SAAD assignment ( Group )

1 INTRODUCTION

For this project, you will be required to put into practice the tasks associated with the Systems Analysis and Design module. You should work in GROUPS OF FOUR (4) for this project.

It is essential that individual members of the group realize their responsibility to their peers and behave in a professional manner.

2 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

1. To identify the framework of activities associated with methodologies and describe how the techniques are used together to develop a system

2. To demonstrate, apply and document, to the appropriate standard, the key techniques of analysis and design for the chosen paradigm

3. To identify the key user interface issues required in a system design

3 DELIVERABLES

Group Assignment (70%)

Each team should:

Ä Analyze the existing system carefully as provided in the case study. In areas that lack information, the team may make logical assumptions which need to be documented in their reports.

Ä Identify the problems in the existing systems and propose a solution.

Ä Prepare a feasibility report. A schedule feasibility report and an operational feasibility report would suffice

o The schedule feasibility report should contain:

§ Workload matrix

§ Gantt chart – to be done using an appropriate project management tool

o The operational feasibility should be discussed using PIECES framework

Ä Compare some appropriate / related methodologies and suggest a suitable one for developing the proposed system. Justify the selection

Ä Identify the breakdown of work associated with the chosen methodology which would be undertaken. (Note: the tasks should be limited to the analysis and design stage, i.e. not including the development / coding and stages thereafter).

Ä Suggest with justification and apply appropriate techniques of determining user requirements. Summarize the findings.

Ä Demonstrate and apply the key techniques of analysis for the chosen methodology based on the findings.

Ä Develop a prototype of the proposed solution using a proprietary database tool by designing the input, output and dialogue screen that matches with the logical design.

Ä Document each stage of the analysis and design to the appropriate standards.

Ä Present the solution

Individual Assignment (15%)

Each team member / individual should prepare a formal documentation of and present the

Ä physical design which was done by the individual – with the appropriate explanation / description of the design with regards to the finalized logical design

Ä a critical evaluation of the assignment in terms of problems encountered and how they were overcome, lessons learnt, etc.

according to appropriate standards

Individual Presentation (15%)

Each team member / individual should:

Ä Present his / her contribution of the solution for the Group Assignment

Marks awarded here would depend on Project Knowledge / Professionalism and Contribution of the individual.

4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Contribution

Students are reminded that this is designed to be a group effort. It is not therefore sensible for every group member to be involved in every activity, though overall findings should be discussed and agreed by the group as a whole. Each individual is required to attach to his / her report a signed peer-to-peer evaluation form (to be provided by the module lecturer). This form allows the individual to assess his / her peers’ contribution to the project as well as illustrates the contribution of each team member. It should be remembered that people who do not contribute to the exercise cannot reasonably expect to get any marks from it.

Minutes of meetings

Each group is to regularly submit the minutes of meetings to the module lecturer. The report should among other things contain details such as:

ð date, start time, end time and venue of the meeting

ð attendees / absentees – with or without apology

ð reporting of previous meetings / outcomes / findings

ð details of discussion based on agenda / conclusions drawn

ð action list for group members

Hardcopies of the minutes of meeting need to be attached as appendices in the documentation. Any difficulties / problems faced during the duration of the project – such as non cooperative members, etc, should be pointed out in the minutes.

Documentation Standards

ð Project documentation should be complete

ð The project documentation should be at least of average standard in terms of language, layout and flow

ð The contents of the project documentation should be appropriately structured

ð References should be accurate, relevant and up to date

ð References should be done using Harvard’s Name Referencing

ð Diagrams / tables / graphs which have been used in the documentation should be properly captioned

5 MARKING CRITERIA

Distinction (75% and above)

This grade will be assigned to work where the documentation is complete and describes in detail, with little or no errors, the following components: introduction, feasibility study, selection of methodologies, selection and application of investigation techniques and analysis / logical design in accordance with excellent documentation standards. To obtain this grade, the candidate’s individual assignment should show all techniques of methodology applied with little or no errors. All deliverables of the individual component should be coherent with detailed description to explain the diagrams. Overall documentation standards for both the group project as well as the individual assignment should be of excellent quality. In order to obtain a grade at this level, individuals should be able to address all issues with regards to not only their own component of the module but also be those of the other group members. Individual’s contribution to the project, at this level should be more than 75% and overall peer evaluation should indicate excellent standards.

Credit (65% – 74%)

This grade will be assigned to work where the documentation is complete and describes briefly, with some errors, the following components: introduction, feasibility study, selection of methodologies, selection and application of investigation techniques and analysis / logical design in accordance with good documentation standards. To obtain this grade, the candidate’s individual assignment should show all techniques of methodology applied but some errors. All deliverables of the individual component should be coherent with detailed description to explain the diagrams. Overall documentation standards for both the group project as well as the individual assignment should be of excellent quality. In order to obtain a grade at this level, individuals should be able to address most issues with regards to not only their own component of the module but also be those of the other group members. Individual’s contribution to the project, at this level should be more than 65% and overall peer evaluation should indicate excellent standards.

Pass (50% - 64%)

This grade will be assigned to work where, most of the basic requirements of the documentation listed above, such as introduction, feasibility reports, logical process models, data dictionary are of adequate standard which is evident in the hardcopy of the documentation. The physical design of the system in terms of the interactive screen design and report maps adequately against the logical design presented in the documentation. The documentation should be of adequate standard in terms of language, layout and flow. Some accurate, relevant and up-to-date referencing was visible. Group presentation of the team should have adequate visual aids with relevant information presented and adequate coordination among group members. Individuals should display an adequate level of professionalism and project knowledge. Peer-to-peer evaluation of individual’s contribution should be adequate.

Fail(Below 50%)

This grade will be assigned to work where, most of the basic requirements of the documentation listed above, such as introduction, feasibility reports, logical process models, data dictionary are of poor standard which is evident in the hardcopy of the documentation. The physical design of the system in terms of the interactive screen design and report shows little or no mapping / linking with the logical design presented in the documentation. The documentation is of poor standard in terms of language, layout and flow. Minimal or no referencing was done. Group presentation of the team has poor visual aids with irrelevant information presented and poor coordination among group members. Individuals display on the average a poor level of professionalism and project knowledge. Peer-to-peer evaluation of individual’s contribution is poor.

WAITERS ON WHEELS : COMPUTERIZED DELIVERY TRACKING SYSTEM

Waiters on Wheels is a restaurant meal-delivery service started in 1997 by Sue and Tom Bickford. The Bickfords both worked for restaurants while in college and always dreamed of opening their own restaurant. But unfortunately, the initial investment was always out of reach. The Bickfords noticed that many restaurants offer take out food, and some restaurants, primarily pizzerias, offer home delivery service. Many people they met, however, seemed to want home delivery service but with a more complete food selection.

Waiter on Wheels was conceived as the best of both worlds for Sue and Tom – a restaurant service but without the high initial investment. The Bickfords contracted with a variety of well-known restaurants in town to accept orders from customers and to deliver the complete meals. After the restaurant prepares the meal to order, it charges Waiters on Wheels a wholesale price, and the customer pays retail plus a service charge and tip. Waiters on Wheels started modestly, with only two restaurants and one delivery driver working the dinner shift. Business rapidly expanded, and the Bickfords realized they needed a customer computer system to support their business operations. They hired your consultant firm to help them define what sort of a system they needed.

Sue described the current system as such “When a customer calls in wanting to order, I need to record it and get the information to the right restaurant. I need to know which driver to ask to pick up the order, so I need drivers to call in and tell me when they are free. Sometimes customers call back wanting to change their orders, so I need to get my hands on the original order and notify the restaurant to make the change.”

Tom continued, “The drivers get the copy of the bill directly from the restaurant when they pick up the meal, which should agree with our calculations. The drivers collect the amount plus a service charge. When drivers report in at closing, we add up the money they have and compare it to the records we have. After all drivers report in, we need to create a deposit slip for the bank for the day’s total receipts. At the end of each week, we calculate what we owe each restaurant at the agreed-to-wholesale price and send them a statement and check.”

Basic requirements :

Design a system which does some processing when events such as these occur :

a customer places an order either via telephone or via the company website.
a driver is finished with a delivery
a driver reports for work

The system should also produce information at some specific points in time – for example, when it is :

time to produce an end-of-day deposit slip
time to produce end-of-week restaurant payments
time to produce weekly sales reports

Peer to Peer

Systems Analysis & Design

Self Evaluation

Please List Team Members' Names Here

Group No :

Student Name : A

Name :

Student Name : B

Student ID :

Student Name : C

Student Name : D

Student Name : E

Part A : Self Evaluation

Part B : Peer to Peer Evaluation

1. What was your contribution to the project?

1. Do you feel that the distribution of task was fair? Please explain.

% contribution

Example : Prepared Gantt Chart

100

2. How many group meetings were held?

Please assess using the scale

[1] Never

[2] Rarely

[3] Sometimes

[4] Usually

[5] Always

3. How many group meetings have you attended?

Has he / she made a serious effort at assigned work before group meetings?

4 List reasons for not attending meetings, if any.

Student Name : A

Student Name : B

Student Name : C

Student Name : D

Student Name : E

Has he / she attempted to make contributions in group meetings?

Please assess using the scale

[1] Never

[2] Rarely

[3] Sometimes

[4] Usually

[5] Always

Student Name : A

I have made a serious effort at assigned work before group meetings

Student Name : B

Student Name : C

I have attempted to make contributions in group meetings

Student Name : D

Student Name : E

I have cooperated with the group effort

Has he / she cooperated with the group effort?

Student Name : A

Student Name : B

Student Name : C

Student Name : D

Student Name : E

Sign : _________________

Group Assignment
Group No : ______________________________ Intake: ____________ Total = _______ /70

CSFF	Very Poor	Poor	Adequate	Good	Excellent
Introduction (5 marks)	No evidence in documentation or softcopy	Done but missing critical information such as problems, solutions or assumptions. Mostly irrelevant information.	Brief introduction. Some missing / vague description of problems, solutions or assumptions. Some irrelevant information.	Clear, complete yet very basic introduction. All problems, solutions or assumptions made but briefly discussed/identified. No irrelevant information.	Clear, complete and detailed introduction. Detailed and precise description of underlying problems, solutions and assumptions. All relevant information.
Marks	0	1 2	3	4	5
Feasibility Report (5 marks)	No evidence in documentation or softcopy	Either one or both available but missing major elements such as Workload Matrix, Gantt chart and / or timelines and components of PIECES framework Gantt chart created without using Ms Project.	Both feasibility reports done. Gantt chart done using Ms Project. Only basic tasks are depicted. No breakdown of subtasks etc. Illogical sequencing of tasks. Unrealistic timelines. Brief / illogical explanation of operational feasibility with regards to PIECES framework.	Gantt chart done using Ms Project. with breakdown of tasks clearly shown. Realistic timelines and sequencing of tasks. Logical explanation of operational feasibility with regards to PIECES framework. Some minor errors in either component.	All criteria listed in previous grade achieved with no / minimal errors. Relevant and detailed explanation for PIECES framework. Evidence of other feasibility studies carried out over and above the existing requirements.
Marks	0	1 2	3	4	5
Selection of Methodologies (5 marks)	No evidence in documentation or softcopy	Identification of one or two methodologies with some / no description of the methodologies No selection of methodology or selection not related to project concerned. No conclusion or justification on selection.	Some description of at least two methodologies with some justification on selection based on project concerned. Explanation brief and / or vague in most areas.	Some comparison between at least two methodologies with justification on selection based on project concerned. Explanation brief and / or vague in some areas.	Detailed and clear comparison between several related methodologies with justification on selection for the project concerned.
Marks	0	1 2	3	4	5
Selection / Application of Investigation Techniques (5 marks)	No evidence in documentation or softcopy	One investigation technique was selected. Sample of the application of the technique was available but no / minimal justification for selection. No / brief conclusion / findings.	At least 1 investigation technique selected and samples made available. Some justification for selection and some conclusions were drawn from findings.	At least 2 investigation techniques selected and samples made available. Justification for selection and conclusions were drawn from findings.	At least 2 investigation techniques selected and samples made available. Clear and detailed logical justification for selection and conclusions were drawn from findings
Marks	0	1 2	3	4	5

CSFF	Very Poor	Poor	Adequate	Good	Excellent
Analysis / Logical Design (25 marks)	No evidence in documentation or softcopy	Some diagrams were available. Missing diagrams and / or components. Diagrams produced are not related to findings of the investigation phase. Many major errors in diagrams related to naming conventions, violation of diagramming rules. Totally illogical diagrams produced. No supporting documentation for the diagrams.	All diagrams available with many minor errors related to naming conventions, violation of diagramming rules. Some illogical components within the diagrams. Diagrams related to the findings in the investigation phase. Supporting documentation for the diagrams is available. Some illogical / wrong / unrelated entries in supporting documentation.	All logical diagrams available with hardly / some minor errors. Diagrams closely related with the findings of the investigation phase. Supporting documentation for the diagrams is available. Most entries in supporting documentation are related to the diagrams / are accurate. Minimal errors in supporting documentation.	All logical diagrams available with no errors. Diagrams closely related with the findings of the investigation phase. Supporting documentation for the diagrams is available and entries are related to the diagrams / are accurate. No errors in supporting documentation.
Marks	0 1 2 3 4	5 6 7 8 9	10 11 12 13 14 15	16 17 18 19 20	21 22 23 24 25
Physical Design (20 marks)	No evidence in documentation or softcopy	Some forms, reports or / and database designs were available. Physical designs were either in documentation only or in prototype only. Physical designs do not map with the logical design at all.	Some forms, reports or / and database designs were available in documentation and in prototype. Some of the physical designs do map accurately with the logical design. No explanation for the design in documentation.	Most forms, reports or / and database designs were available in documentation and in prototype. Most of the physical designs do map accurately with the logical design. Simple design overall. Some explanation for the design in documentation.	All forms, reports or / and database designs were available in documentation and in prototype. All physical designs do map accurately with the logical design. Professional outlook of the whole system. Clear and detailed explanation of the design in documentation.
Marks	0 1 2 3 4	5 6 7 8 9	10 11 12 13	14 15 16	17 18 19 20

CSFF

Very Poor

Poor

Adequate

Good

Excellent

Overall Documentation Standards

(5 marks)

Mostly poor documentation standards with missing components such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, poor command of the language, etc.

Some missing / poor documentation standards such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, poor command of the language. Referencing done does not adhere to Harvard’s Name Referencing style.

Overall average documentation standards in table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, command of the language, etc.

Good documentation standards in most areas such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, command of language.

Excellent documentation standards. Overall documentation has a professional outlook.

Marks

1 2

Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Student Name (ID): ______________________________ Intake: ____________ Individual Assignment : Total = _______ /15

CSFF	Very Poor	Poor	Adequate	Good	Excellent
Physical Design (10 marks)	No evidence in documentation.	Some forms, reports or / and database designs were available. Physical designs do not map with the logical design at all. No explanation for the design.	Some forms, reports or / and database designs were available. Some of the physical designs do map accurately with the logical design. No explanation for the design.	Most forms, reports or / and database designs were available. Most of the physical designs do map accurately with the logical design. Simple design overall. Some explanation for the design in documentation.	All forms, reports or / and database designs were available. All physical designs do map accurately with the logical design. Professional outlook of the whole system. Clear and detailed explanation of the design in documentation.
Marks	0 1	2 3	4 5	6 7	8 9 10
Overall Documentation Standards (5 marks)	Mostly poor documentation standards with missing components such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, poor command of the language, etc. No critical evaluation, problems encountered, how they were overcome or lessons learnt.	Some missing / poor documentation standards such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, poor command of the language. Referencing done does not adhere to Harvard’s Name Referencing style. Poor critical evaluation done which contains one or more of the following: problems encountered how they were overcome and / or lessons learnt.	Most document standards met such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, average command of the language of average quality. Referencing adheres to the Harvard’s Name Referencing style. Average critical evaluation done which contains all of the following: problems encountered how they were overcome and / or lessons learnt.	All document standards of good quality such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, good command of the language. Referencing adheres to the Harvard’s Name Referencing style. Good critical evaluation which contains all of the following: problems encountered how they were overcome and / or lessons learnt with some missing details.	All document standards of excellent quality such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, excellent command of the language. Referencing adheres to the Harvard’s Name Referencing style. Excellent critical evaluation which contains all of the following: problems encountered how they were overcome and / or lessons learnt with no missing details.
Marks	0	1 2	3	4	5

Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Student Name (ID): ______________________________ Intake: ____________ Individual Presentation : Total = _______ /15

CSFF	Very Poor	Poor	Adequate	Good	Excellent
Project Knowledge / Professionalism (5 marks)	Not able to explain own component of the project. Unable to provide answers to any questions posed with regards to own component of the project. Mostly inaccurate / illogical answers / explanation provided.	Able to provide some information and / or answer some questions pertaining to only the individual’s own aspects / components of the project done. Some inaccurate / illogical answers / explanation provided.	Able to provide all information / answer all questions posed on individual’s own component of the project done. Answers given accurate but with some hesitation.	Able to provide all information and / or answer all questions with regards to own component of the project as well as assist some team members when not able to explain their components / answer questions posed. Answers questions accurately confidently.	Able to provide all information and / or answer all questions with regards to own component of the project as well as assist most / all team members who were not able to explain their components / answer questions posed. Answers questions accurately and confidently.
Marks	0	1 2	3	4	5
Contribution as per Peer to Peer and Self Evaluation (10 marks)	Overall evaluation indicates very poor. Contributed to less than 20% of project.	Overall evaluation indicates poor. Contributed to more than 20% but less than 40% of the project.	Overall evaluation indicates average. Contributed to more than 40% but less than 60% of the project.	Overall evaluation indicates good. Contributed to more than 60% but less than 80% of the project.	Overall evaluation indicates excellent. Contributed to more than 80% of the project.
Marks	0 1	2 3	4 5	6 7	8 9 10

Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________