1

Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE
INTRODUCTION

Rationale

The introduction of computers revolutionized many industries, including

office work. By providing various tools to help office staff perform job activities,

computers have helped to increase their productivity and accuracy. Computers

are now an important part of almost every workplace, with most companies

unable to work without them. For offices with massive databases, file storage and

retrieval offer unrivaled benefits over conventional paper file storage (Alo, B.,

2019).

The Bohol Island State University (BISU), formerly the Central Visayas

State College of Agriculture, Forestry and Technology (CVSCAFT), is a public

institution of higher learning in Bohol, Philippines. BISU was born on October

14,2009 after Her Excellency Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law Republic

Act 9722. The institution operates campuses spread throughout the province,

with the main campus in Tagbilaran City, Bohol. BISU - Bilar campus is one of

these campuses and it’s located at barangay Zamora from the municipality of

Bilar.

Bohol Island State University – Bilar campus currently use the manual

method in some of its activities, including the internal accreditation required by

 2

the Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines

(AACCUP), Inc. AACCUP accreditation is viewed as a process by which is an

institution at the tertiary level evaluates its educational activities and it is

evaluated by programs based on standards of the accrediting agency (Corpus,

M., 2017). BISU, being the only state university on the province of Bohol, is

mandated to undergo accreditation from external entities to ensure quality

standards of its graduates.

The BISU – Bilar uses manual internal accreditation processes which

includes the processes of data recording, internal accreditation and archiving of

files. To address the problems encountered, the developers come-up with a

centralized accreditation system that will provide storage for the documents

needed for the internal accreditation of their programs.

Literature Background

Article XIV Section 10 of the Philippine Constitution states that:

“Science and technology are essential for national

development and progress. The State shall give priority to
research and development, invention, innovation, and their
utilization; and to science and technology education, training, and
services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, and self-reliant
scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the
country's productive systems and national life.”.
 3

The article clearly states that the state shall recognize the use of science

and technology in nation building, such as computerizing the manual process of

program accreditations and file archiving of the universities and state colleges

during internal accreditations. It is essential that universities and state colleges

should be incorporated with the advancement of computers to cope up the

challenges of the present times. A website intended for internal accreditation

must have the tools and documents required to perform program accreditation.

Basic theories were applied in the design of the system which are needed

to conceptualize the study. Concurrency control is one of the principles of

database management system stated by Pekka Kilpeläinen (2001). It ensures

that correct results for concurrent operations are generated while getting those

results as quick as possible. Rules, methods, design methodologies and theories

to maintain the consistency of the components operating concurrently was also

provided. The system was applied with operation constraints which usually result

in performance reduction. Accuracy and consistency of the operation should be

obtained with a good efficiency without reducing its performance. It’s very useful

in system’s development in order to have a proper management of the files.

According to Denning and Martell (2007), the Principle of Automation covered the

efficient computational ways of perform human tasks. It emphasizes that the

there is an effective computational way to achieve human tasks. It helps the

people perform and convert manual tasks into computerized methods.

 4

There are some related studies that are available and were used as

references. These studies were obtained from the internet. Among these

significant studies are:

1. Complete File Management System by Junil A. Toledo et al. (2019). The

developed system can upload and downloading files with different file

extensions. It has multiple users administrated by the admin. It has tables

that displays the information of the uploaded files that also has a

download button at the last column. It can also produce graphical reports

that shows the number of files uploaded per uploaders.

2. Faculty Evaluation System by George Wilson et al. (2020). The web-

based system is developed to evaluate faculty performance of a certain

school. The system allows the admin to manipulate students and faculty

information. It also allows the admin to add and remove user’s accounts.

Faculty performance evaluation can also be performed in the system a

using personalized questionnaires that are flexible to changes. The

system can produce tabular reports and displays graphical reports on its

dashboard.

3. Teacher’ Evaluation System of Carlos Hidalgo Memorial College by Rolyn

Jane Uy and Mark King et al. (2019). The system is the teacher evaluation
 5

system currently implemented at the Carlos Hidalgo Memorial College

located at the Talisay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines. The system

allows the teachers and students on evaluating teachers using static

evaluation questionnaires and can automatically calculate the ratings

depending on the user’s input. The system also allows the admin to

manage accounts of students and teachers. It also has tables that filter

data depending on user’s desired categories and. The system also can

produce printable tabular reports.

 6

THE PROBLEM
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The main aim of this study is to develop and implement a centralized

accreditation system for BISU – Bilar that will have available tools needed for the

accreditation of programs. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following

questions:

1. What are the processes and operations involved in accreditation of

programs?

2. What are the supporting documents and forms needed for the

accreditation of programs?

3. What are the problems encountered in the storage and retrieval of the

gathered documents?

4. What could be the possible solutions for the problems encountered?

The proposed system is to be called AACCUP Online: Centralized

Accreditation System of Bohol Island State University and will integrate the

processes of online accreditation in BISU. The AACCUP Online: Centralized

Accreditation System is developed with the following features.

1. File archiving. It will assist the management of the tools and documents

for accreditation of programs.

 7

2. File search and sorting. Easily locate documents by searching and sorting

in order to check the compliance of the tools.

3. Accreditation. The system provides necessary tools and documents to

help the users evaluate the uploaded supporting documents.

4. Reports generation. The system can generate graphical reports for the

user’s decision support.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

This study will primarily focus on developing a centralized accreditation

system for BISU- Bilar. Specifically, the development of the system covered only

the following processes.

1. File archiving. This is the process of archiving files needed for the

internal accreditation processes of programs.

2. Accreditation. This is the process of determining the standard of a

program by checking the compliances provided. In this module, the end

user will check all the supporting documents uploaded with the guide of

accreditation tools, provide ratings using the SSR Auto-Compute forms

and calculate its summary of weighted mean using Weighted Mean

Calculator.

3. Acquisition. This includes the recording of ratings of accredited

programs, addition and update of user information and recording of

ongoing accreditation level of programs.

 8

4. Administration. The system requires user’s log-in to be authorized to

manipulate data within the system. Data are manipulated to be able to

change user’s passwords, add new users and deactivate users’ accounts.

5. Centralization. This facilitates a fully integrated accreditation system with

modular components and methodology, web-based and provides the

specific needs and requirements of Quality Assurance office for internal

accreditation processes.

6. Reports. This module shows tabular reports and graphical representation

of data which includes the ongoing accreditation level of programs,

number of evaluated programs, program’s accreditation ratings per area

and other reports that the client may demand .

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The proposed study will help the Quality Assurance Office of BISU – Bilar

effectively by centralizing the internal accreditation processes and providing

secure storage for documents needed for internal accreditation.

Moreover, this proposed study will bring benefit to the following:

QA Director. The Quality Assurance director manually provides tools and

SSR auto compute forms to task force and internal accreditors every time they

need it. The QA director also manage the archiving of supporting documents in

preparation for external accreditation and keeps the record of recent

 9

accreditations. The proposed system will make the accreditation tools and SSR

auto compute forms available to users whenever they need it. It also provides a

secure storage for all documents needed for accreditation processes.

Deans/Chairpersons. The deans or chairpersons are the accreditors of

the internal accreditations. They manually provide ratings to the pile of supporting

documents presented to them by their task force. The proposed system will

provide accreditation tools and supporting documents to deans during

accreditations. The ratings are also going to be uploaded to the system and can

be modified in case of wrong inputs.

BISU Personnel. BISU personnel refers to the task force who gather

supporting documents which the accreditors need for internal accreditation. They

gather physical documents that the accreditation tools require. The proposed

system will allow the BISU personnel to upload scanned documents instead of

gathering physical document. This module provides secure storage for the

documents. Academic Institutions. Academic institutions refer to the universities,

colleges or educational institutions that grant academic degrees. This study is

beneficial to the public higher education institution because it will serve as a

model and basis for their endeavor to computerize their respective internal

accreditation processes.

Researchers. This refer to the individuals who conduct academic

research. For future researchers and developers, this study provides significant

contribution in terms of computerization of accreditations especially on the public

 10

higher education institution. For the researchers of this study, it will enhance their

reasoning and analytical abilities, to widen their knowledge in designing and

system development in preparation for their future job.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Development Framework

Figure 1 below shows the conceptual diagram of the study. It follows the

input- process- output principle. The inputs are coming from the internal

accreditors which are the college deans who will going to evaluate programs of

their department and upload the supporting documents. The accreditor will use

the tools available on the application as a guide for the accreditation. The

evaluated program will be the input. The application will acquire the rating and

result of the accreditation and will be stored in the database along with the

uploaded supporting documents.

Figure 1. Conceptual Diagram of the Study

 11

Figure 2 on the next page shows the overview of the online accreditation

system of Quality Assurance Office. The main flow of the system starts from the

task force who must provide the supporting documents obtained from their

assigned area. These documents are received by the internal accreditors and will

be evaluated. The evaluated programs will be re-evaluated by the Quality

Assurance Office and stored for the preparation for the external accreditation.

The diagram below shows the input-output of the system which demonstrates on

how the data is processed in order to produce an output.

Figure 2. Block Diagram of the Study

 12

Environment and Participants

The study will be conducted at the Quality Assurance and Accreditation

Center located at BISU – Bilar Campus Zamora, Bilar, Bohol. The subjects of the

study will be the head of the Quality Assurance Office and its staff, the task

forces and the accreditors. The task force is a group of instructors who are

assigned at different areas to collect documents required for accreditation. The

Quality Assurance Office head, its staff, and the internal accreditors, on the other

hand, are going to be the main clientele of the study.

Data Collection

The developers made a letter request and asked the head of the office for

approval. It will be conducted through an interview with the head of the office to

gather more information about the present processes of internal accreditation.

The information that will be provided like the process of how the programs will be

evaluated and how the rating should be calculated will be done by the office and

will be written and recorded on a notebook. Document review will also be done to

further understand and get the needed information. Some documents like the

different tools and SSR auto compute used for accreditations will be reviewed for

the development of accreditation processes of the system.

Soft and hard copies of supporting documents will also be examined

including different forms used in recording the programs’ level. Observation of

 13

the present office processes will be done to get more oriented and

knowledgeable on the current processes.

To come up with the average weighted mean of the web usability, the

weighted mean score (WMS) was computed to evaluate/ assess the usability of

the system as perceived by the respondents using the following formula;

1f1 + 2f2 + 3f3 + 4f4 + 5f5

WMS = n

Where:

WMS= Weighted Mean Score

f1 = frequency of respondents given a rate of 1

f2 = frequency of respondents given a rate of 2

f3 = frequency of respondents given a rate of 3

f4 = frequency of respondents given a rate of 4

f5 = frequency of respondents given a rate of 5

n = total number of respondents

1,2…5 = constant (rating to the service provide)

The guide for the interpretation of the results of the system usability is

presented below.
 14

Table 1

Interpretative Guide of the System Usability

Weight Range Description Interpretation

The respondents strongly believe
7 6.4 – 7.0 Strongly Agree and confident that the system is
very usable.
The respondents believe and
6 5.5 – 6.3 Agree confident that the system is
usable.
The respondents tend to believe
5 4.6 – 5.4 Tend to Agree
that the system is usable.
Neither Agree nor The respondents are neutral in
4 3.7 – 4.5
Disagree trusting that the system is usable.
The respondents tend not to trust
3 2.8 – 3.6 Tend to Disagree
that the system is usable.
The respondents believe that the
2 1.9 – 2.7 Disagree
system is not usable.
The respondents strongly
1 1.0 – 1.8 Strongly Disagree confident that the system is not
usable.

The guide for the interpretation of the results of the web usability is

presented below.

Table 2

Interpretative Guide of the Web Usability

Weight Range Description Interpretation

The respondents find the application to
5 4.3 – 5.0 Excellent be excellent with regards to web
usability standards.
4 3.5 – 4.2 Very Good The respondents find the application to
be very good with minor inconsistencies
 15

and aesthetics.
The respondents find the system to be
3 2.7 – 3.4 Good good with non-critical errors causing
confusion.
The respondents find the system to be
2 1.9 – 2.6 Fair fair having serious problems that need
high priority fix.
The respondents find the system poor
1 1.0 – 1.8 Poor
with severe problems.

Hosting and Implementation

A web hosting service is a type of internet hosting that allows individuals

and organizations to make their websites accessible via the World Wide Web.

Web host are companies that provide space on a server owned or leased for use

as well as providing net connectivity typically in the data center. On the other

hand, the implementation is a realization of a technical specification or algorithm

as a program, software component, or other computer system through

programming and deployment.

In the hosting and implementation of the system, the developers subscribe for a

domain and web hosting to be able to upload the database and the web page for

the establishment for testing. The developers were given an account for the

connectivity for the developed system and provide hosting for website on virtual

servers which can be accessed through http://bisubilar.org/aaccup/login.php.

Development Model and Approaches

 16

The methodology that will be used is Rapid Application Development

(RAD), see Figure on the next page. It is a software development methodology

that involves techniques like iterative development and software prototyping.

Specifically, software prototyping will be used for this project. Prototyping is

suitable for gathering functional requirements if the client or customer do not

really know what they want and cannot articulate what they want. It is better to

develop a prototype so that the users can have an initial look-see and feel of the

present system, thus, making it much easier for users to express their needs as

well as what they really want. The analysis will take all the pertinent information

from the Quality Assurance and Accreditation center. This information will be

combined into a useful description of how the information can be used when it is

processed.

Figure 3. Rapid Application Development (RAD) Diagram

The following are the tools that will be used in the development of the system:
 17

1. PHP – a widely used general purpose scripting language that is especially

suited for web development for the system.

2. APACHE – the Apache HTTP server commonly referred to as Apache, is

a web server application notable for playing a key role in the initial growth

of the World Wide Web. It was used to host the proposed system.

3. MySQL – is the world’s most popular open-source database, enabling the

cost-effective delivery of reliable, high-performance and scalable Web-

based and embedded database applications. It was used in the

connectivity of databases in the programming application of the proposed

system.

4. WAMMP Server – it is a Windows web development environment tool that

allows creating web applications with Apache, PHP, and MySQL database

that can be used to create an application on online viewing and

databasing of the system.

5. VS Code – Visual Studio Code or VS Code is a code editor redefined and

optimized for building and debugging modern web and cloud applications.

It is used to edit PHP Scripting language, JavaScript, CSS and more.

6. ClickCharts Diagram – ClickChart diagram is a flowchart software that

allows the user to easily create a visual representation of a process

organization or other diagram.

 18

Operational Definition of Terms

AACCUP. A non-profit and non-stock accreditation organization that provide

accreditation for academic institutions.

Accreditation. The process of giving approval to the evaluated programs based

on standards of the tools of AACCUP.

Acquisition. A process of acquiring or obtaining data from inputs and storing it in

the database.

Department head. The admin of the system who manages the records and data.

He is also the one who provide username and passwords to the other user.

External Accreditors. The accreditors from an accrediting agency who visit a

certain institution to conduct an accreditation.

Internal Accreditors. The staffs of BISU- Bilar who evaluates the programs in

preparation for the external accreditation.

Module. A part of a system that does a specific job.

Programs. Refers to the courses that will be evaluated by the accreditors.

Software. Refers to the applications on a computer that were developed for a

certain purpose.

Staff. A group of people who work for an organization or institution.

 19

System. Refers to a software that accepts inputs, process the inputted data and

provide an output from the processed data.

Tools. A set of requirements that serves as a guide for accreditation.

Chapter 2
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Existing Process and Operation

Bohol Island State University - Bilar Campus is still using the manual

processes of internal accreditation of programs. It has the following processes

such as collection of supporting documents, program accreditation, file keeping

and record keeping. Taskforce assigned to different areas are responsible for file

collection. The college deans are responsible for their college’s internal

accreditation processes and the Quality Assurance Director is the one

responsible for keeping these evaluated files.

A. Collection of Supporting Documents

The supporting documents are the documents required by the tools to be

rated by the accreditors. These files are collected and provided by the taskforce.

They’ve obtained and collected these files from their respective areas. These

collected files are going to be evaluated by the accreditors

B. Internal Accreditation
 20

Accreditation tools and forms needed for accreditations are readily

available at the Quality Assurance Office and will be provided by the office

director to the deans. Using the accreditation tools and forms provided, internal

accreditors check the supporting documents provided by the task force and rate

them accordingly. After rating these supporting documents from area one up to

area ten, the weighted mean of the ratings is calculated using the provided

weighted mean calculator in a form of a MS Excel file.

C. File Archiving

After accreditation and calculation of weighted mean of the ratings, the

evaluated supporting documents are submitted to the Quality Assurance Office.

The submitted supporting documents are stored and arranged in the large

shelves inside the Quality Assurance Office. These documents are kept in

individual file organizers and are manually arranged and maintained. These

stored documents will be used for external accreditation.

A. Record Keeping

The summary of ratings of each accreditation are also submitted by the

colleges. These are compiled and kept by the Quality Assurance Office director.

These will serve as the records of accreditation results and will become the basis

of decision making.
 21

Figure 4. Contextual Diagram of the Present System.

Event Specification

Event list of the present system:

1. Collection of Supporting Documents

 22

2. Internal Accreditation

3. File Archiving

4. Record Keeping

Present Event List

Figure 5. Collection of Supporting Documents (Event 1).

 23

Figure 6. Program Evaluation (Event 2).

Figure 7. File Keeping (Event 3).

Figure 8. Record Keeping (Event 4).

 24

Figure 9. Top Level of the Present System

Needs of the Present System

The present system is still using the manual methods of program

evaluation and file keeping which are needed to be improved. Due to this

observation, the researchers found out that the system needs the following.

1. A system that can be used by all the personnel involved in evaluation

processes.
 25

2. An online system that will allow users to have remote access to

accreditation forms, tools and supporting documents which are necessary

for program evaluation.

3. Computerized file archiving that will prevent damage and loss of

accreditation forms, tools and supporting documents.

4. Secured database that will keep the records of evaluation results, ratings

and users’ information.

5. A webpage that will display the information allowed for public viewing.

Proposed System: AACCUP Online: Centralized Accreditation System of

Bohol Island State University Bilar – Campus Zamora, Bilar, Bohol

Based on the observation and information gathered from the present

system, the researchers came up with the proposed system entitled “AACCUP

Online Accreditation Phases and Procedures of Bohol Island State University

Bilar – Campus Zamora, Bilar, Bohol” which covers the users administration,

online file management, program evaluation processes, record keeping and

report generation. The system aims to provide an online file storage for

evaluation forms, tools, and supporting documents which must be easy to access

during program evaluations. The proposed system can be accessed only by

authorized personnel who has been chosen to be part of the program evaluation

such as the task force, the internal accreditors and the Quality Assurance Office

director.
 26

A. Administration

Aside from the main web page which is intended for public viewing, the

system also comes with a private page which contains the log in module that is

absent from the main page. On this private page, each of the authorized users

must enter a valid username and password in order to have an access to the

system. If the system detected that the provided credentials have a match in the

database table tb_user, the access will be granted. If no match has been found

then the access will be denied. The user can only access features and functions

which are allowed for the user’s account type. Only the admin can add new users

and provide credentials. Each user can view and download files from different

colleges.

B. File Upload

When a task force wants to upload the supporting documents gathered

from his/her assigned area, he/she must log in to access the task force account.

A menu in the navigation bar labeled as “Supporting Documents” will display all

the supporting documents uploaded when clicked. This page also has a button

labeled “Upload File” that will provide a modal file upload form when clicked.

Here, the task force must provide details of the file he/she wants to upload such

as the program, area number, its parameter, its initials and the file itself. The file

must be in pdf file format or else it will not be available for viewing.
 27

Same process of uploading for the admin and accreditor accounts. They

just differ on the information required and the extensions. The admin can upload

evaluation forms and mean calculator in .xlsx file extension while the evaluation

tools must be uploaded in .pdf file extension. On the other hand, only the

accreditor account can upload the evaluation ratings in pdf form.

The file information collected from the supporting documents will be store

in the database table tbl_files. On the other hand, file information collected from

evaluation forms will be store in the database table tb_evaluation and file

information collected from evaluation tools will be store in the database table

tb_tools. All the files will be sorted and stored in the system server.

C. File Download

When a user wants to download a certain uploaded file from the system,

the user must log in to the system and explore the system to locate the desired

file listed on the data tables. The availability of download button in the data tables

depends on the account of the user. The admin and accreditor accounts have a

download button for the evaluation forms, weighted mean calculator, evaluation

tools, the summary of evaluation ratings of the programs under the college where

the accreditor belongs and the supporting documents. The task force accounts
 28

on the other hand are only allowed to download the evaluation tools and

supporting documents.

D. Accreditation

When the AACCUP accreditation is near, the college deans will act as the

internal accreditors that will perform the internal accreditation. To start the

accreditation using the system, they must log in and click the dropdown menu

labeled as “Evaluation” and click the submenu labeled as “Auto-Compute

Evaluation Forms”. This page contains all the auto-compute accreditation forms

that the accreditor’s college has. The accreditors must download the form

needed for the program evaluation and the weighted mean calculator, a MS

Excel file that calculates the weighted mean of the ratings.

After downloading the necessary forms, the accreditor now needs to

access the evaluation tools from Area I to X. To do this, the accreditor must click

the dropdown menu labeled as “Evaluation” and click the submenu labeled as

“Evaluation Tools”, then find the tool for the desired area by searching it using

the provided search box. The accreditor has the freedom to choose whether to

download or just view the tools by clicking either the download button or the view

button.
 29

After that, the accreditor will look for supporting documents that the

evaluation tool is requiring. To access these supporting documents, the

accreditor must click the menu labeled as “Documents” and click the submenu

labeled as “Supporting Documents”, then find the document required by

searching it using the provided search box. Again, the accreditor has the freedom

to choose whether to download or just view the tools by clicking either the

download button or the view button.

The accreditor must now provide the rating for the supporting document

and repeat the same process until all the required documents got rated. After

giving the ratings for all the ten areas, the ratings of each area must be inputted

to the weighted mean calculator downloaded earlier to get the summary of

ratings.

The auto compute evaluation form with ratings must be uploaded after the

evaluation. To upload, the accreditor must click the dropdown menu labeled as

“Result & Ratings” then the submenu labeled as “College’s Evaluation Ratings”

and finally the button labeled as “Submit Evaluation Ratings”. The accreditor

must now select the program evaluated, choose the auto compute evaluation

form and click submit. After a successful submission, the accreditor will be

redirected to another page to proceed in uploading the summary of ratings and

the individual ratings of the ten areas which are all must be in pdf file format. The
 30

accreditor must provide the weighted mean, the summary of rating in pdf file

format and click “Submit”.

After a successful submission, the accreditor will be redirected once more

in a page with an empty table where all the ratings form area one to ten of that

evaluation must be listed. To fill this table, the accreditor must click the button

labeled as “Upload Area Ratings” and provide the information and file required

before clicking the “Submit” button. The accreditor must repeat this process until

all the ratings will be uploaded.

E. Recording

After the accreditors uploaded all the ratings of the evaluations, the

information will be recorded and stored in the database. The evaluation ratings

will be stored in the table tb_eresult. The summary of ratings will be stored in the

table tb_result and the area one to ten ratings will be stored in the table

tb_ratings. The users can view the list of evaluation ratings by clicking the menu

labeled as “Results and Ratings” and choose among the submenus available.

They can even look at the summary of ratings that also serve as a score card of

the evaluations by clicking the view button placed at the end of every row in the

data tables.

On the other hand, records of all the users are stored at the database

table tb_user. Only the admin, which is the Office Head of the Quality Assurance
 31

Office, can access this information. to access this information, the admin must

click the menu labeled as “Users”. The page also has buttons that can add new

user, edit user’s information and delete accounts.

F. Generation of Reports

When the users want to have a printed report of the information on the

page such as the ratings of evaluations, they can find a print button located at the

pages that has data tables. These buttons are located at the top right part of data

tables labeled as “Print” and has a printer icon in it. This button can print the data

inside the data tables while excluding some unnecessary entities such as

columns containing the download and delete buttons.

Use Case Diagram

Unified Modeling Language (UML) use case diagram is a visual tool that

uses actors and use cases to model the functionality of a system. Use cases

refers to the set of actions, services and tasks that the system must perform. This

allows the developers to understand the system’s end users and functions more

easily (Sengupta, S., 2006).

Use case diagrams are useful for visualizing a system’s technical

specifications that will translate into design choices and implementation goals.
 32

They also assist with identifying any causes that could affect the system. They

also provide a good high-level analysis from outside the system

(https://www.smartdraw.com).

Figure 12. Use Case Diagram of the System

 33

Use Case Narrative

A use case narrative refers to a text-based summary of a use case that

could be supplemented with decision trees or other easily understood notations.

The definitions should be written in the user’s language, and thus serves as an

important communication tool between developers and the target users.

Narratives follow an organized format, typically using a numbered sequence of

steps for the main activity accompanied by preconditions, post-conditions,

alternative or exception paths, etc. (Igi-global.com).

Table 1. Use Case Narrative – File Upload

File Upload – SSR Auto-Compute Form Upload (UC1-A)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To upload the SSR auto-compute form
Primary Actor QA Director
Stakeholders QA Director: wants to upload SSR auto-compute form
Precondition
1. Required fields must be filled up completely.
2. There should be no other SSR Auto-Compute Form with same program
and level.
Triggers QA Director: Click the “Upload Accreditation Forms”
button in SSR Auto-Compute Accreditation Forms
page.
Success Guarantee System shows an alert message labeled as “Upload
Completed” and automatically shows the updated list of
SSR auto-compute accreditation forms.
Main Success Scenario:
1. QA Director: Clicks the menu labeled as “Accreditations” >
“SSR Auto-Compute Accreditation Forms” > “Upload
Accreditation Forms”.
2. QA Director: Fill up the required fields and choose file.
3. QA Director: Clicks “Upload” button.
4. System: Validates and check potential existing file with same
program and level.
5. System: Accepts the file and shows a success alert message.
6. QA Director: Clicks “Okay” button
 34

Extensions: None

Table 2. Use Case Narrative – File Upload

File Upload – Accreditation Tools Upload (UC1-B)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To upload accreditation tools
Primary Actor QA Director
Stakeholders QA Director: wants to upload accreditation tools
Precondition
1. Required fields must be filled up completely.
2. There should be no other Accreditation Tools with same program and
level.
Triggers QA Director: Click the “Upload Tools” in
Accreditation Tools page.
Success Guarantee System shows an alert message labeled as
“Upload Completed” and automatically shows the
updated list of accreditation tools.
Main Success Scenario:
1. QA Director: Clicks the menu labeled as “Accreditations” >
“Accreditation Tools” > “Upload Tools”.
2. QA Director: Fill up the required fields and choose file.
3. QA Director: Clicks “Upload” button.
4. System: Validates and check potential existing file with same
program and level.
5. System: Accepts the file and shows a success alert message.
6. QA Director: Clicks “Okay” button
Extensions: None

Table 3. Use Case Narrative – File Upload

File Upload – Weighted Mean Calculator (UC1-C)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To upload weighted mean calculator
Primary Actor QA Director
Stakeholders QA Director: wants to upload weighted mean
calculator
Precondition
1. There should be no other Weighted Mean.
Triggers QA Director: Click the “Upload Calculator Form” in
Weighted Mean Calculator page.
Success Guarantee System shows an alert message labeled as
“Upload Completed”.
Main Success Scenario:
 35

1. QA Director: Clicks the menu labeled as “Accreditations” >

“Weighted Mean Calculator” > “Upload Calculator Form”.
2. QA Director: Choose file and clicks “Upload” button.
3. System: Validates and check potential existing file.
4. System: Accepts the file and shows a success alert message.
5. QA Director: Clicks “Okay” button
Extensions: None

Table 4. Use Case Narrative – File Upload

File Upload – Supporting Documents (UC1-D)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To upload the supporting documents.
Primary Actor Task Force
Stakeholders Task Force: wants to upload supporting documents
Precondition
1. Required fields must be filled up completely.
2. Files must be in pdf or mp4 format only.
3. There’s should be no files with the same filename.
Triggers Task Force: Click the “Upload Files” button in
Uploaded Supporting Documents page.
Success Guarantee System shows an alert message labeled as “Upload
Completed” and automatically shows the updated list of
uploaded supporting documents.
Main Success Scenario:
1. Task Force Clicks the menu labeled as “Documents” >
“Supporting Documents You’ve Uploaded” > “Upload
Files”.
2. Task Force: Fill up the required fields and choose file.
3. Task Force: Clicks “Upload” button.
4. System: Validates and check potential existing file with same
filename.
5. System: Accepts the file and shows a success alert message.
6. Task Force: Clicks “Okay” button
Extensions: None

Table 5. Use Case Narrative – File Upload

File Upload – Relevant Documents (UC1-E)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To upload the relevant documents.
Primary Actor Task Force
Stakeholders Task Force: wants to upload relevant documents
 36

Precondition
1. Required fields must be filled up completely.
2. Files must be in pdf or mp4 format only.
3. There’s should be no files with the same filename.
Triggers Task Force: Click the “Upload Files” button in
Uploaded Relevant/Exhibit Documents page.
Success Guarantee System shows an alert message labeled as “Upload
Completed” and automatically shows the updated list of
uploaded relevant documents.
Main Success Scenario:
1. Task Force Clicks the menu labeled as “Documents” >
“Relevant/Exhibit Documents You’ve Uploaded” > “Upload
Files”.
2. Task Force: Fill up the required fields and choose file.
3. Task Force: Clicks “Upload” button.
4. System: Validates and check potential existing file with same
filename.
5. System: Accepts the file and shows a success alert message.
6. Task Force: Clicks “Okay” button
Extensions: None

Table 6. Use Case Narrative – File Upload

File Upload – Additional Documents (UC1-F)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To upload the additional documents.
Primary Actor Task Force
Stakeholders Task Force: wants to upload additional documents
Precondition
1. Required fields must be filled up completely.
2. Files must be in pdf or mp4 format only.
3. There’s should be no files with the same filename.
Triggers Task Force: Click the “Upload Files” button in
Additional Documents page.
Success Guarantee System shows an alert message labeled as “Upload
Completed” and automatically shows the updated list of
uploaded additional documents.
Main Success Scenario:
1. Task Force Clicks the menu labeled as “Documents” >
“Additional Documents You’ve Uploaded” > “Upload
Files”.
2. Task Force: Fill up the required fields and choose file.
3. Task Force: Clicks “Upload” button.
4. System: Validates and check potential existing file with same
filename.
 37

5. System: Accepts the file and shows a success alert message.

6. Task Force: Clicks “Okay” button
Extensions: None

Table 7. Use Case Narrative – File Download

File Download – Accreditation Tools (UC2-A)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To upload the download accreditation tools.
Primary Actor Task Force, Internal Accreditor, QA Director
Stakeholders Task Force, Internal Accreditor, QA Director: wants to
download accreditation tools.
Precondition None
Triggers Task Force, Internal Accreditor, QA Director: Click the
“Download” button in Accreditation Tools page.
Success Guarantee Download automatically starts right after clicking
download button.
Main Success Scenario:
1. Task Force, Internal Accreditor, QA Director: Clicks the menu
labeled as “Accreditation”
2. Task Force, Internal Accreditor, QA Director: Clicks the
“Accreditation Tools”
3. Task Force, Internal Accreditor, QA Director: Clicks the “Download”
4. System: Download starts.
Extensions: None

Table 8. Use Case Narrative – File Download

File Download – SSR Auto-Compute Form (UC2-B)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To upload the download SSR Auto-Compute Form.
Primary Actor Internal Accreditor, QA Director
Stakeholders Internal Accreditor, QA Director: wants to download
SSR auto-compute form.
Precondition None
Triggers Internal Accreditor, QA Director: Click the “Download”
button in SSR Auto-Compute Form page.
Success Guarantee Download starts right after clicking download button.
Main Success Scenario:
1. Internal Accreditor, QA Director: Clicks the menu labeled as
“Accreditation”
2. Internal Accreditor, QA Director: Clicks the “SSR Auto-Compute
Form”
3. Internal Accreditor, QA Director: Clicks the “Download”
 38

4. System: Download starts.

Extensions: None

Table 9. Use Case Narrative – File Download

File Download – Supporting Documents (UC2-C)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To upload the download supporting documents.
Primary Actor Task Force, Internal Accreditor, QA Director
Stakeholders Task Force, Internal Accreditor, QA Director: wants to
download supporting documents.
Precondition None
Triggers Task Force, Internal Accreditor, QA Director: Click the
“Download” button in Supporting Documents page.
Success Guarantee Download starts right after clicking download button.
Main Success Scenario:
1. Task Force, Internal Accreditor, QA Director: Clicks the menu
labeled as “Documents”.
2. Task Force, Internal Accreditor, QA Director: Clicks the “Supporting
Documents”.
3. Task Force, Internal Accreditor, QA Director: Clicks the “Download”.
4. System: Download starts.
Extensions: None

Table 10. Use Case Narrative – Accreditation

Accreditation – Evaluation and Rating (UC3-A)

Level Medium
Goal in Context To evaluate area and provide ratings.
Primary Actor Internal Accreditor
Stakeholders Internal Accreditor: wants to evaluate area and provide
ratings.
Precondition None
Triggers Internal Accreditor: Click the “Start Accreditation”
submenu in Accreditation menu.
Success Guarantee None
Main Success Scenario:
1. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the menu labeled as “Accreditation”.
2. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the “Start Accreditation”.
3. Internal Accreditor: Select college, program and level.
4. System: SSR auto-compute form download starts.
5. Internal Accreditor: Select area and click “Download”.
6. System: Accreditation tool download starts.
7. Internal Accreditor: Open downloaded SSR auto compute form.
 39

8. Internal Accreditor: Clicks “View” button to view supporting

documents.
9. Internal Accreditor: Provide ratings in SSR auto compute form.
10. Internal Accreditor: Clicks “Relevant Documents” button when
done rating the supporting documents.
11. Internal Accreditor: Provide ratings in SSR auto compute form.
12. Internal Accreditor: Click “New Accreditation Tools” to evaluate
another area.
13. Internal Accreditor: Clicks menu “Download Mean Calculator” to
download weighted mean calculator.
14. Internal Accreditor: Clicks menu “Additional Documents” to view
additional documents.
15. Internal Accreditor: Clicks menu “Quit” when done.
Extensions: None

Table 11. Use Case Narrative – Accreditation

Accreditation - Submission of Summary of Ratings (UC3-B)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To submit summary of ratings.
Primary Actor Internal Accreditor
Stakeholders Internal Accreditor: wants to submit summary of
ratings.
Precondition Must have Summary of Ratings in pdf form.
Triggers Internal Accreditor: Click the “Submit Summary of
Ratings” button in “Summary of Ratings” page.
Success Guarantee Alert message “Upload completed” pop up and redirect
to Area I – X Ratings page.
Main Success Scenario:
1. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the menu labeled as “Summary of
Ratings”.
2. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the “Submit Summary of Ratings”.
3. Internal Accreditor: Provide required information and the
Summary of Ratings in pdf form.
4. Internal Accreditor: Click “Submit”.
5. System: Alert message “Upload completed” pop up
and click OK.
Extensions: None

Table 12. Use Case Narrative – Accreditation

Accreditation - Submission of Area Ratings (UC3-C)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To submit area ratings.
Primary Actor Internal Accreditor
 40

Stakeholders Internal Accreditor: wants to submit area ratings.

Precondition Must have ratings of area in pdf and excel form.
Must uploaded the Summary of Ratings.
Triggers Internal Accreditor: Click the “Upload Area Ratings”
button in “Area I – X Ratings” page.
Success Guarantee The system automatically shows the updated list of
area ratings.
Main Success Scenario:
1. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the menu labeled as “Summary of
Ratings”.
2. Internal Accreditor: Select accreditation record and click “Action”
3. Internal Accreditor: Clicks “Ratings”.
4. Internal Accreditor: Clicks “Upload Area Ratings”.
5. Internal Accreditor: Provide required information and the
Area Ratings in pdf and excel form.
6. Internal Accreditor: Click “Submit”.
7. System: Saves the ratings.
Extensions: None

Table 13. Use Case Narrative – Generate Reports

Generate Reports – Summary of Weighted Means (UC4-A)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To present graphical report showing the weighted
means of programs in specific level and colleges.
Primary Actor QA Director
Stakeholders QA Director: wants to present graphical report.
Precondition None
Triggers QA Director: Click the “Summary of Ratings” submenu
of “Reports” menu.
Success Guarantee The system presents the line graph showing the
weighted mean of programs.
Main Success Scenario:
1. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the menu labeled as “Reports”.
2. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the submenu labeled as “Summary of
Ratings”.
3. System: Shows a line graph with all programs with
their respective weighted means.
4. Internal Accreditor: Select level and college and click “Filter”.
5. System: Shows a line graph with filtered programs
with their respective weighted means.
Extensions: None

Table 14. Use Case Narrative – Generate Reports

 41

Generate Reports – Accreditation by Year (UC4-B)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To present graphical report showing the programs
accredited at a specific year with their respective
weighted mean.
Primary Actor QA Director
Stakeholders QA Director: wants to present graphical report.
Precondition None
Triggers QA Director: Click the “Accreditations by Year”
submenu of “Reports” menu.
Success Guarantee Shows a bar graph with filtered programs with
respective weighted means.
Main Success Scenario:
1. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the menu labeled as “Reports”.
2. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the submenu labeled as
“Accreditations by Year”.
3. System: Shows a bar graph with all programs with
their respective weighted means for the
current year.
4. Internal Accreditor: Select level and year and click “Filter”.
5. System: Shows a bar graph with filtered programs
with their respective weighted means.
Extensions: None

Table 14. Use Case Narrative – Generate Reports

Generate Reports – Ongoing Program Level (UC4-C)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To present graphical report showing the ongoing level
of programs.
Primary Actor QA Director
Stakeholders QA Director: wants to present graphical report.
Precondition None
Triggers QA Director: Click the “Ongoing Program Level”
submenu of “Reports” menu.
Success Guarantee Shows a doughnut graph with programs with their
ongoing level
Main Success Scenario:
1. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the menu labeled as “Reports”.
2. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the submenu labeled as
“Ongoing Program Level”.
3. System: Shows a doughnut graph with all programs
with their ongoing level.
4. Internal Accreditor: Select college and click “Filter”.
5. System: Shows a doughnut graph with filtered
 42

programs with their ongoing level.

Extensions: None

Table 15. Use Case Narrative – Administration

Administration – Adding User Account Level (UC5-A)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To be able to add new user account.
Primary Actor QA Director
Stakeholders QA Director: wants to add new user account.
Precondition None
Triggers QA Director: Click the “Users” submenu of “Others”
menu.
Success Guarantee Alert message saying “User successfully added” and
system shows updated list of users
Main Success Scenario:
1. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the menu labeled as “Others”.
2. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the submenu labeled as “Users”.
3. Internal Accreditor: Click “Add User”.
4. Internal Accreditor: Provide the required user information.
5. Internal Accreditor: Click “Save”.
6. System: Alert message saying “User successfully
added”.
7. Internal Accreditor: Click “Ok”.
8. System: System shows updated list of users.
Extensions: None

Table 16. Use Case Narrative – Administration

Administration – Edit User Account Level (UC5-B)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To be able to edit user information.
Primary Actor QA Director
Stakeholders QA Director: wants to edit user information.
Precondition None
Triggers QA Director: Click the “Edit” button under the “Action”
button on Users List page.
Success Guarantee Alert message saying “Update Completed” and system
shows updated list of users
Main Success Scenario:
1. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the menu labeled as “Others”.
2. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the submenu labeled as “Users”.
3. Internal Accreditor: Select user, click “Action” and select “Edit”.
 43

4. Internal Accreditor: Edit user information.

5. Internal Accreditor: Click “Save”.
6. System: Alert message saying “Update Completed”.
7. Internal Accreditor: Click “Ok”.
8. System: System shows updated list of users.
Extensions: None
Table 16. Use Case Narrative – Administration

Administration – Deactivate/Activate User Account Level (UC5-C)

Level User Goal
Goal in Context To be able to deactivate/active user account.
Primary Actor QA Director
Stakeholders QA Director: wants to deactivate/active user account.
Precondition None
Triggers QA Director: Click the “Activate” or “Deactivate” button
under the “Action” button on Users List page.
Success Guarantee System shows updated list of users.
Main Success Scenario:
1. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the menu labeled as “Others”.
2. Internal Accreditor: Clicks the submenu labeled as “Users”.
3. Internal Accreditor: Select user, click “Action” and select
“Activate” or “Deactivate”.
4. System: System shows a modal message asking for
confirmation.
5. Internal Accreditor: Click “Yes”.
6. System: System shows updated list of users.
Extensions: None

Database Design

Database design refers to the collection of processes required for the

construction of the database model. All the logical and physical design choices and

storage parameters required to create a design in a data definition language are all in

this model. Designing the relational database is a very critical part of the system

development because it will serve as the storage of the data needed for the system to

function.

Database Structure
 44

The following tables below are going to be the system’s database tables which

are going to be the storage of the information provided by the users.

Table 1

Data Structure for the System User Login

Field Field Names Type Width Description

1 id Int 11 Primary key id
2 fname Varchar 30 User’s first name
3 mname Varchar 30 User’s middle name
4 lname Varchar 30 User’s last name
5 type Varchar 40 User type
6 areano Varchar 10 Taskforce’s area
7 col Varchar 10 User’s college
8 address Varchar 50 User’s address
9 contact Varchar 15 User’s contact number
10 user Varchar 20 User’s username
11 pass Varchar 20 User’s password

Table 2

Data Structure for the Supporting Documents Upload

Fiel Field Names Type Width Description

d
1 id Int 11 Primary key id
2 filenames Varchar 30 Filename
3 uploaded Datetime Timestamp of upload
4 size Int 30 File’s size
5 areano Varchar 40 File’s area
6 prog Varchar 10 Program it belongs
7 col Varchar 10 College it belongs
8 para Varchar 5 File’s parameter
9 ini Varchar 10 Initial given
10 sy Varchar 10 School year
11 matrix Varchar 200 File’s matrix
12 filetype Varchar 10 File type (pdf or mp4)

Table 3
 45

Data Structure for the Evaluation Forms Upload

Fiel Field Names Type Width Description

d
1 id Int 11 Primary key id
2 evaname Varchar 100 Filename
3 size Int 11 File’s size
4 prog Varchar 10 Program it belongs
5 col Varchar 10 College it belongs

Table 4

Data Structure for the Evaluation Tools Upload

Fiel Field Names Type Width Description

d
1 id Int 11 Primary key id
2 toolname Varchar 50 Filename
3 size Int 11 File’s size
4 areano Varchar 10 File’s area
5 prog Varchar 10 Program it belongs
6 col Varchar 10 College it belongs

Table 5

Data Structure for the Evaluation Ratings Upload

Fiel Field Names Type Width Description

d
1 id Int 11 Primary key id
2 evaname Varchar 100 Filename
3 evadate Varchar 25 Evaluation date
4 evaluator Varchar 60 Evaluator’s name
5 prog Varchar 10 Program it belongs
6 col Varchar 10 College it belongs

Table 6

Data Structure for the College Registration

Field Field Names Type Width Description

 46

1 id Int 11 Primary key id

2 coname Varchar 100 College name
3 coac Varchar 6 College acronym

Table 7

Data Structure for the Evaluation Ratings by Area Upload

Fiel Field Names Type Width Description

d
1 id Int 11 Primary key id
2 evaname Varchar 100 Filename
3 evadate Varchar 20 Evaluation date
4 areano Varchar 10 File’s area
5 prog Varchar 10 Program it belongs
6 col Varchar 10 College it belongs
7 rating Double Area’ rating
8 remarks Varchar 15 Area remarks

Table 8

Data Structure for the Summary of Ratings Upload

Fiel Field Names Type Width Description

d
1 id Int 11 Primary key id
2 evaname Varchar 100 Filename
3 evadate datetime Evaluation date
4 evaluator Varchar 60 File’s area
5 prog Varchar 10 Program it belongs
6 col Varchar 10 College it belongs
7 rating Double Area’ rating
8 remarks Varchar 15 Area remarks

Table 9

Data Structure for the Program Registration

 47

Field Field Names Type Width Description

1 id Int 11 Primary key id
2 program Varchar 100 Program name
3 acro Varchar 8 Program acronym
4 colleges Varchar 10 College it belongs

Class Diagram
 48

Figure 10. Class Diagram of the Proposed System.

Program Hierarchy
 49

Program hierarchy is a chart that shows the arrangement of menus for the

different module accessible in a system in a hierarchical way. It’s a simple chart

that shows the breakdown of the system’s functions.

Figure 11. Program Hierarchy

Functional Requirements

Functional requirements refer to the features or function of the system that

the developers need to implement so users can accomplish their tasks. It also

describes the behavior of the system during a certain situation or condition. It can
 50

be computations, technical information, data control and handling and other

explicit functionalities that characterize what a system should achieve.

The functionalities mentioned are based from the existing standard

requirements of the information system with the approval and coordination from

the respondents as follows.

Access to the system

FREQ 1: The access to the system must be password protected.

FREQ 2: The log in feature of the system should not be placed in the

public viewing page, instead must be placed in a designated login page to

increase protection from unauthorized access.

Log in

FREQ 3: The system should allow the users to have access to the system

by providing valid credentials at the login page.

FREQ 4: The system should redirect the user to a designated page where

their accessibilities and features are limited to their account type.

File Upload

FREQ 5: The system should allow the users to upload files which are

required and permitted on their accounts.

FREQ 6: The system should allow the users to edit information and

replace files if ever they have mistakenly uploaded a certain file or information.

FREQ 7: The system should allow users to delete files together with its

information if these are mistakenly uploaded and not needed anymore.

 51

File Download

FREQ 8: The system should allow the users to browse and search for files

accessible on their account.

FREQ 9: The system should allow the users to download and view files

which are accessible on their accounts

Accreditation

FREQ 10: The system should allow the evaluators to have access to files

and tools needed to perform the evaluation.

FREQ 11: The system should allow the evaluators to submit evaluation

ratings and its summaries after a successful evaluation.

Record Keeping

FREQ 12: The system should allow the users to have access on the list of

evaluation results and ratings from different programs and colleges

FREQ 13: The system should allow the admin to have access to the

information records of the registered end users.

Reports

FREQ 14: The system should allow the users to have a printed copy of a

certain information from the system which is accessible and allowed to be printed

on their accounts
 52

Administration

FREQ 15: The system should allow the admin to provide valid credentials

for a chosen end user.

FREQ 16: The system should allow the admin to manage the accounts of

the end users.

Non - Functional Requirements

Non-functional requirements define how a system is supposed to be and

in the form of “the system should be”, in contrast of the functional requirements

which is in the form of “the system should do”. In other words, it defines the

general characteristics or qualities of the resulting system.

1. The system should operate on all types of operating system as long as it

has an internet access.

2. The system must be user-friendly.

Test Cases

A test case is a bunch of directions on how to certify a specific test

objective, which when followed will show us if the expected response of the

system is fulfilled or not. It has components that define input, action and an

expected response, in order to decide if a feature of an application is working

properly.
 53

These are the test case scenarios conducted during the acceptance

testing. The test plan is to let the users use the system and follow the instruction

in each test case of the proposed system. The system should perform the

expected result in each test case in order to be considered successful.

The following are the details of each test case:

Technical Requirements

Appropriate software and hardware components selection is necessary as

well as the selection and identification of the end users of the system. This is

needed so the system could perform its function properly and for its proper

usage.

The software or computer software is the general term that characterizes

computer programs which are needed to make the computer functionable. It is

also defined as set of instructions or lines of codes written by software

developers that have been compiled to become a computer program. A

computer without a software is useless. Computer software must be accurate,

efficient and user friendly.

The hardware components however refer to the actual components of the

computer such as the monitor, keyboard, mouse and the system unit. These
 54

components provide storage for data and makes its processing fast and reliable.

Such parts should be compatible with each other, durable and affordable.

Peopleware refers to the individual who will operate computer and use the

software. It also includes all the individuals involved in the system’s processes.

These individuals should be computer literate and capable of operating the

system’s modules to manipulate data and have an effective and efficient result.

Minimum Hardware Specifications:

This covers the minimum hardware specifications of the computer for the

system to function properly as intended and expected. The following

specifications are considered based on their availability in the market and what

most computer package system offers.

Components Specification
Microprocessor Intel Celeron
Hard Disk Drive 120 gigabytes
Random Access Memory 1 gigabyte, DDR2
Internet/Wi-Fi Router 2.4 GHz band, Wireless/LAN

Minimum Software Specifications:

This covers the minimum specifications of software required for the

system to function properly.

Item Specification
Operating System Windows 7
 55

Web Browser Any internet browser

Microsoft Excel Version 2010 – present
PDF Reader Any PDF Reader

Hosting and Implementation

In the hosting and implementation of the system, the developers subscribe

for a domain and web hosting to be able to upload the database and the web

page for the establishment for testing. The developers were given an account for

the connectivity for the developed system and provide hosting for websites on

virtual servers which can be accessed through

http://bisubilar.org/aaccup/login.php.

Economic Performance Evaluation

In any project, analysis is one of the crucial parts of any system and

design project. This includes the calculation of the expected cost that the

developed system needs as well as the benefits that it gives. It takes for the new

system to generate the cost-saving to cover its development, and expenses are

determined. This section determines the proposed budget of resources that will

be used. Furthermore, it will give them the idea of whether to proceed with

computerization or not.

Initial Investment and Annual Operating Cost

Items Qty Unit Unit Price Total

A. Hardware
Computer Package 1 Set ₱ 15,000.00 ₱ 15,000.00
Printer 1 Piece ₱ 7,500.00 ₱ 7,500.00
Internet Service Provider 1 Piece ₱ 12,000.00 ₱ 12,000.00
 56

B. Software
Software Development 1 Lot ₱ 10,000.00 ₱ 10,000.00
Subtotal Initial Investment Cost ₱ 34,500.00

C. Software
Internet 12 Month ₱ 1,300.00 ₱ 12,000.00
Domain and Web Hosting 1 Year ₱ 6,000.00 ₱ 6,000.00
D. General Services
System Maintenance 4 Quarter ₱ 1,500.00 ₱ 6,000.00
Subtotal Annual Operating Cost ₱ 24,000.00

Business Intelligence Integration

Business intelligence (BI) is a method of sorting and selecting relevant

data from a large amount of information. BI offers valuable information that assist

companies in making the best decisions possible (Rostami, 2014). Furthermore,

integrating datasets across an organization presents its own set of challenges. It

is a collection of theories, research methods, procedures, architectures, and

technologies that convert unstructured data into useful information.

The developed system can analyze data and generate graphical reports.

Automated representation of processed data allows real-time data presentation.

These graphical reports are useful for the admin’s decision making especially in

determining what programs need improvements.

The previews show graphical representation of collected data with

business intelligence capability. These data were based from the data inputted to

the system provided by the client. It covers areas such as graph report showing
 57

the ongoing level of the programs, graph report showing the summary of

weighted means of all programs or programs under the selected college and the

graphical report showing programs evaluated based on the selected year with

their respective weighted mean.

Screen Layout

One of the many qualities of the system’s user friendliness is its screen

layout. It was designed in a way that the users can navigate the system quickly

and easily. The system’s screen layout provides a clear recognition of the user’s

required task.

Testing and Evaluation

Software testing is a way of finding out whether software is working as it

should; giving the correct output, working fast enough, handling expected loads

responding to user inputs properly. Its also a process of determining how good

the software’s intended objective have been accomplished. The survey was done

with 17 respondents composed of the internal accreditors, task force, and the

director and secretary of the Quality Assurance Office.

System Usability

The system usability test adopted the questionnaire created by Lewis, J.R.

(1995). The test was conducted at the Bohol Island State University Bilar
 58

Campus on April 14 -15, 2021. The researchers visited the end users’ offices to

present the system and demonstrate modules in detail like the uploading of

documents, downloading of evaluation forms and tools, accreditation processes

and submission of accreditation ratings. The presentation and the answering of

questions took two (2) days to complete. After every presentation, the

respondents were requested to rate the system usability questionnaire.

Based on the result, the average weighted mean of the usability

questionnaire is 6.12 with the interpretation of – Agree. This indicates that the

system has high usability rating indicating the acceptability of the system to the

end users.

Table 10

Summary of respondents of the System Usability

N=17

Respondents No of Respondents
Internal Accreditors 6
Task Force 10
QA Director 1

Table 11

System Usability Result

N=17

Criteria for System Usability Weighte Interpretation

 59

d
Mean
1. Overall, I am satisfied with how easy it is to 6.3 Agree
use this system.
2. It was simple to use this system. 6.0 Agree
3. I can effectively complete my work using 5.9 Agree
this system.
4. I am able to complete my work quickly 5.8 Agree
using this system.
5. I am able to efficiently complete my work 5.9 Agree
using this system.
6. I feel comfortable using this system. 6.1 Agree
7. It was easy to learn to use this system. 6.2 Agree
8. I believe I became productive quickly using 6.2 Agree
this system.
9. The system gives error messages that 5.7 Agree
clearly tell me how to fix problems.
6.1 Agree
10. Whenever I make a mistake using the
system, I recover easily and quickly. 6.3 Agree
11. The information (such as online help, on-
screen messages, and other
documentation) provided with this system 6.6 Strongly Agree
is clear. 6.5 Strongly Agree
12. It is easy to find the information I needed.
13. The information provided for the system is 6.1 Agree
easy to understand.
14. The information is effective in helping me 6.4 Strongly Agree
complete the tasks and scenarios.
15. The organization of information on the 6.6 Strongly Agree
system screens is clear. 6.3 Agree
16. The interface of this system is pleasant. 6.0 Agree
17. I like using the interface of this system.
18. This system has all the functions and 6.4 Strongly Agree
capabilities I expect it to have.
19. Overall, I am satisfied with this system.
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 6.12 Agree

Web Usability
 60

The program was demonstrated at the Bohol Island State University Bilar

Campus. The internal accreditors, task force and the Quality Assurance Office

director rated the functionality, ease of use and the consistency of the program.

Table 12

Summary of respondents of the Web Usability

N=17

Respondents No of Respondents
Internal Accreditors 6
Task Force 10
QA Director 1

Table 13

Web Usability Result

N=17

Weighte
Web Usability Criteria d Description
Mean
I. Navigation 4.60 Excellent
1.1 Current location within the site is shown clearly. 4.70 Excellent
1.2 Link to the site’s main page is clearly identified. 4.60 Excellent
1.3 Major/important parts of the site are directly 4.40 Excellent
accessible from the main page.
1.4 Easy to use Search function is provided, as 4.70 Excellent
needed.
1.5 Site accommodates novice to expert users. 4.60 Excellent
II. Functionality 4.50 Excellent
2.2 Functions are clearly labeled. 4.60 Excellent
 61

2.2 Essential functions are available without leaving 4.40 Excellent

the site.
2.3 Plug-ins are used only if they add value 4.50 Excellent
III. User Control 4.60 Excellent
3.1 Site reflects user’s workflow. 4.60 Excellent
3.2 User can cancel any operation. 4.70 Excellent
3.3 Clear exit point is provided on every page. 4.70 Excellent
3.4 Per page loads moderately to accommodate 4.40 Excellent
slow connections.
3.5 Currently used browser is supported. 4.60 Excellent
IV. Language and Content 4.70 Excellent
4.1 Important information and tasks are given 4.70 Excellent
prominence.
4.2 Information of low relevance or rarely used 4.40 Excellent
information is not included.
4.3 Related information or tasks are grouped: on 4.60 Excellent
the same page or menu or in the same area within
a page.
4.4 Language is simple, without jargon. 4.60 Excellent
4.5 Paragraphs are brief. 4.60 Excellent
4.6 Links are concise, expressive, and visible—not 4.50 Excellent
buried in text.
4.7 Terms are defined. 4.60 Excellent
V. Online Help and User Guides 4.30 Excellent
5.1 It is always clear what is happening on the site - 4.30 Excellent
- visual hints, etc.
5.2 Users can receive email feedback if necessary. 4.10 Very Good
5.3 Confirmation screen is provided for form 4.30 Excellent
submittal.
5.4 All system feedback is timely. 4.40 Excellent
5.5 Users are informed if a plug-in or browser 4.10 Very Good
version is required.
5.6 Each page includes a “last updated” date. 4.70 Excellent
VI. Consistency 4.50 Excellent
6.1 The same word or phrase is used consistently 4.60 Excellent
to describe an item.
6.2 Link reflects the title of the page to which it 4.50 Excellent
refers.
6.3 Browser page title is meaningful and reflects 4.40 Excellent
main page heading.
VII. Error Prevention and Correction 4.56 Excellent
7.1 Users can rely on recognition, not memory, for 4.60 Excellent
successful use of the site.
7.2 Site tolerates a reasonable variety of user 4.50 Excellent
actions.
 62

7.3 Site provides concise instructions for user 4.60 Excellent

actions, including entry format.
7.4 Error messages are visible, not hidden. 4.60 Excellent
7.5 Error messages are in plain language. 4.60 Excellent
7.6 Error messages describe actions to remedy a 4.50 Excellent
problem.
7.7 Error messages provide a clear exit point. 4.50 Excellent
VIII. Architectural and Visual Clarity 4.51 Excellent
8.1 Site is organized from the user’s perspective. 4.50 Excellent
8.2 Site is easily scannable for organization and
meaning. 4.70 Excellent
8.3 Site design and layout are redundant only when
required for user productivity. 4.50 Excellent
8.4 White space is sufficient; pages are not too
dense. 4.40 Excellent
8.5 Unnecessary animation is avoided.
8.6 Colors used for visited and unvisited links are 4.70 Excellent
easily seen and understood. 4.50 Excellent
8.7 Bold and italic text is used sparingly.
4.30 Excellent
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 4.53 Excellent

The average weighted mean is 4.53 with the interpretation of Excellent.

This implies that the end users of the system found the application usable during

internal accreditation.

Chapter 3

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings

After a thorough study of the present system, the researchers found out

that the present system uses a manual method which results to problems such

as difficulty in storing, retrieving and updating evaluation tools and supporting

documents, time consuming evaluation processes, unsecured data and file

 63

storage and limited access of the internal accreditors to evaluation tools. There is

a need to secure data and information of the evaluation results and ratings,

online computerized operation of storing evaluation tools and supporting

documents to prevent loss and misplacement of files as well as the availability of

tabular and graphical reports.

Based on the needs identified, the AACCUP Online: Centralized

Accreditation System was developed with the modules of online mechanism, file

management, administration, program evaluation processes and reports. The

developed system was pilot tested and survey was conducted to the web users

to rate the developed system according to the system usability questionnaire.

The average weighted mean is 6.12 which is interpreted as “Agree”. The

interpretation means that the respondents believed and confident that the system

is usable. Meanwhile, the average weighted mean of the web usability is 4.53

which interpreted as Excellent. This means that the respondents find the

application satisfying and easy to use.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, the developers had concluded that the

present system of internal accreditation of BISU – Bilar adopts the manual

processes that resulted to related problems which can be resolved through

computerization. With the assessment of the existing operation particularly on

 64

evaluation processes and file management, computerization is possible and

achievable.

With the functional assessment of the AACCUP Online Centralized

Accreditation System of Bohol Island State University – Bilar Campus, the

capability and features of the system had met the expectations of the users to

improve the internal evaluation processes.

Recommendation

Based on the conclusions, it is highly recommended that the developed

system should be implemented. For a successful implementation of the

developed system, the following recommendations should be taken:

1. Purchase a domain and web hosting to increase the dynamic features that

may incorporate in the system especially in the amount of data storage.

2. Training and orientation seminars must be conducted to the end users to

familiarize and be oriented with the features and operation of the newly

developed system.

3. Regular system maintenance must be done to ensure security of uploaded

files and records of the system.

Errors and bugs must be reported so immediate solution will be applied