final year project evaluation systemgreenskill.net/suhailan/fyp/report/037737.pdf · sebagai...

FINAL YEAR PROJECT EVALUATION

SYSTEM

NUR KHALIDA BINTI KHALID

BACHELOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

(SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT)

UNIVERSITI SULTAN ZAINAL ABIDIN

2017

i

FINAL YEAR PROJECT EVALUATION SYSTEM

NUR KHALIDA BINTI KHALID

Bachelor of Computer Science (Software Development)

Faculty of Informatics and Computing

Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Terengganu, Malaysia

MAY 2017

DECLARATION

ii

I hereby declare that this report is based on my original work except for quotations

and citations, which have been duly acknowledged. I also declare that it has not been

previously or concurrently submitted for any other degree at Universiti Sultan Zainal

Abidin or other institutions.

________________________________

Name : ..................................................

Date : ..................................................

iii

CONFIRMATION

This is to confirm that:

The research conducted and the writing of this report was under my supervison.

________________________________

Name : ..................................................

Date : ..................................................

iv

DEDICATION

First of all , I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor , Puan

Norlina Udin who has always given valuable advice and encouragement throughout in

developing this project successfully. I would like to thank her for giving the

opportunity to learn and work under her guidance.

I especially thank my entire family for their encouragement , knowledge and

their constant prayer. Last but not least , I am thankful to my friends and associated

for their encouragement , criticism and support for this project.

Thank You.

v

ABSTRACT

As part of the final year, and in partial fulfilment of graduation requirements,

bachelor student of Faculty Informatics and Computing (FIK) need to carry out a

final-year project (FYP).

Final year project of bachelor student will evaluate by panel and supervisor.

They will evaluate based on rubrics which are becoming a standard for to set up a

grading criteria assessment . Therefore, the Final Project Evaluation System for the

degree student will be built to help the panel make a calculation, evaluate and grading

of final year project assessment.

The main objective of this final year project evaluation system is to

implement weighted sum model (WSM) which is multi-criteria decision best and

simplest method for evaluating a number of alternatives in terms of a number of

decision criteria.[1] It is very important to state here that it is applicable only when all

the data are expressed in exactly the same unit.[1] By using weighted sum model ,

calculation for grading final year project can be done accurately.

vi

ABSTRAK

Sebagai sebahagian daripada tahun akhir, dan sebagai memenuhi

sebahagian daripada keperluan pengijazahan, pelajar sarjana muda Informatik dan

Fakulti Komputeran (FIK) perlu menjalankan projek tahun akhir (FYP).

projek tahun akhir akan menilai pelajar sarjana muda oleh panel dan penyelia.

Mereka akan menilai berdasarkan rubrik yang menjadi standard untuk menubuhkan

kriteria penilaian penggredan. Oleh itu, Sistem Penilaian Projek Akhir bagi pelajar

ijazah yang akan dibina untuk membantu panel membuat pengiraan, menilai dan

penggredan penilaian projek tahun akhir.

Objektif utama sistem penilaian projek tahun akhir ini adalah untuk

melaksanakan model jumlah wajaran (WSM) yang merupakan multi-kriteria

keputusan terbaik dan Kaedah yang paling mudah untuk menilai beberapa alternatif

dari segi beberapa kriteria keputusan. [1] Ia adalah sangat penting untuk menyatakan

di sini bahawa ia boleh digunakan hanya apabila semua data dinyatakan dalam tepat

unit yang sama. [1] dengan menggunakan model jumlah wajaran, pengiraan bagi

penggredan projek tahun akhir boleh dibuat dengan tepat.

CONTENTS

PAGE

DECLARATION

i

CONFIRMATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ABSTRACT iv

ABSTRAK v

CONTENTS vi

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Problem statement 2

1.3 Objectives 2

1.4 Scopes 3

1.5 Limitation of Works 4

1.6 Activities and Milestones 5

1.7 Expected Result

6

1.8 Conclusion 6

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 7

2.2 Research Comparison/Model 8

2.3 Research Review 11

2.4 Weighted Sum Model 13

2.5 Conclusions 15

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introductions 16

3.2 System Development Methodology

3.2.1 Rapid Application Development (RAD)

3.2.2 System Prototyping

17

3.3 System Development Life Cycle 18

3.3.1 Analyze Requirement Phase 18

3.3.2 Design Phase

3.3.2.1 System Framework

3.3.2.2 Context Diagram

3.3.2.3 Data Flow Diagram Level 0

3.3.2.4 Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process 1




3.3.2.8 Entity Relationship Diagram

24

24

25

27

29

30

31

32

34

3.3.3 Build Prototype 39

3.3.4 Implementation Phase 39

3.3.5 Testing Phase 39

3.4 Conclusion 40

REFERENCES 41

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

1.1 First table in chapter 2 11

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

1.1 First figure in chapter 1 5

1.2 Second figure in chapter 1 5

3.1 First figure in chapter 3 17

3.2 Second figure in chapter 3 24

3.3 Third Figure in chapter 3 25

3.4 Fourth Figure in chapter 3 27

3.5 Fifth figure in chapter 3 29

3.6 Sixth figure in chapter 3 30

3.7 Seventh figure in chapter 3 31

3.8 Eighth figure in chapter 3 32

3.9 Ninth figure in chapter 3 34

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS / TERMS / SYMBOLS

CD Context Diagram

DFD Data Flow Diagram

ERD Entity Relationship Diagram

FYP Final year project

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Appendix 1 80

B Appendix 2 81

C Appendix 3 82

D Appendix 4 83

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Final Year Project Evaluation System is the system that helps panels and

supervisor of Degree’s Student of Faculty Informatics and Computing , UniSZA evaluate and

calculate marks for final year project based on rubrics given.

Before this , evaluation and calculation of final year project for degree’s student

are done manually. This manual system will cause confusion during overall calculation of the

final project assessment.

Therefore, the Final Project Evaluation System for the degree student will be built

to help the panel and supervisor automatically calculate , evaluate and grading of final year

project assessment in real time. This system also can give review to student who wants to check

their current marks or grades for final year project.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Before this, the panel will record the mark and grading on the paper. Recording the mark

on the paper may not systematically. Using a lot of paper can cost a lot. Besides , during final

calculation a few problems can arise like oversight the marks because a few panel members will

be involved in the calculation of the final year project. Final marks also can be uncertain.

Calculation for final year project can take a lot of time. Student also do not know current marks

or grades after presentation.

1.3 OBJECTIVE

There are three main objectives for this proposal. These objectives are derived to

overcome problems that stated before. The objectives are :

1) To design system that can evaluate final year project student assessment.

2) To implement system with paperless concept.

3) To test weighted sum method in final year project calculation of marks .

1.4 SCOPES

1.4.1 USER

The target user for this system are the panels and supervisor of Faculty Informatics and

Computing for final year project’s panels , supervisors and students.

1.4.1.1 Supervisor can enter mark for supervisor assessment part and final

assessment part.

1.4.1.2 Panel can enter mark for panel assessment part and final assessment part.

1.4.1.3 Final Year Student can view their current marks

1.4.2 SYSTEM

The system is for calculation and review for final year project evaluation and used for

Faculty Informatics and Computing Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin.

1.5 LIMITATION OF WORKS

The limitation of works explain what only this system will focus on only. It explain a bit

weakness for this system

1.5.1. Limitation Of Accessed

` This system can only be accessed by panels , supervisor and student of Faculty

Informatics and Computing.

1.5.2. Limitation To Only Faculty Informatics And Computing

This system only can be accessed for Faculty of Informatics and Computing. Other

faculties cannot access this system.

1.5.3. Limitation To Only Degree Final Year Student Of Faculty Informatics And

Computing

Final year student have authorized to access this system to review their current marks.

Other student from another faculties cannot access this system.

1.6 ACTIVITIES AND MILESTONES

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

1.7 EXPECTED RESULT

Final year project evaluation can be evaluate systematically by panels and

supervisors.This system are used to design system that can evaluate final year project student

assessment , to implement system with paperless concept and to test sum weighted method in

final year project calculation of marks. Weighted sum model also applied in this system.

1.8 CONCLUSION

As conclusion , final year project evaluation can be evaluate systematically by panels and

supervisors in real time. This system will be built to design system that can evaluate final year

project student assessment , to implement system with paperless concept and to test sum

weighted method in final year project calculation of marks. Weighted sum model also applied in

this system.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

A literature review is a text of a scholarly paper, which includes the current

knowledge including substantive findings, as well as theoretical and methodological

contributions to a particular topic. Literature reviews are secondary sources, and do not

report new or original experimental work.

2.2 RESEARCH COMPARISON/MODEL

There are a few journal and model that relate with the system that will develop.

Based on the first paper , Prince Agarwal, Manjari Sahai, Vaibhav Mishra, Monark Bag

and Vrijendra Singh , (2011) they present review of various MCDM methodologies reported in

the literature for solving the supplier evaluation and selection process. The review is solely based

on sixty-eight research articles, including eight review articles in the academic literature from

2000 to 2011. They try to find out the most prevalent approach in the articles and thereby present

the future scope of arriving at an optimal solution to the problem, based on the specifications, the

strategies and the requirements of the buyers. The study presents that with the change in

processes and the requirements, how the approach of the manufacturing industry has shifted from

striving for operational effectiveness to the strategic partnership in the dyadic relationship. The

comparison results show that analytical hierarchy process (AHP) can evaluate supplier according

to different categories to provide consistency in supplier selection. [3]

Praveen Thokala (2015) use main Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) approaches

and methods by provides examples to be applied for a given health care decision problem. The

following steps are used to implement MCDA which include firstly structuring the decision

problem being addresse. Secondly , ensuring that appropriate criteria are specified. Next,

measuring alternatives performance accurately by using valid and reliable method.The fourth

steps are scoring alternatives and then weighting criteria and lastly presenting MCDA results.

The results shows that MCDA in health care are based on weighted-sum models.

Jurate Skupiene (2010) analyses the problem how to calculate the aggregated score for

whole submission in terms of several criteria , where each criterion is measured according to its

own scale (but the same scale for each contestant) and evaluated by several jury. Evaluation in

Lithuanian Informatics Olympiad (LitIo) can be treated as an MCDA problem which problem

structuring is an explicit list of criteria and alternatives. Submission ranking problem is the

ranking problematique and repeated problem as the final outcome of the evaluation is a ranked

list of contestants based on which the awards will be distributed . It is a group decision making

problem , because the role of decision maker is played by the members of LitIO scientific

committee and the opinions of all of the those members who are involved in the evaluation of

submissions of a particular task has to be taken into account.

Once the list of alternatives and criteria for an MCDA problem is determined , the

following step is to construct a decision matrix. Some of proposed evaluation in LitIO criteria are

measured manually using linguistic variables and use fuzzy logic but the decision matrix will

only contain only numeric (crisp or fuzzy) values. Weighted Sum Model (WSM) is most

commonly use method for single decision maker problems ( Triantaphyllou , 2000) and suitable

for value measurement theory algorithms. Simplicity of the approach is a high priority in the

choice of score aggregation algorithm. Jurate Skupiene also looking for an extension of WSM to

Group Decision Making (GDM) which allow fuzzy numbers in the decision matrix.

Aizah Anas Binti Azlen (2016) have used Fuzzy Logic for Final Year Grading System .

The problems that need to be solved is it concerning with the time spent in calculating and

checking grades based on criteria given.

The last research is Ahmad Hadi Farhan Bin Khairu Azua (2015) has built Online Team

Formation System Using AHP , Frequency And Allocation Method. Analytical Hierarchy

Processing (AHP) to make selection for criteria , frequency distribution to calculate quiz total

score and allocation method to form a group based on criteria and total score. This research

showed that AHP is more suitable used while to make selection.

2.3 RESEARCH REVIEW

NO AUTHOR/YEAR TITLE METHOD DESCRIPTION

1. Prince Agarwal,

Manjari Sahai,

Vaibhav Mishra,

Monark Bag and

Vrijendra Singh ,

2011

Multi-criteria

decision making

techniques for

supplier

evaluation and

selection.

-Analytical

Hierarchy Process

(AHP)

To solve supplier and

selection problem.

2. Praveen Thokala,

2015

Choosing

Appropriate

Multi-Criteria

Decision

Analysis

Techniques(s) To

Support Health

Care Decision

Weighted Sum

Model (WSM)

To develop guidelines for

choosing the most

appropriate MCDA

method to be applied for

a given health care

decision problem.

3. J¯urat˙e SK ¯

UPIEN˙E ,2010

Score

Calculation in

Informatics

Contests Using

Multiple Criteria

Decision

-Weighted Sum

Model (WSM)

- Group Decision

Making

To calculate the

aggregated

score for whole

submission in the above

mentioned situation.

Table 2.0

Methods

4. Aizah Anas Binti

Azlen ,2016

Final Year

Project Grading

(FYPGS)

Fuzzy Logic To compute student

performance in their

FYP.

5. Ahmad Hadi Farhan

Bin Khairu Azua

,2015

Online Team

Formation

System Using

AHP , Frequency

And Allocation

Method

-Analytical

Hierarchy

Process(AHP)

-Frequency

Distribution

-Allocation Method

To automatically to form

a group based on selected

criteria.

2.4 WEIGHTED SUM MODEL

In decision theory the weighted sum model (WSM) is the best known and

simplest multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) / multi-criteria decision making method for

evaluating a number of alternatives in terms of a number of decision criteria. It is very important

to state here that it is applicable only when all the data are expressed in exactly the same unit. If

this is not the case, then the final result is equivalent to "adding apples and oranges."

In general, suppose that a given MCDA problem is defined on m alternatives

and n decision criteria. Furthermore, let us assume that all the criteria are benefit criteria, that is,

the higher the values are, the better it is. Next suppose that wj denotes the relative weight of

importance of the criterion Cj and aij is the performance value of alternative Ai when it is

evaluated in terms of criterion Cj. Then, the total (i.e., when all the criteria are considered

simultaneously) importance of alternative Ai, denoted as AiWSM-score

, is defined as follows:

EXAMPLE :

For a simple numerical example suppose that a decision problem of this type is defined

on three alternatives A1, A2, A3 each described in terms of four criteria C1, C2, C3 and C4.

Furthermore, let the numerical data for this problem be as in the following decision matrix:

For instance, the relative weight of the first criterion is equal to 0.20, the relative weight

for the second criterion is 0.15 and so on. Similarly, the value of the first alternative (i.e., A1) in

terms of the first criterion is equal to 25, the value of the same alternative in terms of the second

criterion is equal to 20 and so on.

When the previous formula is applied on these numerical data the WSM scores for the three

alternatives are:

Similarly, one gets:

Thus, the best alternative (in the maximization case) is alternative A2 (because it has the

maximum WSM score which is equal to 22.00). Furthermore, these numerical results imply the

following ranking of these three alternatives: A2 = A3 > A1 (where the symbol ">" stands for

"greater than").[7]

2.5 CONCLUSION

This chapter explain comparison Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis between Analytical Hierarchy

Process(AHP) , Fuzzy Logic and Weighted Sum Method (WSM) to determine the suitable

method to apply in calculate , evaluate and grading final year project evaluation system.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, it will explain the methodology design used in the system development.

Final Year Project Evaluation System will undergo several phases from beginning until project

submission. System Development Life Cycle is splitting of software development work into

distinct phase (or stages) containing activities with intent of better planning and management.

[8] . It is important to understand the user requirement before the start of the project .

3.2 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY

3.2.1 Rapid Application Development (RAD)

Rapid application development is a collection of methodologies that emerged in response

to the weakness of waterfall development and its variation. RAD incorporated special techniques

and computer tools to speed up the analysis , design , and implementation phases in order to get

some portion of the system developed quickly and into the hands of the users for evaluation and

feedback.

3.2.2 System Prototyping

System prototyping perform the analysis , design and implementation phases

concurrently in order to quickly develop a simplified version of the proposed system and give it

to the users for evaluation and feedback.

Figure 3.1 Prototype Model

3.3 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE

3.3.1 Analyze Requirement Phase

This phase start with brainstorming ideas with supervisor about current problem of

manual system. Then , choose a project to build and find literature review that relate with system

that will be implement. Next , analyze requirement that needed to implement the system.

Functional Requirement

The Head of Academic Department will be able to:

FR-AD-001 The system shall allow head of academic department to register to

become an admin.

FR-AD-002 The system shall allow head of academic department to login to the

FYP evaluation system (after has been registered to the system).

FR-AD-003 The system shall allow head of academic department to logout from

the FYP evaluation system

FR-AD-004 The system shall allow head of academic department to manage

rubrics.

FR-AD-005 The system shall allow head of academic department to view

assessment.

FR-AD-006 The system shall allow head of academic department to assign new

supervisor and panel.

The Student will be able to:

FR-Student-001 The system shall allow student to register to become a member.

FR-Student-002 The system shall allow student to login to the FYP website

(after has been registered to the website).

FR-Student-003 The system shall allow student to logout from the FYP website

FR-Student-004 The system shall allow student to view their current marks of

assessment and comment during presentation.

The Supervisor will be able to:

FR-Supervisor-001 The system shall allow supervisor to login to the FYP

website (after has been assigned to the website).

FR-Supervisor-002 The system shall allow supervisor to logout to the FYP

system

FR-Supervisor-003 The system shall allow supervisor to manage assessment.

FR-Supervisor-004 The system shall allow supervisor to manage profile.

FR-Supervisor-005 The system shall allow supervisor to reset their password.

The Panel will be able to:

FR-Panel-001 The system shall allow panel to login to the FYP website (after has

been assigned to the website).

FR-Panel-002 The system shall allow panel to logout to the FYP system

FR-Panel-003 The system shall allow panel to manage assessment.

FR-Panel-004 The system shall allow panel to manage profile.

FR-Panel-005 The system shall allow panel to reset their password.

Non- Functional Requirement

Security

NFR-SEC-001 Head of Academic Department, Student, Supervisor and Pane;

shall be required to login for all operation. The password will be encrypted and

store in the database.

Reliability

NFR-REL-001 The system shall have an availability of 99% which mean out of

100 requests, 99 must be satisfied.

NFR-REL-002 Initial data must be collected carefully and correctly.

NFR-REL-003 The database must be backed up regularly and can be recovered if

necessary.

Availability

NFR-AVA-001 The system should be available anytime when student, academic

advisor and coordinator want to use it.

NFR-AVA-002 Level of availability is 24 hours * 7 days.

Performance

NFR-PER-001 Response to queries shall take no longer than 5 seconds to load

onto the screen after user submit the queries.

NFR-PER-002 The login information shall be verified within 5 seconds.

NFR-PER-003 The system shall accommodate 500 users at a time

simultaneously.

NFR-PER-004 The register information shall be verified within 5 seconds.

Portability

NFR-POR-001The system can be used with any browser with an internet

connection.

Maintainability

NFR-MAIN-001 The system shall provide capability to back up data.

NFR-MAIN-002 The system shall keep a log of all errors.

NFR-MAIN-003 All actions in the system are logged and can be traced back to

actor if necessary.

Flexibility

NFR-FLEX-001 The system provides head of academic department,student,

supervisor and panel to change their password

Sofware And Hardware Requirement

1) Hardware

Laptop

Printer

Scanner

Pendrive

Stationaries

A4 Paper

File

2) Software

PHP triad

Apache

E-draw

MySql

Paint

Google Chrome

Opera

Mozilla Firefox

Visual Paradigm

3) Workspace

Web based system

3.3.2 Design Phase

At this phase , system framework , context diagram , data flow diagram (DFD) and entity

relationship diagram are designed to help understand the flow of process in this system.

3.3.2.1 System Framework

Figure 3.2 System Framework of Final Year Project Evaluation System

Figure 2 shows interaction between system and user in Final Year Project Evaluation System .

Admin will manage user which are assign new panel and new supervisor and manage rubrics.

Supervisor and panel can view rubrics as a references for manage assessment. Student can view

current and total result .

3.3.2.2 Context Diagram

Context Diagram is a diagram that defines the boundary between the system or part of a

system and its environment , showing the entities that interact with it.

DESCRIPTION OF CONTEXT DIAGRAM

Figure 3.3 Context Diagram

The context diagram for the Final Year Project Evaluation is shown in the figure above. The

FINAL YEAR EVALUATION SYSTEM process is at the center of the diagram. The four

entities (ADMIN which is HEAD OF ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT , SUPERVISOR , PANEL ,

and STUDENT) are placed around the central process. Eighth data flows are involved in the

interaction between the central process and the entities. The Head of Academic Department has

no incoming data flow and three outgoing data flows, MANAGE SUPERVISOR , MANAGE

PANEL and MANAGE RUBRICS. The PANEL has no incoming data flow and two outgoing

data flows,MANAGE PROFILE and MANAGE ASSESSMENT. The SUPERVISOR also has

no incoming data flow and two outgoing data flows, which are MANAGE PROFILE and

MANAGE ASSESSMENT Finally, the STUDENT entity has one incoming data flow, VIEW

MARKS .

3.3.2.2 Data Flow Diagram Level 0

Data Flow Diagram Level 0 is an overview of the Final Year Project Evaluation system

to represent flow of data through an information system , modelling its process aspect.

Figure 3.4 Data Flow Diagram Level 0

Figure 4 shows the flow of process that involve in Final Year Project Evaluation System.

There are six process in this system, which are Manage Panel , Manage Supervisor , Manage

Rubrics , Manage Assessment and Generate Report. Every process of the system will interact

with their related table or data store in the databases in order to complete the process.

1. A HEAD OF ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT input PANEL DETAILS into MANAGE PANEL

PROCESS which outputs PANEL INFO into PANEL data store.

2. A HEAD OF ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT input SUPERVISOR DETAILS into MANAGE

SUPERVISOR PROCESS which output SUPERVISOR INFO into SUPERVISOR data store

3. A HEAD OF ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT enters RUBRICS INFO and processes by

MANAGE RUBRICS. The RUBRICS INFO then is store in RUBRICS data store.

4. PANEL enters ASSESSMENT INFO and processes by ASSESSMENT PROCESS. The

ASSESSMENT INFO then is store in PESENTATION 1 and PRESENTATION 2 data store.

5. SUPERVISOR enters ASSESSMENT INFO and processes by ASSESSMENT PROCESS.

The ASSESSMENT INFO then is store in LOG BOOK and PROJECT PROPOSAL data store.

6. STUDENT can VIEW MARKS from TOTALMARKS data store.


Figure 3.5 Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process 1

Description

1. A HEAD OF DEPARTMENT sends PANEL INFO to ADD PANEL process. The process

then sent PANEL DETAILS to PANEL data store.

2. A HEAD OF DEPARTMENT keys in PANEL DETAILS which creates DELETE PANEL.

The process then sends the PANEL INFO to the PANEL data store.



Description

1. A HEAD OF DEPARTMENT sends SUPERVISOR INFO to ADD SUPERVISOR process.

The process then sent SUPERVISOR DETAILS to SUPERVISOR data store.

2. A HEAD OF DEPARTMENT keys in SUPERVISOR DETAILS which creates DELETE

SUPERVISOR. The process then sends the SUPERVISOR INFO to the SUPERVISOR data

store.



Description

1. A HEAD OF DEPARTMENT sends RUBRICS INFO to ADD RUBRICS process. The

process then sent RUBRICS DETAILS to PANEL data store.

2. A HEAD OF DEPARTMENT keys in RUBRICS DETAILS which creates DELETE

RUBRICS. The process then sends the RUBRICS INFO to the RUBRICS data store.

3. A HEAD OF DEPARTMENT keys in RUBRICS INFO which creates UPDATE RUBRICS.

The process then sends the RUBRICS DETAILS to the RUBRICS data store.



Description

1. A PANEL sends ASSESSMENT INFO to ADD ASSESSMENT process. The process then

sent ASSESSMENT DETAILS to PRESENTATION 1 and PRESENTATION 2 data store.

2. A PANEL keys in ASSESSMENT DETAILS which creates DELETE ASSESSMENT. The

process then sends the ASSESSMENT INFO to the PRESENTATION 1 and PRESENTATION

2 data store.

3. A PANEL keys in ASSESSMENT INFO which creates UPDATE ASSESSMENT. The

process then sends the ASSESSMENT DETAILS to the PRESENTATION 1 and

PRESENTATION 2 data store.

4. A SUPERVISOR sends ASSESSMENT INFO to ADD ASSESSMENT process. The process

then sent ASSESSMENT DETAILS to LOG BOOK and PROJECT PROPOSAL data store.

5. A SUPERVISOR keys in ASSESSMENT DETAILS which creates DELETE ASSESSMENT.

The process then sends the ASSESSMENT INFO to the LOG BOOK and PROJECT

PROPOSAL data store.

6. A SUPERVISOR keys in ASSESSMENT INFO which creates UPDATE ASSESSMENT.

The process then sends the ASSESSMENT DETAILS to the LOG BOOK and PROJECT

PROPOSAL data store.

3.3.2.8 Entity Relationship Diagram (Erd)

Below is an entity relationship diagram which is a graphical representation of entities and

their relationships to each other in Final Year Project Evaluation System.

Figure 3.9 Entity Relationship Diagram

The diagram shows that it contains ten tables which are Admin, Panel , Supervisor

,Student , user , logbook , project_proposal , presentation_1 , presentation_2 ,

rubrics and totalmarks.

USER

userid VARCHAR (15) PRIMARY KEY

password VARCHAR (10)

position VARCHAR (30)

SUPERVISOR

sv_id VARCHAR (10) PRIMARY KEY

sv_email VARCHAR (40)

sv_phone VARCHAR (12)

sv_name VARCHAR (50)

PANEL

panel_id VARCHAR (10) PRIMARY KEY

panel_name VARCHAR (50)

panel_email VARCHAR (40)

panel_phone INT (12)

ADMIN

admin_id VARCHAR (10) PRIMARY KEY

admin_name VACHAR (50)

admin_phone INT (12)

admin_email VARCHAR (40)

STUDENT

stu_id VARCHAR (12) PRIMARY KEY

stu_email VARCHAR (50)

stu_phone INT (12)

stu_name VARCHAR (50)

project_title INT (100)

sv_name VARCHAR(100) FOREIGN KEY

LOGBOOK

criteria VARCHAR (100) PRIMARY KEY

weightage FLOAT

score INT (2)

total INT(2) PRIMARY KEY

stu_id VARCHAR (12) FOREIGN KEY

PROJECT_PROPOSAL


weightage FLOAT

score INT (2)



PRESENTATION_1


weightage FLOAT

score INT (2)



PRESENTATION_2


weightage FLOAT

score INT (2)



RUBRICS

rubric_id VARCHAR (12) PRIMARY KEY

criteria VARCHAR (50)

weightage FLOAT

TOTALMARKS

totalpresentation1 INT(2) FOREIGN KEY

totalpresentation1 INT(2) FOREIGN KEY

totallogbook INT (2) FOREIGN KEY

totalproposal INT (2) FOREIGN KEY

total INT (2) PRIMARY KEY

stu_id VARCHAR(12) FOREIGN KEY

3.3.3 Build Prototype

We will build prototype to ensure that system will meet it requirement since Any

changes might occur during development according to user’s requirements.

3.3.4 Implementation Phase

The phase also known as code generation phase. Developer writes codes based on the

previous phase. The system will build using PHP language and MySQL as the database

platform. User interfaces are also included in the phases as they are important in delivering

information and messages to the user.

3.3.5 Testing Phase

Every sub-module needs to be tested before it will implement into the system. Any

changes of the coding, error, functionality or upgrades are also will be tested. User

interface will be checked to ensure they are connected to database and appropriate with

the system.

3.4 CONCLUSION

This chapter explains methodology that used during system development to complete

this system. Prototyping will be used during implementation in order to quickly develop a

simplified version of the proposed system and give it to the users for evaluation and feedback.

REFERENCES

[1] Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Comparative Study Dordrecht,

The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers (now Springer). p. 320. ISBN 0-7923-6607-7

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_sum_model

[2] E.K. Zavadskas , Z. Turkis , J. Antucheviciene (2012) Optimization of Weighted Aggregated

Sum Product Assessment

[3] Prince Agarwal, Manjari Sahai, Vaibhav Mishra, Monark Bag and Vrijendra Singh (2011)

Multi-criteria decision making techniques for supplier evaluation and selection

[4] Praveen Thokala (2015) Choosing Appropriate Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Techniques(s) To Support Health Care Decision

[5] J¯urat˙e SK ¯ UPIEN˙E (2010) Score Calculation in Informatics Contests Using Multiple

Criteria Decision Methods

[6] Roberta M.Roth , Alan Dennis , Barbara Haley Wixom (2013) System Analysis and Design

5th

Edition

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_sum_model

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Development_process

final year project evaluation systemgreenskill.net/suhailan/fyp/report/037737.pdf · sebagai...

Documents