Problem definition – Max 3

3 marks

Excellent description with all elements present.

2 marks

Some description of both the stages of study and end user involved.

1 mark

Vague description of the end user or area for development.

Analysis – Max 11

9–11 marks

Excellent user involvement with detailed recording of the user’s requirements. All other items must be present, showing a thorough analysis of the system to be computerised. A detailed requirements specification, including full justification for the approach and hardware and software requirements, has been produced.

6–8 marks

Good user involvement and recording of the data collection methods. Most of the necessary items have been covered. However, one or two items have been omitted. A requirements specification is present with some attempt to justify the approach based on the results of the investigations but with some omissions, eg hardware and software requirements.

3–5marks

Some evidence that an attempt has been made to identify the end-user requirements and some recording of it has been made. Attempts at some of the other items have been made. An attempt has been made to develop a requirement specification but with little attempt to justify this based on the results of the investigation.

1–2 marks

Some elements have been discussed but with little or no user involvement.

5–6 marks

A clear set of objectives with a detailed and complete design specification, which is logically correct. There is evidence to show that the end user has seen and agreed these designs. There are also detailed written descriptions of any processes/modules and a clear, complete definition of any data structures. The specification is sufficient for someone to pick up and develop an end result using the software and hardware specified in the requirements specification.

3–4 marks

The major objectives of the new system have been adequately summarised, but omissions have been made. There is a brief outline of a design specification, including mock-ups of inputs and outputs, and the process model has been described (including a diagram: structure diagram, data flow diagram or system flowchart). There is some evidence that the end user has seen these designs. However, there is a lack of completeness with omissions from the process model, inputs and outputs. Data structures have been identified but there may be inadequate detail.

1–2 marks

Some vague discussion of what the system will do, with a brief diagrammatic representation of the new system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nature of solution – Max 6

5–6 marks

A clear set of objectives with a detailed and complete design specification, which is logically correct. There is evidence to show that the end user has seen and agreed these designs. There are also detailed written descriptions of any processes/modules and a clear, complete definition of any data structures. The specification is sufficient for someone to pick up and develop an end result using the software and hardware specified in the requirements specification.

3–4 marks

The major objectives of the new system have been adequately summarised, but omissions have been made. There is a brief outline of a design specification, including mock-ups of inputs and outputs, and the process model has been described (including a diagram: structure diagram, data flow diagram or system flowchart). There is some evidence that the end user has seen these designs. However, there is a lack of completeness with omissions from the process model, inputs and outputs. Data structures have been identified but there may be inadequate detail.

1–2 marks

Some vague discussion of what the system will do, with a brief diagrammatic representation of the new system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Algorithms – Max 5

5 marks

A complete set of algorithms with evidence to show that they have been assessed by the candidate to show that they will meet the design specification. (Evidence should show how these algorithms form a complete solution and that they have been tested for functionality using appropriate techniques.)

3–4 marks

A complete set of detailed algorithms covering the system as specified.

1–2 marks

Some vague algorithms detailing how the system will be developed.

Test strategy – Max 5

5 marks

A detailed test strategy and plan covering all aspects of the system with data to test under normal, extreme and abnormal circumstances.

3–4 marks

A detailed test strategy and a plan covering several aspects of the system but with inadequate data to effectively test the system, eg data covers only normal circumstances or covers only a limited part of the design specification.

1–2 marks

A vague discussion of how the system might be tested.

Implementation – Max 16

13–16 marks

There is complete evidence showing how the solution was developed using suitable alpha testing at each stage to inform the process. The modular code is fully annotated indicating clearly the purpose of each section and the interrelationship between the sections. The developed solution fulfils all of the design specification.

9–12 marks

Program listings are provided in the form of printouts. Data structures are illustrated as part of the listings where appropriate, detailing their purpose. There is sufficient annotation evident to illustrate how the solution was developed for a particular purpose and indicate the purpose of sections of code. The code will be modular and there will be good evidence to show how testing was used during the development process to inform each stage. The developed solution fulfils the design specification but there are some minor flaws in the solution.

5–8 marks

Program listings are provided in the form of printouts. Data structures are illustrated as part of the listings where appropriate, detailing their purpose. There is some annotation evident to illustrate how the solution was developed and some limited evidence that some testing took place during development. The developed solution has significant flaws and only partially fulfils the design specification. The code may be linear but with some annotation indicating how the code relates to the problem and some limited evidence of alpha testing.

1–4 marks

Program listings are provided in the form of printouts but with no annotation or evidence of alpha testing. The developed solution does not fulfil the design specification. There is some evidence of system development.


 

Testing – Max 14

11–14 marks

The testing covers as many different paths through the system as is feasible, including valid, invalid and extreme cases. The testing covers all aspects of the design specification and the test plan from the design section. There is clear evidence of end-user testing.

8–10 marks

There is evidence of testing covering most aspects of the design specification but with omissions, eg test data does not include erroneous data for all tests or there is limited evidence of end-user testing.

5–7 marks

There is limited evidence of testing based on a badly developed test plan with clear omissions. There is no description of the relationship between the test plan and the testing in evidence.

1–4 marks

A collection of hardcopy test run outputs with no clear link to the test plan and covering few aspects of the system. No evidence of end-user testing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Documentation – Max 10

8–10 marks

Candidates will provide detailed and accurate documentation. The documentation will be well presented, in a structured and coherent format. The documentation will cover all aspects of the system, with no omissions, including installation, typical use, troubleshooting, and backup. The on-screen help and supplementary documentation makes a complete guide to the solution and is well presented and easy to follow. Subject-specific terminology will be used accurately and appropriately. There will be few, if any, errors of spelling, grammar and punctuation.

4–7 marks

Candidates will provide clear documentation. The documentation will be well presented. There is clear on-screen support to enable the end user to use the system. The supporting documentation and on-screen help is well presented and covers most aspects of the system operation with only one or two omissions, eg troubleshooting or backup. Some subject-specific terminology will be used. There may be occasional errors of spelling, grammar and punctuation.

1–3 marks

Candidates will provide superficial documentation, with weak supplementary user documentation covering few aspects of the system. The information will be poorly expressed and limited technical terms will be used. Errors of grammar, punctuation and spelling may be intrusive.

Degree of success – Max 4

3-4 mark

A full discussion, taking each objective mentioned in (b) (i) and explaining the degree of success in meeting them (indicating where in the project evidence can be found to support this), or reasons why they were not met.

1–2 mark

Some discussion about a number of objectives, but some omissions or inadequate explanation of success or failure.

0 marks

No discussion present.

Users response – max 3

3 marks

The user indicates that the system could be used but there are some faults which need to be rectified. The candidate provides a detailed discussion of how these inadequacies may be dealt with.
OR
A fully functional user-friendly system has been produced. The user indicates that the system fully meets the specification given in section (a), and there are no known faults in the system.

2 marks

The system is, in the main, user-friendly, but there is room for improvement (eg no on-screen help has been provided). The user indicates that the system could be used but there are some faults which need to be rectified. The candidate has made some limited attempt to discuss how these inadequacies may be dealt with.

1 mark

The system does not meet the design specification and the end user is not able to make use of the system. The candidate briefly discusses these issues in terms of their project management.

Extensions – Max 3

3 marks

The candidate clearly portrays the good and bad points of the system indicating the limitations, possible extensions and how to carry out the extensions.

2 marks

The candidate clearly identifies good and bad points and any limitations.

1 mark

The candidate identifies the obvious good points of the system and possibly some bad points or limitations.