Business Information Systems

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                               MITS4001 

                                                            Business Information Systems

                                                             Case Study and Presentation 

                                                                        September 2020 

Case Study Report (Individual Assignment) - 10% (Due Session 5) 

The assessment assess the following learning outcomes: 

1. Adapt information systems to strategically achieve organisational goals and be able to design, develop and manage IT systems implementation to achieve Business IT Alignment. 

2. Develop an IT Plan that designs, implements and manages the technology supporting these information systems including computing devices, storage and processing (both systems processing and application processing). 

3. Identify, synthesize and model individual functions of a database system to be used for organization data management and decision making. 

INSTRUCTIONS 

For this component of assessment, you are to prepare a report based on the case study below and the tasks that follow it. Your report should be limited to approx. 1400 words (not including references). Use 1.5 spacing with a 12 point Times New Roman font. You should include references in your report and these and must be in the IEEE style. 

Submission Guidelines 

All submissions are to be submitted through turn-it-in. Drop-boxes linked to turn-it-in will be set up in the Unit of Study Moodle account. Assignments not submitted through these dropboxes will not be considered. Submissions must be made by the due date and time (which will be in the session detailed above) and determined by the Unit facilitator. Submissions made after the due date and time will be penalized at the rate of 10% per day (including weekend days). 

The turn-it-in similarity score will be used in determining the level if any of plagiarism. Turn-it-in will check conference web -sites, Journal articles, the Web and your own class member submissions for plagiarism. You can see your turn-it-in similarity score when you submit your assignment to the appropriate drop-box. If this is a concern you will have a chance to change your assignment and re-submit. However, re-submission is only allowed prior to the submission due date and time. After the due date and time have elapsed you cannot make resubmissions and you will have to live with the similarity score as there will be no chance for changing. Thus, plan early and submit early to take advantage of this feature. You can make multiple submissions, but please remember we only see the last submission, and the date and time you submitted will be taken from that submission. Your document should be a single word or pdf document containing your report. 

Case Study: United Kingdom Passport Agency 

The United Kingdom Passport Agency was established as an Executive Agency of the Home Office in April 1991. Its main aim was to provide passport services for British nationals in the United Kingdom promptly and economically. In 1998–99, the Agency employed an average of almost 1,800 staff in its passport offices in Belfast, Glasgow, Liverpool, London, Newport and Peterborough. The Agency’s financial objective is to recover, via the passport fee, the full cost of passport services; the full cost includes the cost of non-fee bearing consular services provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to UK citizens abroad. 

In July 1996 the United Kingdom Passport Agency decided to introduce the idea of digital passports in an attempt to minimise the risk of fraudulent use of passports. To do this the agency needed to replace its existing ICT system. It was envisaged that this would be done through a private finance initiative or outsourcing contract. The contractor bids were received in April 1997 and in June of that year a 10-year PFI contract was awarded to The Stationery Office (now Security Printing and Systems limited) for the printing and dispatching of digital passports, valued at 120 million GBP. In July of 1997 the Agency awarded a 10-year PFI contract for a similar value of 120 million GBP to Siemens Business Services for the collection, storage and transmission of passport application data. This included the development of a new ICT system for this purpose. 

In April 1998 an announcement was made that from October of that year children not already on their parents’ passport would require their own passports to travel abroad. 

In October 1998 the new information system (ICT system and procedures, including those outsourced) were introduced in the Agency’s Liverpool office. One hundred Agency staff transferred over to Siemens. In November of the same year the new information system was rolled-out at the Newport office. Ninety-six staff transferred over to Siemens at this office. During the following summer of 1999 a number of problems were experienced by the Passport Agency. Over a half a million British citizens were less than happy to discover that their new passports could not be issued on time for them to take their holiday. In June 1999, processing times for passport applications were taking up to 50 working days. Emergency measures were introduced by the Home Office in July 1999 – including free two-year extensions to passports. Coupled with a downturn in applications, these measures helped bring maximum processing times back within the Agency’s 10 working day target by the end of August. However, the Home Office had to pay millions in compensation to citizens and in staff overtime required for managing the backlog of applications. 

This information systems failure appears to have been due to a number of factors. The change in the law on child passports was introduced at roughly the same time as the introduction of the new information system. 

The change in legislation caused a significant increase in the volume of applications for the Summer of 1999. In May of that year, monthly output was 619,000 compared to a peak of 564,000 in the previous year. By June, the Passport Agency had around 565,000 applications still awaiting processing. 

The introduction of a new passport processing system in two of the Agency’s six offices was exacerbated by a failure to assess and test adequately the time needed by staff to learn and work the new passport processing system. The new system involved changes in clerical and administrative processes as well as computerisation. A four-month delay before the start of testing the new system, and testing its impact on productivity was not completed before it went live in late 1998. 

There was insufficient contingency planning in the event that implementation of the new system might not go according to plan. Despite the Passport Agency’s experience of the flawed roll-out of its previous computer system in 1989, the agency launched the new system in its largest offices, Liverpool and Newport, which accounted for half its normal processing capacity. The strategy adopted by the Agency in early 1999 to get through the busy season rested on its past experience that it would be able to increase output by increasing overtime and hiring casual staff. A recovery plan was agreed between the Agency and the Home Office in March, including the recruitment of extra staff. However, the Agency did not foresee the loss in public confidence, which led to a sharp increase in applications and enquiries about them, once the delays attracted publicity. 

The agency was also criticised in its failure to communicate effectively with the public, both at a personal level in dealing with calls from the public to its telephone enquiry bureau, and more generally via the media. 

A National Audit Office Inquiry (NAO, 1999) estimated that the cost of the additional measures taken by the Agency to deal with the failures during the year from October 1998 was around 12.6 million GBP, including 6 million GBP for additional staffing. The contract allowed Siemens to take responsibility for the risk associated with design and delivery of the system. However, the risk associated with business continuity remained with the Passport Agency. As a result the agency incurred extra costs of 12.6 million GBP, with Siemens paying just 2.45 million GBP, spread over several years. 

Not surprisingly, the Inquiry highlighted a number of important lessons. First, the need for proper testing of new systems before committing to live operation. Second, for staff to be adequately trained in the use of new ICT systems and in new procedures required. Third, the need to have realistic contingency plans in place. Fourth, the need, when service delivery is threatened, to have the capability to keep the public well informed. 

Tasks 

 Elaborate the importance of business information systems, in achieving the goals of United Kingdom passport agency and address the issues, which may occur if the system was to be updated in 2020. 

 Develop an upgrade plan of the business information system of the United Kingdom passport agency, considering the following key requirements: 

o Computational requirements 

o Processing requirements 

 Using the internet as a resource, critically analayse the possible database systems, which could be employed by the agency for data management and decision making 

Marking Guide: 50 Marks 

Task	Description	Marks
Introduction	This section should include a few sentences which provide an outline of the assignment	5
Report Layout	The report style, language, and structure should be appropriate.	5
Elaborate	Elaborate the importance of business information systems, in 10 achieving the goals of United Kingdom passport agency and address the issues, which may occur if the system was to be updated in 2020.	10
Develop	Develop an upgrade plan of the business information system of the 10 United Kingdom passport agency, considering the following key requirements: • Computational requirements • Processing requirements	10
Critical Analysis	Using the internet as a resource, critically analayse the possible 10 Analysis database systems, which could be employed by the agency for data management and decision making	10
Conclusion	Summary of the report.	5
References	Follow the IEEE style	5

 

Read More

Dissertation Guidelines

 

 Faculty of Science, Engineering and Computing

School of Computer Science and Mathematics

 

Dissertation Guidelines

MSc COURSES

NDC	Networking & Data Communications
NDC (B)	Networking & Data Communications (Business)
NIS	Network and Information Security
NIS (B)	Network and Information Security (Business)
ES	Embedded Systems
ES (B)	Embedded Systems (Business)
ES (V)	Embedded Systems (Vision)
ES (VB)	Embedded Systems (Vision with Business)
SE	Software Engineering
SE (B)	Software Engineering (Business)
IS	Information Systems
IS (HIM)	Information Systems (Health Information Management)
IT IS	IT & Strategic Innovation

 

Staff	Name	Extension	Room	Contact:
Module Leader	Dr. Nada Philip (NP)	62827	SB1006	N.Philip@kingston.ac.uk Consultation Hours Mondays 1100-1300 Thursdays 1100-1300

1.   Learning Objectives

The Aims and Learning Outcomes for this module include developing an ability to identify a real-world problem or a topic of state-of-the-art research, setting this problem in the context of applicable academic concepts and methods, and providing a solution by organising and carrying out an extended piece of work, independently and in-depth.  Students should also engage in academic and professional communication and act within actual constraints.

It follows that the driving force behind this module is primarily the student, but also the supervisor and, where applicable, an external client.  The university provides supervision and some support, but the initiative and responsibility for planning and conducting the project rests ultimately with the student. 

2.   Topics

The project is equivalent to 2 (30 credit) taught modules (minimum of 16 full-time weeks work), and the final report becomes a published document. Thus, this activity should not be undertaken lightly - producing work of high quality requires time and effort.

Projects will normally be of the following types (or mix of types), depending on the specific MSc course taken: 

·Evaluative: this requires the student to critically evaluate a given system, procedures, business models, etc. identify strengths and weaknesses and propose improvements.

·Analytic: this entails the analysis of particular policies or strategies and solutions, identify strengths and weaknesses and propose improvements.

·Design and development: this entails designing, implementing and testing a system or sub system

·Empirical or investigative: research into particular systems or problems, comparisons of alternatives and in most cases a demonstrable improvement of current methods.

3.   Deliverables

The module deliverables are:

• Project registration form.
• Individual project definition and research proposal (10% of the total marks)
• Formative Viva/Presentation - this is a formative assessment for students to gain some early feedback and used as an exercise for the final Viva/Presentation.
• Dissertation  (electronic copy via Canvas) (%80 of the total mark)
• Viva/Presentation to explain/defend the finding of the project to the supervisor and the second marker, within 2 weeks of submitting the dissertation  (10% of the total marks)

 

Please note that if a student does not demonstrate/present his/her work, we reserve the right to withhold his/her project dissertation mark until a demonstration/presentation takes place.

 

The timings for submitting each of the above deliverables depend on your mode of study (full-time or part-time) and time of entry (September or January). In what follows, '*' means “online submission via Canvas by 11.59pm” and '†' means “make an appointment with your supervisor and with your second marker”.

 

Full-time Students that started January 2020:

•        Project registration form                     22^nd May 2020

           

•        Individual project definition

and research proposal                         13^th July 2020

•        Formative Viva/Presentations            07^th September 2020

•        Dissertation *                                      17^th March 2021

•        Demonstration/Presentation† Between 17^th to 31^st March 2021

 

 

Submission of deliverables:

You should follow the instructions for the deliverable submission given in the dissertation guidelines. You are reminded of the faculty policy for the late submission of coursework. Any work submitted up to a week late will be capped at 40%, anything submitted later than this will receive a zero mark.

  

If you are ill or have problems affecting your studies, the University Mitigating Circumstances policy may apply.  You will need to complete a form and attach suitable independent documentation. Remember if you submit a piece of work or attend an examination, you have judged yourself fit to undertake the assessment and cannot claim mitigating circumstances retrospectively.

Students who wish to make a mitigation claim submission may do so via the webpage (or

My Kingston – My Faculty – Science, Engineering and Computing – SEC Mitigating Circumstances).

 

Late Feedback

We are committed to our students receiving timely feedback and would like to remind you that you can let us know of any delays that occur in receiving feedback from work you have submitted for marking. We have set up an electronic noticeboard for this purpose:

SEC_Assessment_Feedback_Delay_-_PG_NB@kingston.ac.uk

If you have not received feedback within the timeframe you expected then please send us the details – we need the module code and the date you submitted the work.  We will then pick up your message and look into the matter.

 

Allocation of supervisors

The allocation of project supervisors is done by the project module leader, balancing students’ preferences (if any), supervisors’ expertise and their workload.  Consequently, there is no guarantee that a student will get their preferred supervisor. Irrespective of the allocation, all students may seek technical advice from any member of academic staff. Should there be serious problems with supervision, a student should discuss the matter with their Course Director and/or Personal Tutor. If no satisfactory solution is found, the matter should be brought to the attention of the Head of Department.

 

Problems with supervision

If you encounter serious problems with supervision, you should discuss the matter with your Module leader, Course Leader and/or your Personal Tutor. If no satisfactory solution is found, they will bring the matter to the attention of the Head of School. If, after this, you are still not satisfied with your supervision arrangements, you should make a complaint through the University’s Complaints Procedure http://www.kingston.ac.uk/aboutkingstonuniversity/howtheuniversityworks/policiesandregulations/    

Requesting a change of supervisor

 

A student may request a change of supervisor by emailing the module leader of the project module. However there must be a very strong reason for any such request. A lack of expertise in the specific area of the student’s project is not grounds for a change.

 

Part-time Students

There are special procedures that apply to part-time students. Please make sure that you understand them fully:

Part-time students can complete (by submission of their dissertation) in either 2, 2 ½ or 3 years. For example, a part-time student who started in Sept 2015, can submit either in Sept 2017 (2 years), Jan 2018 (2 ½ years) or Sept 2018 (3 years).

To help us manage projects more effectively it is a MUST that part-time students let us know formally when they intend to submit their dissertation before the submission date of the Individual Project Definition and Research Proposal of their 2^nd year.  To inform us of when you intend to submit, you will need to complete and hand in form “PART-TIME MSc DISSERTATION REGISTRATION” that can be found in the Appendices of this document.  If part time students do not submit such a form and inform us officially then we will presume that they are completing their dissertation during their 2^nd year.

Once we know when you intend to submit, we will allocate you to the same cohort of students submitting in that semester. For example, if you have told us that you will submit in January 2019, you will join the same cohort of full-time students who started in January 2018. This will be your cohort and it is important that you comply with the deadlines for that cohort.

Should a part-time or full-time student suspend studies or repeat the project, they can only follow one of the project schedules as above (subject to regulations regarding maximum period of study, which is currently 4 years including any additional time needed in case of repeating modules including the dissertation).

 

4.   Roles and responsibilities of staff and students

Module leader:

The module leader assigns each student a project. Project allocation is done by balancing student's preference (if any), supervisor's expertise and supervisor's loading.  Consequently, there is no guarantee that a student will get his/her preferred supervisor, even if an academic has provisionally agreed to supervise, because of the need to balance the supervisory load fairly.

Should there be difficulties with the supervision, the student should try to    discuss them with the supervisor and agree an action plan / timetable of    further meetings. It is important that the student and supervisor attempt to    resolve any difficulties as soon as possible. If the student is still not satisfied    they should contact the module leader and their Course Director and/or    Personal Tutor. If no satisfactory solution is found, the matter should be    brought to the attention of the Head of School.

Supervisor should:

·       Read the module guide and be aware of all deadlines and keep up to date with Canvas announcement and emails.

·       Be prepared to meet student at least once a fortnight during term time to review progress. Meetings are not expected to be longer than 30 minutes for each student. At the beginning of the project more advice and support than this may be appropriate.

·       Respond to any request for a meeting within 3 working days. Students should arrange meetings in advance by e-mail or in person.

·       Ensure adequate resources are in place for the project and arrange any specialist training or support required.

·       Supply at least some references or other pertinent information at the start of the project.

·       Record meetings with project students and report any significant absences to the module leader.

·       Assessment

·       Give advice on the general form and contents of an assessment e.g., style of introduction, the presentation and discussion of results and the style of writing appropriate to the piece of assessment (report/ poster/ presentation).

·       Encourage the student to produce a draft of an assessment in good time.

·       Give feedback on draft work (proposal, report etc.) within one/two working week/s. Supervisors cannot be expected to provide feedback on anything submitted after agreed or published deadlines.

·       Provide comments or editing on only small parts of individual sections of the draft assessment (e.g. 1 page) this is for feedforward purposes and give general comments on the remainder of the draft work.

·       Only expected to read one draft of an assessment and not assist with continual revision. The supervisor's approval of a report cannot be taken to imply any particular grade has been achieved.

 

·       Subject specific

      If relevant check student risk and hazard assessment before laboratory work  

      performed.

 

 

Student should:

·       read the module guide, be aware of and meet all submission deadlines, keep up to date with Canvas announcement and emails;

·       arrange first meeting with supervisor and agree a system for arranging subsequent meetings;

·       make sure that the resources needed are available- all resource requirements and training should be discussed with the supervisor at the proposal stage;

·       take responsibility for how the work progresses, and keep supervisor up to date with frequent progress reports;

·       notify supervisor of any absences and produce evidence of any reason for such absences;

·       submit draft work according to agreed or published deadlines, in order to allow supervisor time to provide feedback.

 

 

 

4. Marking Criteria

Project marking criteria are listed in the appendix. To meet many of these, the topic must be of sufficient complexity – a topic of trivial scope, for which standard solutions already exist or that could normally be done at undergraduate level, is not suitable for a Master’s level project dissertation. You should always seek advice from your supervisor on what is considered Master's level.

Good grades, and in particular an A (distinction), reflect originality, insight, critical and evaluative discussion, systematic and comprehensive treatment and demonstrably valid results.  It would be exceptional for a report to achieve a Distinction, without a substantial evaluative Discussion section, citations in the text to relevant research publications and other contemporary sources and the demonstration of a novel solution or novel ideas. In this context it is normally expected that a Distinction will only be awarded when the project has produced tangible results (“artefact”). What are tangible results will depend on the type of project undertaken (please see section 2), so for example for an empirical or investigative project, tangible results might be a new algorithm and its extensive performance evaluation, while for an analytical project tangible results might be new procedures and policies fully developed with and introduced at a host organisation.

Poor grades, in particular an F (fail), reflect bad organisation, presence of errors and omissions, poor logic, failure to understand and apply theoretical concepts, failure to apply consistently  the chosen methods and techniques, and/or failure to give a demonstration/presentation.

Also note that the university takes a strict view on plagiarism (i.e. failing to properly attribute work from others), specially for the dissertation which should be an original piece of work. We will always investigate possible plagiarism.

5. Process

Proposal Phase

Each project is supervised by an academic staff. We publish a list of academic staff who supervise MSc projects together with an indicative list of their areas of interest and possible topics for their MSc projects. You can find more about the academic, professional and research activities of these academic staff by browsing the Faculty's web pages (under “Research” and “People”). Once you have found a member of staff whose interests or projects you are interested in, you should contact them to discuss their project ideas. In most cases you will then be able to formulate a project guided by a member of staff who would then normally accept to being your supervisor. Note that it is also important that your proposed project is in the field of your MSc Course (e.g. normally an e-commerce project would not be acceptable for an embedded systems student and so will not be accepted by the student's Field Leader).

Some students (specially those in employment) could, exceptionally, themselves identify a specific problem suitable for their MSc programme, typically for their employer. If you would like to do this it is vital that you consult with your Field Leader for approval while at the same time identify an academic staff in the field of the proposed project to ensure that what you are proposing is within scope and at the level of an MSc project.

Under the guidance of your potential supervisor you should then develop a Project Proposal to define the project's scope, consider relevant objectives, propose how access to the necessary technologies will be gained, identify required resources, estimate the risks and constraints, list expected deliverables and milestones, etc.

You should start thinking about your project as soon as the course begins, and in any case at least 6-8 weeks before the ‘Project registration form’ submission deadline

Consider and discuss alternatives in the light of your interests, abilities and career aspirations, those of the members of staff (and industrial host if appropriate) and of the resources/opportunities available.  There is a limit to the number of projects any member of staff can take, so begin early to avoid disappointment.  Then after submitting your project registration form, you need to start building your Individual project definition  gradually develop an increasingly clear and complete statement of the project’s background, aims, literature review, methods, risks and deliverables.  

 

Project registration form (formative)

You need to submit the project registration form (see Appendix –project registration form).  This form includes – title of your project, overview, aims and objectives and  supervisors’ name (see Appendix). 

The Projects registration forms are then formally approved by the Field Leader who also confirms/names the supervisor and allocate the second marker. Once this is done, the project can formally start.

For information on the marking criteria of this element can be found in the appendices section of this document. 

Every student must submit a project registration form by the deadline specified. Students who do not submit a project registration form must contact their Field Leader.

 

 

 

 

Individual project definition and research proposal (Summative – 10%)

The Project Proposal is between 3000 – 4000 words in length excluding Appendices.  It comprises:

·       Introduction (Motivation, Background, Context & Research Problem)  

·       Aims and Objectives (Suitability & SMARTness)  

·       Initial Literature Review (Review and References)  

·       Ethics Relevance & Progress  

·       Technologies & Resources (Relevance, Alternatives)  

·       Research Method & Work Plan

 

For information on the marking criteria of this element can be found in the appendices section of this document. 

 

Note that a project that uses human subjects/data requires approval by the Faculty's Research Ethics Committee. This includes projects that involve people surveys/questionnaires. Please seek advice from your Field Leader and Supervisor as you should allow enough time to apply for ethics approval.

 

Where relevant, proposals should clarify Intellectual Property Rights (Industrial or KU Research Hosts may wish to claim copyright, particularly if they pay the student for any work done), the arrangements for demonstrations, and approval for academic access to the code (it may be inspected to be assessed, and displayed to students and staff in the Kingston University library). 

 

Project Phase

During the Project phase, students plan and carry out their work, and initiate and maintain contact with the academic supervisor.  It is expected that students will have regular meetings with their supervisors, at least every two weeks (and ideally weekly). The student should monitor his/her progress as well as review and evaluate the work, reporting significant issues which may affect the project in a timely manner to the supervisor, . We suggest that students at least create an audit trail for their project (for example, by keeping a log book for notes, a spreadsheet indicating hours dedicated to various tasks, and a folder for e-mail messages).  If milestones are not being met, then the project plan needs to be changed.

Supervisors discuss and indicate the suitability of intended deliverables, suggest starting points for consideration of background research, and discuss the nature of the dissertation and comment on drafts.  They also provide advice, where possible, on issues associated with the project such as design, implementation, proof of concept and project management.

           

Formative Viva/presentation (formative)

This is a formative assessment for the final viva and a formative feedback for the rest of the project and the final dissertation.  It is important to demonstrate the ability to summarise the results of your work and present them to others. You will be asked to prepare a presentation – 30 minutes Including 15 minutes questions and discussion - summarising the progress you have made and your plans to complete the project. This will be seen by your supervisor.

 

The Viva/Presentation comprises:

·       Work to date.  Including

o  Background and motivation.

o  Progress, for example, objectives achieved, preliminary results, specifications etc.

o  Problems encountered and their resolution, or plans for their resolution.  Methods for future work

o  Future plan

o Discussion regarding legal and professional issues related to the project

 

 

    Dissertation (Summative – 80%)

The Dissertation should be between 12,000 and 18,000 words excluding Appendices.  As the largest single piece of writing you may have ever done, you will need considerable time after you have completed the project work itself, to write your Dissertation (see Section 6).

A typical structure for the Dissertation is as follows:

 A typical structure for the Dissertation is as follows:

·       Title Page (essential - see format in in the project dissertation guidelines on Canvas)

·       A contents page (essential )

·       List of figures and/or tables

·       Glossary of Terms

·       Abstract (essential.  A summary of the content of the project – the problem and solution, and highlighting your main contribution(s))

·       Acknowledgements

·       Introduction and Background

o   Background research / current state of the art (For example, which theoretical concepts are to be applied? What existing or parallel work by others is relevant? What trends are evident in the marketplace?  What business strategies motivate this project?

o   This sets the context of the problem to be solved, and motivates your project – why is your project of general relevance and importance? What contribution and benefits do you expect to make?

o   Discussion regarding Ethics aspects, as well as data protection and safety relating to the project

·       Literature Review (As in Proposal, & Progression to Full Literature Review)   

·       Contribution Chapters (Suitability & Justification of Artefact, Design, Implementation and Evaluation)    

o   Method (how the project was achieved including selection of appropriate methods and techniques, and technologies.  Give reasons for choosing the options you selected.)

o   Results (The main outcomes or deliverables of the projects.  For example, the results for a development type project may comprise the design solution, implementation, and testing.  The results for an evaluation type project may comprise the evaluative data gathered and analysed.)

o  Discussion

§  Critical evaluation and explanation of recommendations (if any).  For example, why were these results obtained? Why are the results valid? Were there any failures, anomalies or disappointments – what brought them about? Are your results similar or different to other authors’?

§  Process review – For example, how well did the methods work? Was the technology as relevant as expected?

 

·       Conclusions and future work

o   What are your achievements, and how certain/uncertain are you?  What are its limitations? How might future work extend, or answer questions raised by your project?

o    

 

Note, however, that the best organisation and structure for each report is different – it reflects the nature of the topic addressed, so expect to adapt the above starting point to meet your individual needs. You can discuss the structure of your dissertation with your supervisor.

Take care to give reasons for all decisions you make – justify and explain.  The same goals could have been achieved differently – what are the advantages and disadvantages of doing it your way?

An integral part of the report is appropriate consideration to legal, professional and ethical issues.

You are expected to include in your project report ideas, methods and results produced by other people - if you do not it probably indicates a lack of background research and is likely to be penalised.  However, you must be scrupulously careful to cite clearly the author/originator of any such work. If you fail to indicate the source of such material you are, by implication, claiming someone else’s work as your own. This is regarded as a serious matter in academic circles and it carries severe penalties. (see Appendix on Academic Misconduct in the Student Handbook).

For information on the marking criteria of this element can be found in the appendices section.

 

Demonstration/Presentation (Summative – 10%)

Contact your supervisor and second marker, typically by e-mail, to arrange a joint appointment within 2 weeks of submission to demonstrate and/or present your project.  Demonstrations are appropriate for projects that have involved development work.  Special arrangements for demonstrations/presentation, such as demonstration at an Industrial Host, will normally have been arranged at the proposal stage.  We reserve the right to request a demonstration/presentation in person at Kingston University – it is essential to be able to assess the project fairly and accurately. 

A demonstration normally lasts around 30 minutes and proceeds typically as follows (discuss before hand with your supervisor what is expected):

·       a summary of the project (5-10 .ppt slides);

·       key functionality is demonstrated by the student;

·       members of staff attempt to use the system themselves;

·       examination of code.  Staff may, for example, ask the student to show them selected segments of the code to discuss its design, step through the code describing it line by line, or to make small changes to the functionality.  Questions may arise at any point.

Presentations normally take the form of 5-10 slides accompanying a 15min talk to the supervisor and second marker and followed by 15 min of questions.

 

For information on the marking criteria of this element can be found in the appendices section.

Electronic Copy

An electronic copy of your dissertation must be submitted via the Turnitin system on Canvas. 

All dissertations/final year projects in SEC, which have achieved a grade of 60% or above, will be made available to other students. If your dissertation/project needs to be exempt from this due to confidentiality reasons, then you will need to ask to restrict access to your dissertation (please contact your module leader regarding this).

6. Structure

Some of the aspects assessed include:

o Organisation of the dissertation into chapters and/or sections

o Overall logical structure (links between sections and paragraphs)

o Use of appendices, graphs, equations, and tables, as appropriate

o Consistent style

o Clarity of expression

o Correct use of language

o Layout and appearance to facilitate readability

o Logic, coherence and persuasiveness of arguments

o Overall coherence of report

Further guidance on some of these aspects are given below:

Style

Write concisely and clearly, using jargon only when it is appropriate to convey precise meaning. Define all your variables and parameters and the units used - a glossary of technical terms may also be helpful in certain circumstances. Make sure that you are consistent in your use of fonts throughout. Pay particular attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar - you are writing an academic publication. It is essential to carefully proof‑read your report and, if possible, to get someone else to check it. Also use any spell-checking software that is available. Note that as an academic/technical piece of writing, the use of the first and second persons (“I”, “me”, “my”, “you”, “as you can see”...) is discouraged.  Also use gender-neutral forms e.g. “they” or “he/she” instead of “he”.

Structure/Organisation

The dissertation requires a narrative and, therefore, there should be a logical progression from an introduction through a beginning and a middle to an end. However, this should not be of the ‘first I did this, then I did that’ variety, which is unacceptable. It should introduce the topic area first, then introduce specific findings about the topic area, normally collected as a product of the literature search, then introduce the specific project, the approach to the project, present findings and results, and finally draw conclusions.

Ensure that material is easy to find: use page numbers, a contents page, clear chapter and section headings, clearly numbered self-contained appendices etc. Ensure that all graphs, diagrams and tables are captioned and given a figure or table number.

Create and maintain a logical structure: divide material into sensible sections and ensure that these are arranged in a logical order. Start with an abstract and state the objectives of your dissertation. End with a critical review and a conclusion.

Produce a coherent document: proceed from the starting point to a meaningful conclusion in a relatively direct manner. Discard irrelevant material. If material is relevant but interferes with the flow of your arguments include it in an appendix; for example, put any large tables of data, lengthy extracts of computer code into appendices. It is often useful to include a diary. Use references to condense your descriptions of elementary standard material.

 

References & Bibliography

Ensure that you have searched the literature to provide a comprehensive list of relevant references both to justify your assertions and to allow you to give a very concise description of other work in the field. Check thoroughly to make certain that all references cited in the text are listed in full in the reference list - and vice versa. (A bibliography is a list of texts that a reader may find useful to acquire further knowledge of the field - please note that this usually includes works not referenced in the text and is quite distinct from the list of references).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

PART-TIME MSc DISSERTATION REGISTRATION

 

 

Name:          …………………………………..

 

K Number:  …………………………………..

 

Course:        …………………………………...

 

First Registered:     September/January* 20__

 

 

 

 

I confirm that I plan to submit my Project Dissertation on September/January* 20__

 

* delete as appropriate

 

 

Signed:        ……………………………………

 

 

Date:            …………………………………….

Project registration form

 

Course:_____________________________Field Leader    ____________

 

Student Name: ______________________________K Number:___________________

 

Project Title:  ………………………………..

 

Overview: (350 words max)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aims and Objectives: (About 100 words)

 

 

 

 

 

Supervisor: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

Project registration form feedback sheet and marking criteria

 

Student:

K Number:

 

Supervisor:                                        (Name and Signature)          Date marked:

 

 

Criteria	Feedback
Did the student seek advice prior to submission? (Y/N)
Has feedback been taken on board prior to submission? (Y/N)
Are overview, aims and objectives clear? (Y/N)
Are ethics, data protection and safety aspects of the project discussed (including dates/deadlines for research ethics approval)? (Y/N)
Any other initial comments by supervisor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(This is formative and no marks is allocated)

Project definition and research proposal - Feedback Sheet

 

Student:

K Number:

 

Supervisor:                                                    Date marked:

 

 

Grade	Exceeded Expectations 100-70%	Met Expectations 69-60%	Close to Expectations 59-50%	Below Expectations 49-1%
Project proposal	Performance in all criteria exceeded expectations	Performance in all criteria either exceeded or met expectations	Performance broadly met expectations	Performance in some or most criteria was below expectations

 

Criteria	Feedback	Mark
Introduction (Motivation, Background, Context & Research Problem, 10%)   Is motivation and background explained?   Is the research problem stated, and set in context?
Aims and Objectives (Suitability & SMARTness, 10%)   Are aims and objectives suitable for the MSc Programme? Are the objectives SMART? [https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/smart-goals.php]. S - specific, significant, stretching. M - measurable, meaningful, motivational. A - agreed upon, attainable, achievable, acceptable, action-oriented.  R - realistic, relevant, reasonable, rewarding, results-oriented.  T - time-based, time-bound, timely, tangible, trackable.
Initial Literature Review (Review, References, 30%)   Is reviewed literature relevant to the project?  Is reviewed literature up-to-date? Is topic sufficiently covered?  Is there sufficient discussion and critical analysis? Is referencing style and usage correct? Are important, key references identified? Are used references of suitable type (i.e. not only online resources)?
Ethics Relevance & Progress (10%)  If applicable: have initially raised ethics issues been addressed? Are there any additional ethics issues?
Technologies & Resources (Relevance, Alternatives, 10%)   Are relevant technologies and resources stated? Are reasons for decisions given? Are alternatives discussed?
Research Method & Work Plan (10%)   Is the research method appropriate, feasible and complete? Is a basic diagrammatic work plan provided, containing timeline and milestones/deliverables?
Overall Content and Presentation (20%)   Language (Spelling, Grammar, Style) - Are spellings and use of grammar correct? Is writing style clear and concise?    Are phrasing and sentence lengths appropriate?    Scope (Breadth and Depth of the Report, Technical Accuracy)- How broad is the overall scope of the report? How in-depth is the report content? How technically accurate is the report?    Logical Coherence (Clarity of Expression and Explanations) - How clear is the overall exposition? How well are complex facts explained?    Adherence to Formatting Instructions - Is title page, font and line spacing correct? Is table of contents created automatically?     Quality of Diagrams - Is aspect-ratio respected if copied from third-party image? Diagram readable, not blurred?

 

 

Comments:

 

 

 

 

Mark (out of 100):                                         %

(This element of the project accounts for 10% of the total project mark)
MSc Formative Viva/presentation

 

Student:		ID Number:	Supervisor:
Project Title:
Date:	Course: MSc in			Marker’s Initials:

 

 

 

Supervisor's assessment of student's presentation skills (5-10 ppt slides):  This includes a summary of the project and key functionality of the product developed by the student. The feedback received considers the following items: Objectives achieved, Problem solving competence, Technical skill competence, Context understanding and Critical thinking.

 

 

Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(This is formative and no marks is allocated)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FACULTY OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND COMPUTING

 

School of (insert School name)

 

 

MSc DEGREE

IN

Insert your COURSE TITLE here

 

 

 

Name:

 

ID Number:

 

Project Title:

 

Date:

 

Supervisor:

 

 

 

 

WARRANTY STATEMENT

This is a student project.  Therefore, neither the student nor  Kingston University makes any warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the data or conclusion of the work performed in the project and will not be held responsible for any consequences arising out of any inaccuracies or omissions  therein.

Faculty of Science, Engineering and Computing

 

Postgraduate Project Marking Criteria^*

 

 

Criteria		Exceeded Expectations 100-80%	Met Expectations 79-60%	Close to Expectations 59-40%	Below Expectations 39-1%
Introduction	10%	All relevant elements have been addressed expertly	Most relevant elements have been addressed appropriately or only some have been addressed expertly	Some elements have been addressed appropriately whereas others have been addressed ineffectively	Most elements have been used ineffectively or failure to use appropriate techniques
Literature Review	30%	Well-structured, detailed and exhaustive review of relevant research. Strengths and limitations are clearly identified.	Most relevant research has been reviewed in a structured manner with technical details. Awareness of main strengths and limitations.	Incomplete review of relevant research performed, but inclusion of essential work. Some structure and technical content are provided	Poor structure and review of relevant research where essential work is missing.
Contribution Chapters (Existence, Suitability & Justification of Artefact, Design, Implementation and Evaluation.	30%	All relevant techniques have been used expertly	Most relevant techniques have been used appropriately or only some have been used expertly	Some techniques have been used appropriately whereas others have been used ineffectively	Most techniques have been used ineffectively or failure to use appropriate techniques
Conclusion (Summary of Work, Reflection, Future work.	10%	Excellent Summary of work, future work and critical perspective on lessons learned, insightful comparisons with existing / similar systems	Gave Summary of work, future work and critical perspective and comparison with previous  / existing systems	Gave some Summary of work, future work and critical perspective and/or comparison with previous  / existing systems	Failed to provide a Summary of work, future work and  critical perspective, no lessons learned or comparison with previous / existing systems

 

Faculty of Science, Engineering and Computing

MSc Project Dissertation Marking

 

Student:		ID Number:	Supervisor:
Project Title:			2nd Marker:
Date:	Course: MSc in			Marker’s Initials:

 

Category	Comments	Mark
Introduction (As in Proposal, & Abstract, Aims and Objectives, Summary of Thesis Contributions and Thesis Outline, 10%).    Has it evolved well compared to proposal introduction? Is abstract succinct and summarises thesis correctly? Does it describe aims and objectives? Does it discuss main thesis contributions? Does it outline thesis structure?
Literature Review (As in Proposal, & Progression to Full Literature Review, 30%)    Is reviewed literature relevant to the project? Is reviewed literature up-to-date? Is topic sufficiently covered? Is there sufficient discussion and critical analysis? Is referencing style and usage correct? Are important, key references identified? Are used references of suitable type (i.e. not only online resources)? How has the literature review progressed from initial review in proposal?   For research projects only: this should include the state-of-the-art review that presents the  key and the most current research in the area(s) relevant to the research topics.
Contribution Chapters (Existence, Suitability & Justification of Artefact, Design, Implementation and Evaluation, 30%)    Is thesis contribution based on an artefact? Is artefact any of the following: Implementation, Simulation, Data Collection & Analysis, Case Study or Research Contribution? Is artefact suitable? Has choice of artefact been justified? If applicable: is design phase documented (potentially in separate chapter)? If applicable: is implementation documented (potentially in separate chapter)? Is artefact contribution tested/evaluated (potentially in separate chapter)?   For implementation type of projects: this should include separated sections or chapters of the following: Analysis, Design, Implementation and testing and validation. For design type of projects: this should include separated sections or chapters of the following: Analysis, design, proof of concept and validation and evaluation. For research type of projects: Methodology, experiments and results discussion, and evaluation.
Conclusion (Summary of Work, Reflection, Future work, 10%)    Is the thesis summarised? Is there a critical reflection on the successful outcomes? Are items for future work/research given?
Overall Content and Presentation (20%)   Language (Spelling, Grammar, Style) - Are spellings and use of grammar correct? Is writing style clear and concise?    Are phrasing and sentence lengths appropriate?    Scope (Breadth and Depth of the Report, Technical Accuracy)- How broad is the overall scope of the report? How in-depth is the report content? How technically accurate is the report?    Logical Coherence (Clarity of Expression and Explanations) - How clear is the overall exposition? How well are complex facts explained?    Adherence to Formatting Instructions - Is title page, font and line spacing correct? Is table of contents created automatically?     Quality of Diagrams - Is aspect-ratio respected if copied from third-party image? Diagram readable, not blurred?
	TOTAL  MARK (%)        _______________   AGREED  MARK (%)     _______________
(This element of the project accounts for 80% of the total project mark)

Faculty of Science, Engineering and Computing

 

MSc Project Viva/presentation

 

Grade	Exceeded Expectations 100-80%	Met Expectations 79-60%	Close to Expectations 59-40%	Below Expectations 39-1%
Viva	Performance in all criteria exceeded expectations	Performance in all criteria either exceeded or met expectations	Performance broadly met expectations	Performance in some or most criteria was below expectations

 

 

Student:		ID Number:	Supervisor:
Project Title:
Date:	Course: MSc in			Marker’s Initials:

 

 

Supervisor's assessment of student's presentation skills (5-10 ppt slides):  This includes:

Presentation Skills (Clarity of Verbal Explanations, Quality of Slides)   

·        How clear was the presentation?  

·        Good quality of slides?   

Practical Demonstration (for Implementation and Simulation)   

·        Has a proof of concept been fully demonstrated during viva?   

·        Is student able to explain aspects of system/code?   

Discussion (Quality, Depth, Answering of Questions, Critical Thinking)   

·        Did an in-depth discussion take place?   

·        Was the student able to answer questions?   

·        Has the student demonstrated ability of critical thinking?   

 Comments:

 

 

Mark (out of 100):                                                         %

(This element of the project accounts for 10% of the total project mark)

 

 

 

 

 

CI7000 Module Descriptor

CI7000 Module Descriptor

 

MODULE CODE: CI7000                   LEVEL: 7                                CREDITS: 60

 

TITLE:                                    Project Dissertation

 

PRE-REQUISITES:                  Completion of 2 modules

 

CO-REQUISITES:                 None

 

MODULE SUMMARY (INDICATIVE)

 

This module constitutes the major individual piece of work of the Masters Programme where the student carries out a project involving independent critical research, design and implementation (where applicable).

 

AIMS (DEFINITIVE)

• Apply established research methods for independent research.
• Develop an ability to organise and carry out an extended and independent study of work at postgraduate level.
• Pursue in-depth studies of professional or academic relevance to the student and an organisation or a company.
• Extend the knowledge and skills developed in the taught component of the course.

 

 

LEARNING OUTCOMES (DEFINITIVE)

On successful completion of the module, students will be able to:

 

• Select, justify and use effectively the research methods and techniques appropriate for particular cases in order to carry out a literature search and an independent work of research
• Critically identify the need to position their research in the wider academic or business context and structure the dissertation format to agreed conventions
• Plan, manage and critically evaluate the project using the techniques and tools needed in order to bring it in successfully on time and within resourcing limits
• Identify and critically analyse real-world problems or knowledge gaps to which academic concepts and methods can be realistically applied to improve or resolve the problem situation
• Apply skills to show an ability to engage in academic and professional communication with others in their field through report and presentation
• Present critical awareness in applying appropriate legal, social or ethical obligations and when required, respond to the financial and other constraints of a corresponding business environment.

 

 

CURRICULUM CONTENT (INDICATIVE)

 

• This consists of two components:
• Research method lectures
• Students carry out an individual project under the supervision of a member of staff

 

 

TEACHING AND LEARNING STRATEGY (INDICATIVE)

 

Students will submit, in consultation with an academic advisor or potential project

supervisor, a project definition and research proposal report.  This report will contain literature review, details of research methods used, project aims, project plan and deliverables, preliminary results, problems encountered and indicative table of contents.  The project is conducted throughout the second half of study period.

The specific deliverables for each individual’s project must be discussed and decided

upon in consultation with the academic and (if relevant) industrial supervisors. The

roles and responsibilities are outlined below:

 

Student:

•        To identify and scope a suitable problem

•        To plan and control the project

•        To carry out the necessary project work

•        To review and evaluate the work done

•        To prepare and present the project deliverables

•        To initiate and maintain contact with the academic supervisor

 

Academic Supervisor:

•        To guide the student on the identification and scoping of a suitable problem

•        To comment on the suitability of the selected project

•        To discuss the mapping of the project onto the course requirements

•        To discuss and approve the intended deliverables

•        To suggest starting points for consideration of background research

•        To discuss the nature of the dissertation and comment on early drafts

•        To provide advice on issues associated with the project such as design, implementation, and proof of concept or project management as appropriate.

•        To attend any presentation or demonstration of the project

•        To visit the student and client at the project site, as appropriate

 

Industrial Supervisor (if applicable):

•        To act as mentor and facilitator throughout the project

•        To provide help on management, resourcing or organisational issues affecting

the project

•        To agree the scope and timescale of the project and approve the nature of the

intended deliverables

 

 

BREAKDOWN OF TEACHING AND LEARNING HOURS

 

DEFINITIVE KIS CATEGORY	INDICATIVE DESCRIPTION	HOURS
Scheduled learning and teaching	Research methods - Lectures	12
Guided independent study	student independent study	588
Study abroad / placement
	Total (number of credits x 10)	600

 

 

 

ASSESSMENT STRATEGY (INDICATIVE)

Assessment is a combination of coursework and practical exam and this include the following components:

• Individual project definition and research proposal (10% of the total marks)
• Formative Viva/Presentation - this is a formative assessment for students to gain some early feedback and used as an exercise for the final Viva/Presentation.
• Dissertation  (80% of the total mark)
• Viva/Presentation to explain/defend the findings of the project to the supervisor and the second marker (10% of the total marks)

The main output of the Module is a self-contained dissertation of between 12,000 and 18,000 words that is assessed by the supervisor and an additional academic member of staff. The dissertation is expected to satisfy the following criteria:

• A novel proposed solution to a real-world problem or a gap in knowledge
• Demonstration of the validity of the proposed solution
• Clear indication of knowledge of relevant work by others in the field
• The selection and application of appropriate theoretical concepts and methods.

Students receive formative feedback from their supervisor in regular supervisory meetings and normally a draft dissertation would be a part of this process.

MAPPING OF LEARNING OUTCOMES TO ASSESSMENT STRATEGY (INDICATIVE)

 

LEARNING OUTCOME On completion of the module, students will be able to:	ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
1)    Select, justify and use effectively the research methods and techniques appropriate for particular cases in order to carry out a literature search and an independent work of research	Coursework - Project definition and research proposal report
2)    Critically identify the need to position their research in the wider academic or business context and structure the dissertation format to agreed conventions	Coursework – Dissertation
3)    Plan, manage and critically evaluate the project using the techniques and tools needed in order to bring it in successfully on time and within resourcing limits	Coursework - Project definition and research proposal report and Dissertation
4)    Identify and critically analyse real-world problems or knowledge gaps to which academic concepts and methods can be realistically applied to improve or resolve the problem situation	Coursework
5)    Apply skills to show an ability to engage in academic and professional communication with others in their field through report and presentation	Practical Exam   -  Formative and summative Viva/Presentation
6)    Present critical awareness in applying appropriate legal, social or ethical obligations and when required, respond to the financial and other constraints of a corresponding business environment.	Coursework - Project definition and research proposal report and Dissertation

 

ELEMENTS OF ASSESSMENT (DEFINITIVE)

DESCRIPTION of ASSESSMENT	DEFINITIVE KIS CATEGORY	PERCENTAGE
Project definition and research proposal report	Coursework	10%
Viva/Presentation	Practical Exam	10%
Dissertation	Coursework	80%
Total		100%

 

ACHIEVING A PASS (DEFINITIVE)

 

It IS NOT a requirement that any major element of assessment is passed separately in order to achieve an overall pass for the module.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY (INDICATIVE):

Core Text(s):

 

Kathleen McMillan, Jonathan Weyers (2011), How to Write Dissertations and Project Reports, Pearson Education

 

Recommended Reading:

 

Reading as advised by the supervisor(s)

 

Rowena Murray (2006), How to Write a Thesis., Open University Press

 

 

 

 

Read More