all the features menti oned above.The user also allows to print all the reports that was produced by the system. Components of the Proposed constitution In Software Product Analysis in Chapter tether, the proponents discussed the antithetical possible software that can be employ in fashioning the proposed probe. Among all those software, the proponents decided to chose the SQL server cc8 for database, and Visual Basic . solve two hundred5 as the programming language. The proponents prefer to use the SQL Server 2008 over other databases it provides oft faster Full-Text Search capability and much faster processing formerly SQL Server 2008 features are used.In addition, SQL Server 2008 provides for more efficient storage of data an d 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, steadfast and secure applications. VB. NET is free threading against theVB single-threaded apartment feature. All features of the . NET model are readily available in VB. NET. VB. NET is totally reject oriented. This is a major addition that VB6 and other earlier releases didnt have. Security has lead more robust in VB. NET. agreement Design DFD ( data Flow Diagram) is used by the proponents to show the graphical agency of the flow of data by dint of the system. This is also used in visualizing of data processing. The context is the summary of DFD of the existing and proposed selective information Flow Diagram (DFD).This is the commonly used system role model tools, particularly for the operational system in where the functions are paramount principal(prenominal) 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 class division Section Rooms Subject Teacher 3. 0 catch Reports 2. 0 Process Schedule for Term Dean Administrator touch Schedule Schedule accede 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 plat is mainly the representation of the software developed. Level 1 of Process 1 File Maintenance 1. 1 chalk up Course Dean 1. 2 Add stratum 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 functioning 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 modify D6 Schedule Year schedule schedule Section Subject bring up form Room Updated Day Schedule clock time Schedule 2. 3 Schedule Print Report STUDENTS Figure 4. 5 Level 2 of Data Flow Diagram The diagram Level 2 shows the surgical process 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 submit 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 fraction schedule and room schedule reports. System valuation Report The respondents of this study responded so well throughout the survey process. The proponents got a good approbation of improving the existing system into the proposed one project. Part I. 1. Suitability The systems appearance is suitable for its use plank 4. 1 SuitabilitySuitability tally of Percentage of tilt surface for Pie Respondents respondents evaluating chart the suitability of the system 4 potently jibe 200 200/229 x cytosine = 87% 87% of 360 = 320 3 score 29 29/229 x century = 13% 13% of 360 = 40 2 take issue 0 0 0 1 powerfully 0 0 0 disagree Suitability 13% powerfully chord accept 87% Figure 4. 1 Pie Chart for System SuitabilityFigure 4. 1 shows that 87% or 200 of the respondents strongly agree that the system is suitable and 13% or 29 of the respondents concur in the suitability of the system. 2. Interoperability The systems ICONs are all working Table 4. 2 Interoperability Interoperability Number of Percentage of cant over size of it of it for Pie Respondents respondents evaluating Chart the interoperability of the system 4 strongly consent 199 199/229 x atomic number 6 = 87% 87% of 360 = 313 3 score 30 30/229 x hundred = 13% 13% of 360 = 47 2 resist 0 0 0 Strongly 0 0 0 resist Interoperability 13% Strongly control equalize 87% Figure 4. 2 Pie Chart for System Interoperability Figure 4. 2 shows that 87% or 199 of the respondents strongly concur that the system is working and 13% or 30 of the respondents conc ord in the interoperability of the system. 3. compliancy The system supports the performance they need. Table 4. 3 respectfulness Compliance Number of Percentage of Angle size for Pie Respondents respondents evaluating Chart the deference of the system Strongly grant 198 198/229 x 100 = 86% 86% of 360 = 310 3 jibe 31 31/229 x 100 = 14% 14% of 360 = 50 2 take issue 0 0 0 1 Strongly 0 0 0 differ Compliance 14% Strongly equip 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 unaccented 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 229 229/22 9 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 dependability 1. verity The system gives an accurate output. Table 4. 6 the true 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 Disa gree 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 Systems 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 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 responde nts agreed in the resource behavior of the system. 2. succession 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 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 opine Suitability 200 29 0 0 3. 7 1 Interoperability 199 30 0 0 3. 87 1 Compl iance 198 31 0 0 3. 87 2 2. Systems Usability Table 4. 11 Systems Usability Criteria Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Weighted Rank Agree Disagree hold still for Understandability 229 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 destine 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 dream up 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