Assessment 1
Assessment type: Individual written assessment in a report format. Case study assignment (1,000 words)
Purpose: Assessment 1 is a report on systems analysis. The report is designed to assess your practical understanding of systems analysis within a system project. Having analysed the project case study, you are assumed to have a clear insight into the scope of the system analysis within a system development project. Assessment 1 aims to develop your understanding of relevant skills and issues in various aspects of systems analysis. This assessment contributes to learning outcomes a, and b.
Value: 20% Due Date: Week 6 Assessment topic: Modelling system requirements
Submission requirements details: Report to be submitted on Moodle by Sunday of Week 6, 11:55pm.
Task Details: A hotel has recently switched to online booking system. The online room booking system facilitates the customers to book the rooms and pay the bill online. Through the hotel website, anyone can search for the available rooms and can book them. At the time of booking, the system will check whether the user is existing or new. In case of new user, the customer will enter his/her personal information for creating an account. In turn he/she will be provided with system generated unique ID and password. This login information could be used for further transactions.
You as system analyst, working for this new hotel, need to analyze and design a booking system that should be able to perform tasks like adding/creating new users, checking for available room, their types (single, double, family), calculating the booking cost and all other booking related transactions. Existing users should be able to update their personal details and cancel/change the bookings. Hotel administration should be able to add, delete or modify the information about the rooms and any special offers associated to each room.
Case study requires students to make necessary assumptions, make sure to clearly document all your assumptions in your assignment reports.
Your report must contain at least the following sections:
1. Introduction: Introduce the important aspects of the case study.
2. Methodologies: Briefly describe the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) and discuss the predictive and adaptive approaches to SDLC, evaluate the usefulness and limitation of each approach as well.
3. Chosen Methodology: You are then required to choose one model that you find suitable for the system given in the case study and justify your choice.
4. Requirement Gathering: Using the information from the case study, discuss requirement finding techniques such as interview, questionnaire etc to capture the business requirements and specification for developing the system.
5. Requirements: Provide function and non-functional requirements of the system.
6. Requirement Modelling: Based on the outcome of your requirement analysis carried out above, provide an activity diagram for any use case to provide a graphical illustration of the new system and make sure that accurate technical language has been applied.
Marking Rubric for Assignment 1 Individual Report:
|
Criteria |
Fail (0 – 49%) |
Pass (50 – 64%) |
Credit (65 – 74%) |
Distinction (75 – 84%) |
High Distinction (85 – 100%) |
|
Structure and format 2 marks |
Very difficult to read, unclear structure, and most of the required sections are missing |
Some difficulty in reading, not very clear, but important sections are included |
Clear and readable, and all required sections are included |
Well written and very clear, and all required sections with completed discussion are included |
Well written and very clear, all required sections with completed discussion are included, and additional sections have been added for clarity |
|
Introduction 2 marks |
No introduction given or most of the introduction is irrelevant |
Introduction of the business case is provided with some details and limited cohesion |
Introduction of the business case is provided with most of the required details in a cohesive manner |
Introduction of the business case is provided with all of the required details in a comprehensive and cohesive manner |
Introduction of the business case is provided with all details presented systematically in a comprehensive and cohesive manner |
|
Methodologies |
Methodologies are |
Methodologies are |
Methodologies are |
Methodologies are |
Methodologies are |
|
2 marks |
not given or most of |
provided with some |
provided with most of |
provided with all of |
provided with all details |
|
|
the discussion is |
details and limited |
the required details in |
the required details in |
presented systematically |
|
|
irrelevant |
cohesion |
a cohesive manner |
a comprehensive and |
in a comprehensive and |
|
|
|
|
|
cohesive manner |
cohesive manner |
|
Chosen methodology 2 marks |
No methodology chosen or completely irrelevant choice given, no support for the position taken in the justification, or a wrong argument is given |
A methodology is chosen but not the most effective, biased/irrelevant support for the position taken in the justification |
Effective methodology is chosen with limited details and ambiguous relevance, basic level of support for the position taken in the justification |
Effective and relevant methodology is chosen with nearly all required details, good level of support for the position taken in the justification |
Effective and relevant methodology is chosen with complete required details, exceptional level of support for the position taken in the justification |
|
Requirement gathering
2 marks |
No or mostly irrelevant requirements gathering techniques are identified |
Requirements gathering techniques are provided with some details and limited cohesion |
Requirements gathering techniques are provided with most of the required details in a cohesive manner |
Requirements gathering techniques are provided with all of the required details in a comprehensive and cohesive manner |
Requirements gathering techniques are provided with all details presented systematically in a comprehensive and cohesive manner |
|
Requirements 5 marks |
No or mostly irrelevant requirements are identified |
Some of the requirements are identified |
Most of the requirements are identified |
Nearly all of the requirements are identified |
All of the requirements are identified |
|
Requirement modelling
5 marks |
Does not provide any required diagram or irrelevant diagrams are provided |
Only some of the required diagrams are provided and all diagrams are incomplete |
Most of the required diagrams are provided and some diagrams are complete |
Nearly all of the required diagrams are provided and the diagrams are complete |
All of the required diagrams are provided and all diagrams are complete |
|
Total mark out of 20 |
|
|
|
|
|
Assessment 2
Assessment type: Modelling assignment and report – Individual assessment. (1,500 words)
Purpose: This assessment will allow students to demonstrate that they can analyse the given case study. Students are required to draw use case, Domain model, System Sequence modelling diagrams for the given case study, justify the choose of modelling tools, and explain the conclusions. This assessment contributes to learning outcomes c and d.
Value: 30% Due Date: Week 11
Assessment topic: Creating UML Diagrams according to the case study
Submission requirements details: Report to be submitted on Moodle by Sunday of Week 11, 11:55pm.
Task Details: The case study is the same for assessment 1 and 2 and is provided in assessment 1 details. In assignment 1 the requirement gathering step was completed with some requirement modelling. For assignment 2 you need to take the processes of system analysis and design further.
Assignment 2 report must contain at least the following sections:
1. Use Cases: Provide name and complete description of at least three use cases for the system discussed in the case study and draw related use case diagrams.
2. Activity Diagram: Provide activity diagrams for all use cases.
3. Sequence Diagrams: Provide sequence diagrams for all use cases.
4. Domain Model Class Diagram: Provide domain model class diagram
5. State Machine Diagram: Provide at least one state machine diagram.
6. User Interface: Provide a final user interface design by using dialogue and storyboard methods.
7. Conclusion: provide a summary and recommendations.
In all UML diagrams such as Use Case, Class, Object and activity diagrams, clearly present your finding of the system interactions and use accurate technical language, abbreviations and symbols.
Marking Rubric for Assignment 2
|
Criteria |
Fail (0 – 49%) |
Pass (50 – 64%) |
Credit (65 – 74%) |
Distinction (75 – 84%) |
High Distinction (85 – 100%) |
|
Use Cases 2 marks |
No use cases identified or diagrams are irrelevant |
Some required use cases are identified and diagrams are provided but details are incomplete |
Most required use cases are identified and diagrams are provided and limited details are given |
Nearly all required use cases are identified and diagrams are provided and all details are given |
All required use cases are identified and diagrams are provided and all details are provided |
|
Activity diagrams 2 marks |
Does not provide any activity diagram or irrelevant diagrams are provided |
Some of the required activity diagrams are provided and all diagrams are incomplete |
Most of the required activity diagrams are provided and some diagrams are complete |
Nearly all of the required activity diagrams are provided and the diagrams are complete |
All of the required activity diagrams are provided and the diagrams are complete |
|
Sequence diagrams
2 marks |
Does not provide any sequence diagram or irrelevant diagrams are provided |
Some of the required sequence diagrams are provided and all diagrams are incomplete |
Most of the required sequence diagrams are provided and some diagrams are complete |
Nearly all of the required sequence diagrams are provided and the diagrams are complete |
All of the required sequence diagrams are provided and the diagrams are complete |
|
Domain model class diagram
2 marks |
No or irrelevant diagram is provided |
Domain diagram is provided with few required details |
Domain diagram is provided with some required details |
Domain diagram is provided with nearly all required details |
Domain diagram is provided with all required details |
|
State machine diagram
2 marks |
No or irrelevant diagram is provided |
State machine diagram is provided with some required details |
State machine diagram is provided with most required details |
State machine diagram is provided with nearly all required details |
State machine diagram is provided with all required details |
|
User interface
5 marks |
No or irrelevant UI is provided |
UI is provided with some details of the methods |
UI is provided with most details of the methods |
UI is provided with nearly all details of the methods |
UI is provided with all details of the methods |
|
Conclusion 5 marks |
No conclusion or lack of cohesion with the discussion, no or limited recommendations provided |
Conclusion does not link back systematically to most sections, some basic recommendations provided |
Conclusion links back to some sections of the report, some detailed recommendations provided |
Conclusion links back to all sections of the report, detailed recommendations provided |
Conclusion demonstrates a deep understanding of the proposed solution and relates back to all sections of the report, detailed recommendations provided |
|
Total mark out of 20 |
|
|
|
|
|
Assessment 3
Assessment type: Final Exam individual assessment – closed book exam. Duration: 2,5 hours plus 10 minutes reading time.
Purpose: The purpose of the final examination is to test your understanding of Systems Analysis and Design. This assessment contributes specifically to learning outcomes a, b, c and d.
Value: 50%
Due Date: The final exam will be held in the official KOI exam period in Week 14 of the trimester. The specific date and time will be posted towards the end of the trimester.
Topic: The examination may cover content from any part of the entire subject.
Task Details: Students will be expected to answer written response questions derived from topics covered in the lectures and tutorials during the trimester.
3.1 Late Penalties and Extensions
An important part of business life and key to achieving KOI’s graduate outcome of Professional Skills is the ability to manage workloads and meet deadlines. Consequently, any assessment items such as in-class quizzes and assignments missed or submitted after the due date/time will attract a penalty (see below).
Students who miss mid-trimester tests and final exams without a valid and accepted reason (see below) may not be granted a deferred exam and will be awarded 0 marks for assessment item. These penalties are designed to encourage students to develop good time management practices, and create equity for all students.
Any penalties applied will only be up to the maximum marks available for the specific piece of assessment attracting the penalty.
Late penalties, granting of extensions and deferred exams are based on the following:
In Class Tests (excluding Mid-Trimester Tests)
o No extensions permitted or granted – a make-up test may only be permitted under very special circumstances where acceptable supporting evidence is provided. The procedures and timing to apply for a make-up test (only if available) are as shown in Section 3.3 Applying for an Extension (below).
o Missing a class test will result in 0 marks for that assessment element unless the above applies.
Written Assessments
o 5% of the total available marks per calendar day unless an extension is approved (see Section 3.3
below)
Presentations
o No extensions permitted or granted – no presentation = 0 marks. The rules for make-up presentations are the same as for missing in-class tests (described above).
Mid-Trimester Tests and Final Exams
o If students are unable to attend mid-trimester tests or final exams due to illness or some other event (acceptable to KOI), they must:
– Advise KOI in writing (email: academic@koi.edu.au) as soon as possible, but no later than three
(3) working days after the exam date, that they will be / were absent and the reasons. They will be advised in writing (return email) as to whether the circumstances are acceptable.
– Complete the appropriate Application for Extension or Deferred Exam Form available from the Student Information Centre in Moodle, on the KOI Website (Policies and Forms) and the Reception Desk (Market St and Kent St), as soon as possible and email with attachments to academic@koi.edu.au.
– Provide acceptable documentary evidence in the form of a satisfactorily detailed medical certificate, police report or some other evidence that will be accepted by KOI.
– Agree to attend the deferred exam as set by KOI.
Deferred exam
o There will only be one deferred exam offered.
o Marks awarded for the deferred exam will be the marks awarded for that assessment.
o If you miss the deferred exam you will be awarded 0 marks for the assessment. This may mean you are unable to complete (pass) the subject.
3.2 Applying for an Extension
If students are unable to submit or attend an assessment when due, and extensions are possible, they must apply by completing the appropriate Application for Extension form available from the Student Information Centre in Moodle, the KOI Website (Policies and Forms) and the Reception Desk (Market St and Kent St), as soon as possible but no later than three (3) working days of the assessment due date.
The completed form must be emailed with supporting documentation to academic@koi.edu.au. Students and lecturers / tutors will be advised of the outcome of the extension request as soon as practicable.
Appropriate documentary evidence to support the request for an extension must be supplied. Please remember there is no guarantee of an extension being granted, and poor organisation is not a satisfactory reason to be granted an extension.
3.3 Referencing and Plagiarism
Please remember that all sources used in assessment tasks must be suitably referenced.
Failure to acknowledge sources is plagiarism, and as such is a very serious academic issue. Students plagiarising run the risk of severe penalties ranging from a reduction through to 0 marks for a first offence for a single assessment task, to exclusion from KOI in the most serious repeat cases. Exclusion has serious visa implications. The easiest way to avoid plagiarising is to reference all sources.
Harvard referencing is the required method – in-text referencing using Author’s Surname (family name) and year of publication. A Referencing Guide, “Harvard Referencing”, and a Referencing Tutorial can be found on the right hand menu strip in Moodle on all subject pages.
An effective way to reference correctly is to use Microsoft Word’s referencing function (please note that other versions and programs are likely to be different). To use the referencing function, click on the References Tab in the menu ribbon – students should choose Harvard.
Authorship is also an issue under plagiarism – KOI expects students to submit their own original work in both assessment and exams, or the original work of their group in the case of a group project. All students agree to a statement of authorship when submitting assessments online via Moodle, stating that the work submitted is their own original work.
The following are examples of academic misconduct and can attract severe penalties:
o Handing in work created by someone else (without acknowledgement), whether copied from another student, written by someone else, or from any published or electronic source, is fraud, and falls under the general Plagiarism guidelines.
o Copying / cheating in tests and exams is academic misconduct. Such incidents will be treated just as seriously as other forms of plagiarism.
o Students who willingly allow another student to copy their work in any assessment may be considered to assisting in copying/cheating, and similar penalties may be applied.
Where a subject coordinator considers that a student might have engaged in academic misconduct, KOI may require the student to undertake an additional oral exam as a part of the assessment for the subject, as a way of testing the student’s understanding of their work.
Further information can be found on the KOI website.
3.4 Reasonable Adjustment
The Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act (1992) makes it unlawful to treat people with a disability less fairly than people without a disability. In the context of this subject, the principle of Reasonable Adjustment is applied to ensure that participants with a disability have equitable access to all aspects of the learning situation. For assessment, this means that artificial barriers to their demonstrating competence are removed.
Examples of reasonable adjustment in assessment may include:
o provision of an oral assessment, rather than a written assessment
o provision of extra time
o use of adaptive technology.
The focus of the adjusted assessment should be on enabling the participants to demonstrate that they have achieved the subject purpose, rather than on the method used.
3.5 Appeals Process
Full details of the KOI Assessment and Assessment Appeals Policy may be obtained in hard copy from the Library, and on the KOI website www.koi.edu.au under Policies and Forms.
Assessments and Mid-Trimester Exams:
Where students are not satisfied with the results of an assessment, including mid-trimester exams, they have the right to appeal. The process is as follows:
o Discuss the assessment with their tutor or lecturer – students should identify where they feel more marks should have been awarded – students should provide valid reasons based on the marking guide provided for the assessment. Reasons such as “I worked really hard” are not considered valid.
o If still not satisfied, students should complete an Application for Review of Assessment Marks form, detailing the reason for review. This form can be found on the KOI website and is also available at KOI Reception (Market St and Kent St).
o Application for Review of Assessment Marks forms must be submitted as explained on the form within ten (10) working days of the return of the marked assessment, or within five (5) working days after the return of the assessment if the assessment is returned after the end of the trimester.
Review of Grade – whole of subject and final exams:
Where students are not satisfied with the results of the whole subject or with their final exam results, they have the right to request a Review of Grade – see the Assessment and Assessment Appeals Policy for more information.
An Application for Review of Grade/Assessment Form (available from the KOI Website under Policies and Forms and from KOI Reception, Market St and Kent St) should be completed clearly explaining the grounds for the application. The completed application should be submitted as explained on the form, with supporting evidence attached, to the Academic Manager.