EVALUATION OF THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE PRODUCT

Technical and Operational Feasibility

The following are the criteria used in the system’s technical and operational
feasibility:

Accuracy. The ability to give correct information to the user.

Reliability. The ability of the software to perform a required function for a

stated period of time.

Efficiency. Capable of competent and adequate performance.

Speed. The extent to which the software is intended to perform with

minimal consumption of research.

User-Friendly. The extent to which the software is comprehensible.

Evaluation Formulas:

The computation for the Mean (M) and over-all when expressed in terms of
Weighted Mean (WM) of each given criteria of the Existing System and Proposed
System
 COMPUTATION FOR THE MEAN, WEIGHTED MEAN AND T-TEST

Mean (M) = f(X1 + X2 + …….. Xn)

Where:

f = frequency or number of items that a given number (x) was

chosen by the respondents as a rating for a given criterion.

X1, X2 … Xn = represents any of the numerical ratings 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 that

represents the evaluator’s rating for each given criterion.

N = refers to the sample size or total number of respondents.

Weighted Mean (x) = f(X1 + X2 + … Xm)

Where:
 f(X1+X2 .. Xn)/n = represents the sum of all means (M)

N = refers to the total number of criteria for evaluation.

T computed =

Where:

N = refers to the total number of criteria for evaluation.

WMP = weighted mean of the proposed system.

WME = weighted of the existing system.

∑MP2 = square of the summation of all the ratings of the proposed

system.

∑ME2 = square of the summation of all the ratings og the existing

system.

n = number of respondents.
 SUMMARY RESULT OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM

Frequency Distribution Table of the Existing System

Criteria 5 4 3 2 1 ME ME2

Accuracy 0 8 32 13 8 2.66 7.08

Reliability 0 1 25 24 11 2.26 5.11

Efficiency 0 0 23 24 14 2.15 4.62

Speed 0 1 19 23 18 2.05 4.20

User-
0 1 15 26 19 1.97 3.88
Friendliness

WME = 2.22

∑ME = 11.09

∑ME2 = 24.89

Computation of Mean (ME):

Accuracy

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 0(5) + 8(4) + 32(3) + 13(2) + 8(1) / 61

= 0 + 32 + 96 + 26 + 8 / 61
 = 2.66

ME2 = 2.66 * 2.66

= 7.08

Reliability

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 0(5) + 1(4) + 25(3) + 24(2) + 11(1) / 61

= 0 + 4 + 75 + 48 + 11 / 61

= 2.26

ME2 = 2.26 * 2.26

= 5.11

Efficiency

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 0(5) + 0(4) + 23(3) + 24(2) + 14(1) / 61

= 0 + 0 + 69 + 48 + 14 / 61

= 2.15

ME2 = 2.15 * 2.15

= 4.62

Speed

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

 = 0(5) + 1(4) + 19(3) + 23(2) + 18(1) / 61

= 0 + 4 + 57 + 46 + 18 / 61

= 2.05

ME2 = 2.05 * 2.05

= 4.20

User-Friendliness

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 0(5) + 1(4) + 15(3) + 26(2) + 19(1) / 61

= 0 + 4 + 45 + 52 + 19 / 61

= 1.97

ME2 = 1.97 * 1.97

= 3.88

SUMMARY RESULT OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM

Frequency Distribution Table of the Proposed System

 Criteria 5 4 3 2 1 MP MP2

Accuracy 54 7 0 0 0 4.89 23.91

Reliability 53 8 0 0 0 4.87 23.72

Efficiency 42 19 0 0 0 4.69 22.00

Speed 52 9 0 0 0 4.85 23.52

User-
39 19 3 0 0 4.59 21.07
Friendliness

WMP = 4.78

∑MP = 23.89

∑MP2 = 114.22

Computation of Mean (MP):

Accuracy

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 54(5) + 7(4) + 0(3) + 0(2) + 0(1) / 61

= 270 + 28 + 0 + 0 + 0 / 61

= 4.89
 MP2 = 4.89 * 4.89

= 23.91

Reliability

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 53(5) + 8(4) + 0(3) + 0(2) + 0(1) / 61

= 265 + 32 + 0 + 0 + 0 / 61

= 4.87

MP2 = 4.87 * 4.87

= 23.72

Efficiency

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 42(5) + 19(4) + 0(3) + 0(2) + 0(1) / 61

= 210 + 76 + 0 + 0 + 0 / 61

= 4.69

MP2 = 4.69 * 4.69

= 22.00

Speed

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 52(5) + 9(4) + 0(3) + 0(2) + 0(1) / 61

 = 260 + 36 + 0 + 0 + 0 / 61

= 4.85

MP2 = 4.85 * 4.85

= 23.52

User-Friendliness

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 39(5) + 19(4) + 3(3) + 0(2) + 0(1) / 61

= 195 + 76 + 9 + 0 + 0 / 61

= 4.59

MP2 = 4.59 * 4.59

= 21.07

SUMMARY RESULTS OF THE MOST FREQUENT PROBLEMS

ENCOUNTERED

Frequency Distribution Table if the Most Frequent Problems Encountered

 RATING
Problems M MFP2
5 4 3 2 1
There is no clear sales
process to follow and
40 18 2 1 0 4.59 21.07
guide the agents in
closing every sale.
Keeping track of the
prospect and client lists
31 29 1 0 0 4.49 20.16
are done manually by
agents.
Difficult and time
consuming in manually
keeping track of all 30 31 0 0 0 4.49 20.16
schedules and
appointments.
Inability of managers to
keep track of the agents’ 38 22 1 0 0 4.61 21.25
sales activities.
Storage of files is
susceptible to be
35 22 4 0 0 4.51 20.34
damaged as well as lost
of files.

Computation of Mean:

There is no clear sales process to follow and guide the agents in closing every
sale.

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 40(5) + 18(4) + 2(3) + 1(2) + 0(1) / 61

= 200 + 72 + 6 + 2 + 0 / 61
 = 4.59

MFP2 = 4.59 * 4.59

= 21.07

Keeping track of the prospect and client lists are done manually by agents.

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 31(5) + 29(4) + 1(3) + 0(2) + 0(1) / 61

= 155 + 116 + 3 + 0 + 0 / 61

= 4.49

MFP2 = 4.49 * 4.49

= 20.16

Difficult and time consuming in manually keeping track of all schedules and
appointments.

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 30(5) + 31(4) + 0(3) + 0(2) + 0(1) / 61

= 150 + 124 + 0 + 0 + 0 / 61

= 4.49

MFP2 = 4.49 * 4.49

= 20.16
Inability of managers to keep track of the agents’ sales activities.

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 38(5) + 22(4) + 1(3) + 0(2) + 0(1) / 61

= 190 + 88 + 3 + 0 + 0 / 61

= 4.61

MFP2 = 4.61 * 4.61

= 21.25

Storage of files is susceptible to be damaged as well as lost of files.

Mean(M) = f(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5) / n

= 35(5) + 22(4) + 4(3) + 0(2) + 0(1) / 61

= 175 + 88 + 12 + 0 + 0 / 61

= 4.51

MFP2 = 4.51 * 4.51

= 20.34

Computation for t computed:

T computed =
 =

t computed = 13.47

t tabulated = 2.33 of 0.010 level of significance

The Test of Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis: ME = MP, There is no significant difference between the two systems
in terms of its user’s evaluation rating.

Alternative Hypothesis: ME MP, there is a significant difference between the two

systems in terms of its user’s evaluation rating.

Interpretation

After thorough investigation the proponents arrived at 13.47 t computed which is

greater than the t tabulated which is 2.33 with a level of significance of 0.010. The
proponents accept the Alternative Hypothesis and reject the Null Hypothesis. Therefore,
there is a significant difference between the existing system and the proposed system in
terms of its user’s evaluation rating.