School of Science and Technology
School of Science and Technology
COURSEWORK ASSESSMENT ELEMENT
MODULE CODE SOFT40091
MODULE TITLE Systems Analysis and Design
MODULE LEADER Dr Amir Pourabdollah
COMPONENT REP (2 of 2)
TITLE System Design Report
LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSED K2, K3, S1, S2, S4, S6
WEIGHTING 50% of the overall module mark
DISTRIBUTION DATE 20/11/2023
SUBMISSION DUE DATE 15/01/2023 2:30pm
SUBMISSION METHOD NOW Dropbox
NOTES:
1) Work handed in up to five working days late will be given a maximum Grade of Low Third (only in the first attempt) whilst work that arrives more than five working days will be given a mark of zero. Work will only be accepted beyond the five working day deadline if satisfactory evidence, for example, an NEC is provided. Link to Submit a Notification of Extenuating Circumstances (ntu.ac.uk)2) The University views plagiarism and collusion as serious academic irregularities and there are a number of different penalties which may be applied to such offences. TheStudent Handbookhas a section on Academic Irregularities, which outlines the penalties and states that plagiarism includes: 'The incorporation of material (including text, graph, diagrams, videos etc.) derived from the work (published or unpublished) of another, by unacknowledged quotation, paraphrased imitation or other device in any work submitted for progression towards or for the completion of an award, which in any way suggests that it is the student's own original work. Such work may include printed material in textbooks, journals and material accessible electronically for example from web pages.' Collusion includes: Unauthorised and unacknowledged copying or use of material prepared by another person for use in submitted work. This may be with or without their consent or agreement to the copying or use of their work. If copied with the agreement of the other candidate both parties are considered guilty of Academic Irregularity. Penalties for Academic irregularities range from capped marks and zero marks to dismissal from the course and termination of studies. To ensure that you are not accused of plagiarism, look at https://www.ntu.ac.uk/m/library/plagiarism-and-turnitin
3) To help you avoid plagiarism and collusion, you are permitted to submit your work once to a separate drop box entitled Draft report to view both the matching score and look at what areas are affected.
4) Chat GPT and other AI-powered language models: It is important to note when using any AI platform that they generate the most common responses to questions, not necessarily the correct ones. They also fabricate evidence. The material they produce is not your own words. Assessments require you answer questions giving your own view and in your own words. The outputs from Chat GPT do not provide that. By presenting such material as your own words you are violating Academic Integrity policy, a matter that NTU takes very seriously. The skills you develop during your time with us allow you to interrogate material and evaluate it, important skills in all careers. Chat GPT does not allow you to develop these.
I. Assessment Requirements
This is an individual assignment.
Consistent with your first report (on System Analysis and Modelling), deliver a System Design report including the following deliverable tasks. You need to write your answers in the given System Design Report Template available on NOW, and submit it as a single Word file to DropBox. No other file or other formatted answers are acceptable. The word counts for each task must be adhered to. Any words beyond the maximum word count will not be considered.
The scenario is the same given in the first coursework specification. Your System Design Report shall be consistent with the System Analysis Report.
Deliverable Tasks:
Task 1 (25%): Relational Database Design and Normalisation (one diagram only)
Create a normalised ERD by mapping your designed class diagram in the first assignment to a relational database model, and applying any necessary changes to ensure it is normalised at least to the 3rd Normal Form. The ERD should show the required tables, data attributes, primary/foreign keys, relationships and multiplicities.
Task 2 (25%): Architecture Design (one diagram only)
Create a UML Deployment Diagram that shows how would you set up different software and hardware components of the new system.
Task 3 (25%): User Interface Mock-up Design (one diagram only)
Choose a single important UI of the new system, and create a sample UI design mock-up (i.e., prototype) for it. The UI mock-up shall satisfy the 6 UI design principles, and the requirements for the Usability Goals and the User Experience Goals, as discussed in the lecture slides.
Task 4 (25%): UI Design Process (text only)
Suggest and briefly justify your prototyping technique (100 words max) and UI evaluation technique (100 words max).
Notes:
You will be assessed based on your own view of the system and your reasoning, not against a fixed set of correct answers.
You may use references but finally write from your own. Use Harvard style. Cite the reference in the text body and add the reference to the end of your document.
II. Grade Based Assessment (GBA) & Assessment Criteria
Criteria Distinction Commendation Pass Fail Zero
Excp. High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low Marginal Mid Low 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4 2 0
1) Relational Database Design and Normalisation 25% Excellent knowledge and understanding of data design process and mapping between class diagram to relational databases. The student has demonstrated a deep understanding of the transition process from the class diagram to a relational database model.
The table design contains all the necessary additional or modified data fields. All primary and foreign key attributes have been entered as required.
The student demonstrates a deep understanding of the normalisation and the conditions of satisfying the three normal forms and optionally the higher normal forms. The designed tables correctly and accurately satisfy the third normal form. Very good knowledge and understanding of data design process and mapping between class diagram to relational databases. The student has demonstrated a strong understanding of the transition process from the class diagram to a relational database model, however minor mapping rules are missed. The table design contains almost all the necessary additional or modified data fields. All primary and foreign key attributes have been entered as required, with possible minor mistakes.
The student demonstrates a strong understanding of the normalisation and the conditions of satisfying the three normal forms. The designed tables satisfy the third normal form, but there are possible minor mistakes. Sufficient knowledge and understanding of data design process and mapping between class diagram to relational databases. The student has demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the transition process from the class diagram to a relational database model, however some mapping rules are missed or applied incorrectly. The table design contains the main necessary additional or modified data fields. The primary and foreign key attributes have been partly identified as required, with possible mistakes. The student demonstrates a sufficient understanding of the normalisation and the conditions of satisfying the three normal forms. The designed tables satisfy most of the third normal form constrains, but there are some mistakes. Some knowledge and understanding of data design process and mapping between class diagram to relational databases is demonstrated, but that is not sufficient enough.
The student has attempted the transition process from the class diagram to a relational database model but the result is not correct, since the main mapping rules are missed.
The table design does not contain the necessary additional or modified data fields. There are major mistakes over the usage of primary and foreign keys.
The student demonstrates some limited understanding of the normalisation and the conditions of satisfying the three normal forms, but that are not sufficient. The designed tables do not satisfy the third normal form, and there are possible mistakes in getting the normal forms right. No submission or no relevance to the question asked (or similar).
2) Architecture Design 25% The student has demonstrated a deep understanding of the hardware/software requirements of the new system, and how to organise it within a UML Deployment Diagram. The diagram is correctly and accurately designed. The physical design suggestions are in accordance with the identified functional and non-functional requirements. The student has demonstrated a strong understanding of the hardware/software requirements of the new system, and how to organise it within a a UML Deployment Diagram. The diagram is correctly designed but may miss some of the minor requirements. The physical design suggestions are well in accordance with the majority of the identified functional and non-functional requirements. The student has demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the hardware/software requirements of the new system, however some of the suggestions are not fit the purpose of the new system. The diagram is mainly designed correctly but may miss some of the requirements or not partly following the UML Deployment Diagram structure. The physical design suggestions may not completely in accordance with the majority of the systems functional and non-functional requirements. The student has shown some understanding of the hardware/software requirements of the new system, however the suggestions are either insufficient or do not fit the purpose of the new system. The diagram does not show the required architecture for running the system, designed incorrectly, or misses the main requirements. The physical design suggestions are not enough or not accordance with the requirements. No submission or no relevance to the question asked (or similar).
3) User Interface Mock-up 25% An excellent UI design covering all user interface design principles in the design solution, the requirements of Usability/UX goals, as well as addressing all the functional/non-functional requirements related to the designed UI. The mock-up UI has not covered a few design principles, and/or the requirements of Usability/UX goals, and/or the functional/non-functional requirements related to the designed UI. The mock-up UI has covered a few design principles, and/or the requirements of Usability/UX goals, and/or the functional/non-functional requirements related to the designed UI. The mock-up UI has not most of the design principles, and/or the requirements of Usability/UX goals, and/or the functional/non-functional requirements related to the designed UI. No submission or no relevance to the question asked (or similar).
4) UI Design process 25% An excellent prototyping and evaluation approach selected with clear justification and an excellent comparison. A good discussion of prototyping and evaluation approaches. However insufficient or no comparison to support an argument for choosing some methods over others. There is a weak argument for the design or discussion of prototyping and evaluation approaches. There is no, very little or unjustified argument for the design or discussion of prototyping and evaluation approaches. No submission or no relevance to the question asked (or similar).
III. Feedback Opportunities
Formative (Whilst youre working on the coursework) and Summative (After youve submitted the coursework)IV. Resources that may be useful
Referencing styles please use Harvard as detailed hereGuide to planning your time here and an automated planner hereFurther guidance on avoiding cheating is hereRemember to use Outlook or physical calendars to block out time between lectures and labs to work on this coursework.
V. Moderation
All assessments are subject to a two-stage moderation process. Firstly, any details related to the assessment (e.g., clarity of information and the assessment criteria) are considered by an independent person (usually a member of the module team). Secondly, the grades awarded are considered by the module team to check for consistency and fairness across the cohort for the piece of work submitted.
VI. Aspects for Professional Development
The report itself covers examples of: Writing a scientific-style report, researching existing literature, referencing appropriately, construction and proper labelling of figures. Many of these are useful transferable skills for employment applications or your Skills Portfolio. Similarly, the practical class protocols provide several examples appropriate for use in the Skills Portfolio as bioscience (i.e. subject-specific) skills.
System Design Report (course work 2)Graded (by tutor) as:
Personal Information
Name Student Number Instructions
Consistent with your first report (on System Analysis, and given the same scenario in the first assignment, deliver a System Design report including the following deliverable tasks.
Task 1 (25%): Relational Database Design and Normalisation (one diagram only)
Draw a normalised ERD by mapping your designed class diagram in the first assignment to a relational database model, and applying any necessary changes to ensure it is normalised at least to the 3rd Normal Form. The ERD should show the required tables, data attributes, primary/foreign keys, relationships and multiplicities. Task1 feedback by tutor:
(students please do not edit this section) Distinction Commendation Pass Fail Zero
Excp. High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low Marginal Mid Low 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4 2 0
Excellent knowledge and understanding of data design process and mapping between class diagram to relational databases. The student has demonstrated a deep understanding of the transition process from the class diagram to a relational database model.
The table design contains all the necessary additional or modified data fields. All primary and foreign key attributes have been entered as required.
The student demonstrates a deep understanding of the normalisation and the conditions of satisfying the three normal forms and optionally the higher normal forms. The designed tables correctly and accurately satisfy the third normal form. Very good knowledge and understanding of data design process and mapping between class diagram to relational databases. The student has demonstrated a strong understanding of the transition process from the class diagram to a relational database model, however minor mapping rules are missed. The table design contains almost all the necessary additional or modified data fields. All primary and foreign key attributes have been entered as required, with possible minor mistakes.
The student demonstrates a strong understanding of the normalisation and the conditions of satisfying the three normal forms. The designed tables satisfy the third normal form, but there are possible minor mistakes. Sufficient knowledge and understanding of data design process and mapping between class diagram to relational databases. The student has demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the transition process from the class diagram to a relational database model, however some mapping rules are missed or applied incorrectly. The table design contains the main necessary additional or modified data fields. The primary and foreign key attributes have been partly identified as required, with possible mistakes. The student demonstrates a sufficient understanding of the normalisation and the conditions of satisfying the three normal forms. The designed tables satisfy most of the third normal form constrains, but there are some mistakes. Some knowledge and understanding of data design process and mapping between class diagram to relational databases is demonstrated, but that is not sufficient enough.
The student has attempted the transition process from the class diagram to a relational database model but the result is not correct, since the main mapping rules are missed.
The table design does not contain the necessary additional or modified data fields. There are major mistakes over the usage of primary and foreign keys.
The student demonstrates some limited understanding of the normalisation and the conditions of satisfying the three normal forms, but that are not sufficient. The designed tables do not satisfy the third normal form, and there are possible mistakes in getting the normal forms right. No submission or no relevance to the question asked (or similar).
Task 2 (25%): Architecture Design (one diagram only)
Draw a UML Deployment Diagram that shows how would you set up different software and hardware components of the new system. Task2 feedback by tutor:
(students please do not edit this section) Distinction Commendation Pass Fail Zero
Excp. High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low Marginal Mid Low 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4 2 0
The student has demonstrated a deep understanding of the hardware/software requirements of the new system, and how to organise it within a UML Deployment Diagram. The diagram is correctly and accurately designed. The physical design suggestions are in accordance with the identified functional and non-functional requirements. The student has demonstrated a strong understanding of the hardware/software requirements of the new system, and how to organise it within a a UML Deployment Diagram. The diagram is correctly designed but may miss some of the minor requirements. The physical design suggestions are well in accordance with the majority of the identified functional and non-functional requirements. The student has demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the hardware/software requirements of the new system, however some of the suggestions are not fit the purpose of the new system. The diagram is mainly designed correctly but may miss some of the requirements or not partly following the UML Deployment Diagram structure. The physical design suggestions may not completely in accordance with the majority of the systems functional and non-functional requirements. The student has shown some understanding of the hardware/software requirements of the new system, however the suggestions are either insufficient or do not fit the purpose of the new system. The diagram does not show the required architecture for running the system, designed incorrectly, or misses the main requirements. The physical design suggestions are not enough or not accordance with the requirements. No submission or no relevance to the question asked (or similar).
Task 3 (25%): User Interface Mock-up Design (one diagram only)
Choose a single important UI of the new system, and create a sample UI design mock-up (i.e., prototype) for it. The UI mock-up shall satisfy the 6 UI design principles, and the requirements for the Usability Goals and the User Experience Goals, as discussed in the lecture slides. Task3 feedback by tutor:
(students please do not edit this section) Distinction Commendation Pass Fail Zero
Excp. High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low Marginal Mid Low 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4 2 0
An excellent UI design covering all user interface design principles in the design solution, the requirements of Usability/UX goals, as well as addressing all the functional/non-functional requirements related to the designed UI. The mock-up UI has not covered a few design principles, and/or the requirements of Usability/UX goals, and/or the functional/non-functional requirements related to the designed UI. The mock-up UI has covered a few design principles, and/or the requirements of Usability/UX goals, and/or the functional/non-functional requirements related to the designed UI. The mock-up UI has not most of the design principles, and/or the requirements of Usability/UX goals, and/or the functional/non-functional requirements related to the designed UI. No submission or no relevance to the question asked (or similar).
Task 4 (25%): UI Design Process (text only)
What could be the most suitable UI Prototyping Technique? Briefly explain why.
(100 words max) What could be the most suitable UI Evaluation Technique? Briefly explain why.
(100 words max) Task4 feedback by tutor
(students please do not edit this section) Distinction Commendation Pass Fail Zero
Excp. High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low Marginal Mid Low 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4 2 0
An excellent prototyping and evaluation approach selected with clear justification and an excellent comparison. A good discussion of prototyping and evaluation approaches. However insufficient or no comparison to support an argument for choosing some methods over others. There is a weak argument for the design or discussion of prototyping and evaluation approaches. There is no, very little or unjustified argument for the design or discussion of prototyping and evaluation approaches. No submission or no relevance to the question asked (or similar).
