Evaluation
In this section you need to discuss the degree of success in meeting the original objectives as specified in the requirements specification which can be easily achieved by copying your user requirements table and addressing each one in turn.
You should also discuss:
How will I be marked?
(i) Discussion of the degree of success in meeting the original objectives. [4 marks]
This discussion should demonstrate the candidate’s ability to evaluate the effectiveness of the completed system. The original objectives stated in the requirements specification should be matched to the achievements, taking into account the limitations. User evaluation is also essential and should arise from direct user evaluation.
It is important that the user is not assumed to be an expert in computer jargon, so some effort must be made to ensure that the system is user-friendly. It will be assumed that the user will have considerable knowledge of the underlying theory of the business or area being computerised. Clarity of menus, clear on-screen help and easy methods of inputting data are all examples of how the system can be made user-friendly. Here marks are awarded for the degree of satisfaction that the user indicates in the acceptance procedure. Could the system or its results be used? Was the system specification achieved? Do any system faults still exist? The candidate should evaluate the user’s response to the final version of the system.
As a result of completing the system, the candidate should identify the good and bad points of the final system, highlighting any limitations and necessary extensions to the system, and indicating how the extensions could be carried out.
You should also discuss:
- the project management and the project plan
- ease of the use of the package and acceptability to the users
- the choice of task
- desirable extensions/modifications
How will I be marked?
(i) Discussion of the degree of success in meeting the original objectives. [4 marks]
This discussion should demonstrate the candidate’s ability to evaluate the effectiveness of the completed system. The original objectives stated in the requirements specification should be matched to the achievements, taking into account the limitations. User evaluation is also essential and should arise from direct user evaluation.
- 0 marks – No discussion present.
- 1-2 marks – Some discussion about a number of objectives, but some omissions or inadequate explanation of success or failure.
- 3-4 marks – A full discussion, taking each objective mentioned in (b) (i) and explaining the degree of success in meeting them (indicating where in the project evidence can be found to support this), or reasons why they were not met.
It is important that the user is not assumed to be an expert in computer jargon, so some effort must be made to ensure that the system is user-friendly. It will be assumed that the user will have considerable knowledge of the underlying theory of the business or area being computerised. Clarity of menus, clear on-screen help and easy methods of inputting data are all examples of how the system can be made user-friendly. Here marks are awarded for the degree of satisfaction that the user indicates in the acceptance procedure. Could the system or its results be used? Was the system specification achieved? Do any system faults still exist? The candidate should evaluate the user’s response to the final version of the system.
- 1 mark – The system does not meet the design specification and the end user is not able to make use of the system. The candidate briefly discusses these issues in terms of their project management.
- 2 marks – The system is, in the main, user-friendly, but there is room for improvement (e.g. no on-screen help has been provided). The user indicates that the system could be used but there are some faults, which need to be rectified. The candidate has made some limited attempt to discuss how these inadequacies may be dealt with.
- 3 marks – The user indicates that the system could be used but there are some faults, which need to be rectified. The candidate provides a detailed discussion how these inadequacies may be dealt with. OR a fully functional user-friendly system has been produced. The user indicates that the system fully meets the specification given in section (a), and there are no known faults in the system.
As a result of completing the system, the candidate should identify the good and bad points of the final system, highlighting any limitations and necessary extensions to the system, and indicating how the extensions could be carried out.
- 1 mark – The candidate identifies the obvious good points of the system and possibly some bad points or limitations.
- 2 marks – The candidate identifies clearly good and bad points and any limitations.
- 3 marks – The candidate clearly portrays the good and bad points of the system indicating the limitations, possible extensions and how to carry out the extensions.