FINAL YEAR PROJECT EVALUATION SYSTEM NUR KHALIDA BINTI KHALID BACHELOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE (SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT) UNIVERSITI SULTAN ZAINAL ABIDIN

Transcription

1 FINAL YEAR PROJECT EVALUATION SYSTEM NUR KHALIDA BINTI KHALID BACHELOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE (SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT) UNIVERSITI SULTAN ZAINAL ABIDIN 2017

2 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 i

3 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 :... ii

4 CONFIRMATION This is to confirm that: The research conducted and the writing of this report was under my supervison. Name :... Date :... iii

5 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. iv

6 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. v

7 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. vi

8 CONTENTS DECLARATION CONFIRMATION DEDICATION ABSTRACT ABSTRAK CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS PAGE i ii iii iv v vi vii xvi xv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Problem statement Objectives Scopes Limitation of Works Activities and Milestones Expected Result Conclusion 6 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction Research Comparison/Model Research Review Weighted Sum Model Conclusions 15 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introductions 16

9 3.2 System Development Methodology Rapid Application Development (RAD) System Prototyping 3.3 System Development Life Cycle Analyze Requirement Phase Design Phase System Framework Context Diagram Data Flow Diagram Level Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process Entity Relationship Diagram Build Prototype Implementation Phase Testing Phase Conclusion REFERENCES 41

10 LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE 1.1 First table in chapter 2 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE PAGE 1.1 First figure in chapter Second figure in chapter First figure in chapter Second figure in chapter Third Figure in chapter Fourth Figure in chapter Fifth figure in chapter Sixth figure in chapter Seventh figure in chapter Eighth figure in chapter Ninth figure in chapter 3 34

12 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS / TERMS / SYMBOLS CD DFD ERD FYP Context Diagram Data Flow Diagram Entity Relationship Diagram Final year project

13 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE PAGE A Appendix 1 80 B Appendix 2 81 C Appendix 3 82 D Appendix 4 83

14 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.

15 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.

16 1.4 SCOPES 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 Supervisor can enter mark for supervisor assessment part and final assessment part Panel can enter mark for panel assessment part and final assessment part Final Year Student can view their current marks SYSTEM The system is for calculation and review for final year project evaluation and used for Faculty Informatics and Computing Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin.

17 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 Limitation Of Accessed ` This system can only be accessed by panels, supervisor and student of Faculty Informatics and Computing 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 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.

18 1.6 ACTIVITIES AND MILESTONES Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2

19 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.

20 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.

21 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 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.

22 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.

23 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.

24 2.3 RESEARCH REVIEW NO AUTHOR/YEAR TITLE METHOD DESCRIPTION 1. Prince Agarwal, Multi-criteria -Analytical To solve supplier and Manjari Sahai, decision making Hierarchy Process selection problem. Vaibhav Mishra, techniques for (AHP) Monark Bag and supplier Vrijendra Singh, 2011 evaluation selection. and 2. Praveen Thokala, Choosing Weighted Sum To develop guidelines for 2015 Appropriate Model (WSM) choosing the most Multi-Criteria appropriate MCDA Decision Analysis Techniques(s) To method to be applied for a given health care decision problem. Support Health Care Decision 3. J urat e SK Score -Weighted Sum To calculate the UPIEN E,2010 Calculation in Model (WSM) aggregated Informatics - Group Decision score for whole Contests Using Making submission in the above Multiple Criteria mentioned situation. Decision

25 Methods 4. Aizah Anas Binti Final Year Fuzzy Logic To compute student Azlen,2016 Project Grading (FYPGS) performance in their FYP. 5. Ahmad Hadi Farhan Online Team -Analytical To automatically to form Bin Khairu Azua Formation Hierarchy a group based on selected,2015 System Using Process(AHP) criteria. AHP, Frequency -Frequency And Allocation Distribution Method -Allocation Method Table 2.0

26 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 w j denotes the relative weight of importance of the criterion C j and a ij is the performance value of alternative A i when it is evaluated in terms of criterion C j. Then, the total (i.e., when all the criteria are considered simultaneously) importance of alternative A i, denoted as A WSM-score i, is defined as follows: EXAMPLE : For a simple numerical example suppose that a decision problem of this type is defined on three alternatives A 1, A 2, A 3 each described in terms of four criteria C 1, C 2, C 3 and C 4. Furthermore, let the numerical data for this problem be as in the following decision matrix:

27 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., A 1 ) 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 A 2 (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: A 2 = A 3 > A 1 (where the symbol ">" stands for "greater than").[7]

28 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.

29 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.

30 3.2 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY 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 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

31 3.3 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE 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.

32 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.

33 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.

34 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

35 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

36 3) Workspace Web based system

37 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 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.

38 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

39 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.

40 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

41 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.

42 Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process 1 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.

43 Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process 2 Figure 3.6 Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process 2 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.

44 Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process 3 Figure 3.7 Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process 3 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.

45 Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process 4 Figure 3.8 Data Flow Diagram Level 1 Process 4 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.

46 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.

47 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.

48 USER userid VARCHAR (15) PRIMARY KEY password VARCHAR (10) position VARCHAR (30) SUPERVISOR sv_id VARCHAR (10) PRIMARY KEY sv_ VARCHAR (40) sv_phone VARCHAR (12) sv_name VARCHAR (50) PANEL panel_id VARCHAR (10) PRIMARY KEY panel_name VARCHAR (50) panel_ VARCHAR (40) panel_phone INT (12)

49 ADMIN admin_id VARCHAR (10) PRIMARY KEY admin_name VACHAR (50) admin_phone INT (12) admin_ VARCHAR (40) STUDENT stu_id VARCHAR (12) PRIMARY KEY stu_ 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

50 PROJECT_PROPOSAL criteria VARCHAR (100) PRIMARY KEY weightage FLOAT score INT (2) total INT(2) PRIMARY KEY stu_id VARCHAR (12) FOREIGN KEY PRESENTATION_1 criteria VARCHAR (100) PRIMARY KEY weightage FLOAT score INT (2) total INT(2) PRIMARY KEY stu_id VARCHAR (12) FOREIGN KEY PRESENTATION_2 criteria VARCHAR (100) PRIMARY KEY weightage FLOAT score INT (2) total INT(2) PRIMARY KEY stu_id VARCHAR (12) FOREIGN KEY

51 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

52 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 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 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.

53 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.

54 REFERENCES [1] Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Comparative Study Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers (now Springer). p ISBN From [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 5 th Edition [7] [8]