Unit 35: Systems Analysis and Design

ASSIGNMENT: Designing a University Course Management System

(UCMS)

Anusha Asim
Pearson ID: RF64842
HND
Regent Middle East
Contents
Unit 35: Systems Analysis and Design..........................................................................................1
Discussing Strengths and Weaknesses of Traditional and Agile System Analysis Methodologies
.......................................................................................................................................................2
Comparing The Strengths and Weaknesses of Methodologies for UCMS (University Course
Management System).................................................................................................................10
System Feasibility Report:...........................................................................................................12
Evaluation of the Importance of the Feasibility Criteria...............................................................17
Critical Evaluation of Methodological Strengths/Weaknesses and the Feasibility Study for the
UCMS..........................................................................................................................................21
System Review Using Agile Modelling (AM) Methodology..........................................................25
Assessing the Effectiveness of the Methodology........................................................................26
Justifying the Methodology Choice..............................................................................................28
Requirements..............................................................................................................................31
Design Specification....................................................................................................................34
Assessing the Effectiveness of the System Design.....................................................................48
References..................................................................................................................................51
Student Declaration.....................................................................................................................52

Discussing Strengths and Weaknesses of Traditional and Agile System

Analysis Methodologies

Traditional Methodologies
Traditional SDLC models represent the fundamental approach to systems development which
existed for numerous years. The models follow structured plans which execute their steps either
through a straight order or an endless loop. The following section demonstrates different
versions of traditional SDLC models:

1. Waterfall Model
Among the classic traditional methodologies stands the Waterfall model as one of the early and
well-established models.

The development process through which the Waterfall model is executed follows along the
phases of requirements gathering, design, implementation, testing, deployment and
maintenance in a strict sequential order.

Project documentation and control functions as the central focus of this approach yet leaves no
room for change after project commencement.

2. Prototyping Model
The Prototyping model stresses the creation of working system prototypes during early stages
of developing the process.

The prototype moves from development to testing to user feedback and implementation.

By implementing this method, users receive early participation opportunities as well as

opportunities for continuous improvements. In some cases, this takes place even if system
specifications might be unclear or incomplete.
3. The Spiral Model
The Spiral model contains aspects from both Waterfall and Prototyping models to achieve its
structure.

Risk assessment plays a fundamental role in this model which combines multiple development
cycles each time. The developmental process consists of planning followed by risk evaluation
then development work, followed by testing followed by evaluation which lets organizations
enhance product quality through received feedback.

However, the existing complexity in the Spiral Model may act as a management obstacle in
smaller and simpler projects.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Traditional Methodologies

Strengths:
1. Traditional methodologies, like Waterfall, deliver projects structured phases that enable
straightforward tracking of their progress.

2. The development cycle produces in-depth documentation that verifies complete records of all
process activities.

3. These methodologies provide organizations with the ability to maintain strict control over
project scope along with schedule and budget requirements, specifically in large-scale projects.

Weaknesses:

1. The Traditional approach exhibits high degrees of inflexibility which makes it unfavorable in
dynamic environments, as changes become impossible after project initiation.

2. The speed of project delivery often gets compromised because the linear progression
requires extra time for feedback-based adjustments and review requests.

3. User participation i.e testing during traditional development begins late in the project so users
may find their needs mismatched from what the finished product delivers.

Model Advantages Disadvantages

Waterfall Clear structure and sequential flow Inflexible to changes once development
of activities. starts.

Prototyping Early user involvement and Can lead to unclear or incomplete

feedback on prototypes. system specifications.

Spiral Focus on risk assessment and Complex and difficult to manage,

iterative improvements. especially for small projects.

Agile Methodologies
Agile methodologies introduce flexible models based on continuously iterative collaboration. The
essential elements of agile are defined by flexibility as a main principle to promote ongoing
feedback, combined with a user-centric approach. Various agile models have become popular
in the industry, including:

1. Scrum
Scrum functions as an iterative framework through which agile developers split projects into
small work units known as "sprints."

The time period for each sprint extends to 2-4 weeks until the team confirms a product
increment that is ready for delivery.
Through its methodology Scrum focuses on three main features: regular team collaboration,
agile reviews and continuous system improvement.

2. Extreme Programming (XP)

The software quality enhancement technique implemented by XP relies on practices which
include pair programming and continuous integration, in combination with regular product
releases.

Through this approach, developers collaborate with stakeholders to verify that the product suits
user requirements.

3. Lean
The lean methodology concentrates on creating the maximum value while removing all
avoidable costs.

By cutting unnecessary procedures and streamlining operations, along with shorter delivery
schedules, this approach delivers maximum performance.
4. Scaled Agile Framework:
The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) is a collection of organizational patterns with workflow
guidance, which enables large organizations to scale agile methods throughout their
enterprises.

This model unites all agility levels.

5. Kanban
The visual work management system called Kanban focuses on delivering work in a constant
flow through its visual board framework.

Organizations use a visual tracking system to display task movement across different
development levels that demonstrates workflow and helps teams find improvement areas.
6. DevOps
DevOps serves as a series of practices which automate and combine development with IT
operations functions between software teams.

This method enhances the collaborative relationships between developer and operational
teams, resulting in faster software deployment with enhanced quality.

7. Agile Modeling Methodology (AM):

The agile modeling methodology or AM operates through simple adaptable approaches to
create modeling solutions.

AM utilizes interactive modeling to transmit information rather than create documentation,

which leads to swift changes based on user feedback.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Agile Methodologies

Strengths:

1. Agile methodologies demonstrate adaptable characteristics for teams who need to change
requirements and priorities.

2. Agile provides teams with the ability to release function-based parts progressively, thus
delivering value quickly and speeding up the processes.

3. Agile encourages continuous cooperative activities between development teams,

stakeholders and end-users to achieve product-user requirements alignment.

4. Driven by multiple evaluation cycles, Agile helps organizations develop high-quality products
through continuous feedback sessions.

Weaknesses:

1. Working software takes precedence over documentation in Agile methods which results in
diminished detailed records about the development processes.

2. Agile methods tend to evolve during development but projects can develop scope changes
when proper management of changes is neglected.

3. Organizations face difficulties with Agile implementation because these methods need
experienced self-organized teams, yet they might not have proper team expertise.

4. Agile projects face difficulties in forecasting project timelines, costs and resource needs
because they use flexible methodologies, even in large-scale projects.
 Model Advantages Disadvantages

Scrum Encourages frequent feedback Can be difficult to manage scope

and rapid iteration. creep.

Extreme Focuses on software quality Requires highly skilled teams and

Programming (XP) through constant testing and close collaboration.
feedback.

Lean Minimizes waste and improves May lead to insufficient

efficiency. documentation.

SAFe Scales agile practices across Complex to implement and

large organizations. manage at scale.

Kanban Flexible, visual task management, Can struggle with long-term

and continuous flow. planning or predictability.

DevOps Improves collaboration between Can be challenging to implement

development and operations. in traditional IT environments.

Comparing The Strengths and Weaknesses of Methodologies for UCMS

(University Course Management System)
In this section, I will be comparing the pros and cons of the traditional and agile systems
analysis methodologies for the Bright Horizons' University Course Management System
(UCMS) development. Overall, this system will automate the course registration processes,
student enrollment, course content management, grade administration, and also reporting
analytics for students, educators, and administrative staff.

Traditional Systems Analysis Methodologies

Strengths:

1. The waterfall method provides structured planning because it outlines the requirements
gathering , design development and testing phases, leading to deployment. An elaborate
product like the UCMS will sufficiently benefit in managing its various features through
this clear, linear approach.

2. The traditional approach emphasizes developing detailed written records, which is a

benefit for the UCMS since requirements for all operational areas (student registration
through grade management to reporting functions) will be fully documented at the start
of development to minimize development scope adjustments and avoid
misunderstandings.
 3. The Spiral model, a traditional approach, provides a predictable timeline through its
multiple development cycles, allowing teams to develop early prototypes which help
detect potential risks for UCMS programming. Early process prototyping plus
incremental development allows companies to identify risks during development stages,
particularly for complex system functions such as reporting and analytics which are key
to the UCMS.

Weaknesses:

1. Traditional models like Waterfall demonstrate resistance to modifications as their

development cycle starts without room for alterations. Bright Horizons will encounter
greater costs and delays in development if the project requires additional features to the
UCMS after initial development commences.

2. The implementation of traditional Prototyping models leads to prolonged delivery

periods. Launching UCMS under an established timeline requires moving forward with a
minimal number of prototypes before final system development or user adoption will be
negatively affected.

3. The Spiral model develops systems through iterations but developers experience
difficulties when handling complex systems like UCMS because of the need to align
multiple functional teams, such as professors, students and administrators during
requirement evolution.

Agile Systems Analysis Methodologies

Strengths:

1. Combining Scrum with DevOps methods enables organizations to conduct frequent

updates and iterations, making their features flexible. These methodologies would serve
the UCMS well because they enable the implementation of new features or enhanced
functionality such as updated student/lecturer interfaces. Using these methodologies, the
system will develop with authentic user needs because end-user feedback becomes
integrated at every stage of its evolution.

2. Agile methodologies often use Scrum techniques to maintain stakeholder engagement at

every phase of development. By embodying this, the UCMS can be built to fulfill all user
needs through joint efforts between student and faculty groups, who need course
management tools and grade reporting functions, all of which will be developed and
implemented by the IT team.

3. Developers can utilize Kanban and Lean methodologies to provide fast and iterative
deliveries for features. This will aid the UCMS to roll out and test vital features like
course registration, while other features will develop throughout its evolution.
Weaknesses:

1. Agile methodologies using Scrum may experience extended project timelines when
users continuously request modifications to system features. The UCMS system might
end up with complexities or unreliable tendencies because of potential excessive user-
requested features which would divert from its original design purpose, delay its launch
and confuse users.

2. Highly trained team members are essential for Agile methodology frameworks like XP
and DevOps. If Bright Horizons lacks these resources, the UCMS might experience
delivery problems that would delay fundamental grade management systems and
reporting tools that need advanced back-end infrastructure.

3. The Kanban/Lean methodology puts working software above full documentation of

processes. The absence of detailed system documentation in the UCMS might create
obstacles both in analyzing requirements and in guaranteeing functional understanding
among all stakeholders.

The power of both traditional and agile approaches to systems analysis is that each has
comparative strengths and weaknesses when applied to the UCMS development at Bright
Horizons. Traditional approaches provide predictability as well as thoroughly documented
completeness, which will be suitable if the project size is large with fixed requirements.
However, if the goal is to evolve the nature of the UCMS nature with integrating user feedback
along the way, it may be better suited by agile approaches due to their flexibility and iterative
approach. The selection of methodology relies on the organizational capacity, the level of
complexity of the system, and the presence of qualified teams to carry out the development.

System Feasibility Report:

University Course Management System (UCMS) – Bright Horizons

The educational institution, Bright Horizons, plans on using a web-based University Course
Management System (UCMS) for managing student enrollment, teaching courses and grading
students, all while maintaining records of academic performance. The feasibility study below
analyzes the market and technical aspects of the project, alongside organizational and financial
elements.

Market Feasibility
Industry Demand:
The educational technology market continues to grow as educational institutions increasingly
adopt digital learning and course administration solutions (Tsymbal et al., 2023)
The incorporation of technology in higher education learning environments has particularly
shown improvements in student outcomes in the UAE, garnering support from local
stakeholders (Ashour, 2020). These positive perceptions held by the stakeholders, i.e students
and educators, reflect the significant demand for such technology.

Competitor Analysis:
Various educational institutions adopt educational platforms, including Moodle, Blackboard and
Canvas. However, an exclusively designed UCMS will offer better specific functional capabilities
than general-purpose commercial solutions.

Platform Cost Community Institutional Accessibility Personalizati

Support Popularity on
Capability

Exclusive Low Low High High High

UCMS

Commercial Moderate to High Low Moderate to Moderate to

Solutions High Low Low

User Needs:

a. Students need an easily navigable platform, one that will offer straightforward use in
both course enrollment and grade monitoring features.
b. Teachers and professors need tools to administer courses, as well as monitor and grade
the performance of their students.
c. Administrative teams need smooth operations, automations in repetitive processes and
improved recordkeeping, as well as reporting features.

A UCMS system aligns with the market demand and user needs. There is the challenge of
competition but with reduced costs through efficient resource allocation, and personalization,
the UCMS can set itself apart from the preexisting software in the market.

Technical Feasibility
The following technology will be required for the development of the UCMS.

1. Front-End (User interface) – HTML, CSS, JavaScript

2. Back-End (Hidden layers responsible for processing) – Python
3. Hosting (Deployment) – Heroku
4. Security – SSL encryption, user authentication and secure access.
5. Database (Data Management) – MySQL
These are relatively popular technologies which can be implemented by a full-stack developer
from the University’s IT department. Although the technologies are scalable, they will have a
higher time cost. Ultimately, the UCMS is technologically viable.

Organizational Feasibility
Stakeholder Support:
Stakeholders of the organization are likely to maintain a supportive stature for the
implementation of the UCMS. There is a strong commitment from Bright Horizons'
administration and faculty to supporting the UCMS, as it will streamline the particular duties for
every organizational member, ranging from IT specialists, to teaching staff, administrative
workers and students.

Operational Integration:
There is a clear path for the integration of the system, as it will function through integrating
information from pre-existing student information systems (SIS) and learning management tools.
Furthermore, the organization will offer training to faculty members, students and administrative
personnel to achieve smooth implementation of the UCMS.

Regulatory Compliance:
Compliance to certain regulatory standards is mandatory for the UCMS to be successful.

a. The sustained operation of UAE education services requires complete commitment to

both UAE education laws and data protection standards.

b. Students from outside the EU require the protection of privacy standards, equivalent to
GDPR to safeguard their data.

Financial Feasibility
Considering the technological and administrative requirements, the UCMS will amass the
following costs:

Aspect Annual Estimated Cost Details

(AED)

Hosting 11,019 Hosting on Heroku platform,

given that it will cost AED 918
for the monthly subscription

Software Security Auditing 500 - 900 Testing the security of the

UCMS, as well as its
vulnerability to cyber threats.

Miscellaneous Maintenance 200 - 500 Budget for feature updates,

Costs bug resolution and any
 unforeseen maintenance
requirements.

Revenue and ROI (Return-Of-Interest):

a. The UCMS will make course management more efficient, thereby reducing
administrative costs.

b. Monetization can potentially be achieved through scaling up to partner with other

institutions.

c. An efficient UCMS will boost student satisfaction, which will in term boost the university’s
retention rates and long-term sustainability.

The financial Cost-Benefit Analysis below further confirms the economic viability of the project.

Schedule Feasibility
The design, development and testing of the UCMS is expected to follow the tentative schedule
below.
As the project is expected to approximately take 1 month and 2 weeks, it can be expected to
quickly be implemented into the University, satisfying organizational demand. However, the
short time allocated for the design and development phase introduces a challenge and creates
the demand for a methodology which will enable these phases to parallelly take place.

Security Considerations
As the system will be dealing with sensitive university data, there are several security
considerations to keep in mind. The primary concerns are highlighted below, with the suggested
strategy for mitigating the security risks:

Security Risk Likelihood Mitigation Strategy

Unauthorized organizational Moderate Role-based user

members, such as students, authentication on the UCMS
accessing sensitive data
regarding grades and
academic outcomes

External data breach Low Data encryption, strong

security protocols like SSL
and 2-Factor Authentication

Denial-of-Service (DoS) Moderate Implement rate limiting,

Attack cloud-based DDoS protection
services (e.g., AWS Shield,
Cloudflare), and server load
balancing to ensure system
availability

Contamination from malware High Incident response plan, using

anti-virus and annual
software security auditing
The security considerations above will ensure that the system remains operational and safe,
within the current IT security landscape.

Conclusion
The feasibility analysis supports UCMS as a viable project for Bright Horizons. The project
should move forward as the feasibility criteria above indicates positive outcomes.

Evaluation of the Importance of the Feasibility Criteria

It is crucial to evaluate the relevance of the feasibility criteria assessed above, in order to ensure
that the conclusion holds up. Each criterion comes accompanied by reasoning, as well as a set
of advantages and advantages. Some of these are outlined below.

1. Market Feasibility

In the age of rapid technological advancement, the market for new systems is rife with
competition. It is easy to overestimate the viability of a new product, only for it to get eaten up by
competitors. In order to ensure that the UCMS flourishes in such a market, an analysis of
industry demand and competitors was done. This revealed the security of such a product as
user demand continues to inflate, while the competitor analysis brought to light how the system
will have a competitive edge over pre-existing solutions on the market, even having the potential
to be scaled up to generate further revenue.

These conclusions could not have been made without the criterion of market feasibility.
However, it carries some strengths and weaknesses.

Advantages

a. Examining the market feasibility checked if the system matched the current demands of
the industry, as well as user expectations.

b. It aided in identifying the competitive edge that the UCMS will hold over preexisting
solutions like Moodle and Blackboard.

c. It will boost the confidence of stakeholders in the UCMS, as a clear market need for the
system is demonstrated.

Disadvantages

a. Market demand may shift due to rapid advancement and unforeseen trends, thereby
rendering the market feasibility assessment void.
 b. The presence of strong competitors, like Moddle and Blackboard, may make it difficult
for the UCMS to gain traction in the market, even despite its clearly demonstrated
competitive edge.

c. The current market feasibility analysis may overlook other practical obstacles or
opportunities in the market for the UCMS, as it is largely theoretical.

2. Technical Feasibility

The criterion of technical feasibility was vital to verify if the UCMS can be developed through the
university’s resources. This revealed that only is it viable to be built through minimal resources,
but that it can also be scaled up. Despite these advantages, some disadvantages are attached
to the criterion as well.

Advantages:

a. The criterion-driven evaluation determined if all needed technological equipment, along

with qualified personnel, exist to develop the system.

b. Future technical challenges are prevented through the analysis of technical feasibility,
thereby enabling smooth project deployment.

c. The integration of the system with relevant preexisting university systems, as well as its
overall scalability, were uncovered through the technical feasibility analysis.

Disadvantages:

a. New technology integration into current systems demands extensive time investments
for proper implementation, which might be overlooked by the technical feasibility
analysis.

b. Unforeseen by the criterion, additional hiring or training expenses may occur because
skilled IT experts are needed to implement the system.

c. The criterion didn’t account for potential technical problems that may emerge
unexpectedly, potentially resulting in additional expenses and time delays.

3. Organizational Feasibility

Through the criterion of organizational feasibility, it was highlighted that UCMS could easily
integrate with preexisting university systems. Certain regulations for compliance were also
found. Furthermore, the roles of stakeholders in supporting the development and
implementation of the system were identified.
Advantages:

a. The criterion was successful in highlighting the compatibility of the UCMS with the
university’s operational structure and workflows.

b. Relevant regulations, that the UCMS would be subject to within the scope of the
organization, were identified.

c. Through this criterion, the supporting roles that stakeholders will have to play were
highlighted.

Disadvantages:

a. The operational feasibility analysis did not account for potential bottlenecks that may
emerge with the integration of the UCMS with preexisting university systems, which may
cause time and financial losses to accumulate.

b. The stakeholder supporting roles that were outlined may be misaligned with the culture
and values of the university.

4. Financial Feasibility

Similar to market feasibility, the criterion of financial feasibility assessed the economic viability
and sustainability of the UCMS. It revealed the approximate budget of its development and
implementation, along with using the CBA (cost benefit analysis) to demonstrate the significant
costs that the university will save. Without this criterion, these findings could not have been
uncovered. Regardless, it still has certain disadvantages meshed with the advantages.

Advantages:

a. The financial feasibility analysis determined if the UCMS represented a successful cost-
efficient solution with solid return on investment performance.

b. The criterion uncovered that the UCMS will enable administrators to obtain opportunities
for expense reduction, along with the ability to automate repetitive administrative
procedures.

c. It also found that the university can generate further revenue through partnerships and
sponsorships on the UCMS.

Disadvantages:

a. A measurable financial return on investment in the UCMS requires significant time for
the benefits to appear in measurable form.
 b. There is the risk that the financial feasibility analysis underestimated the cost of
developing and implementing the UCMS. Another criterion could have identified potential
unexpected costs.

5. Schedule Feasibility

The criterion of schedule feasibility enabled the assessment and outlining of the approximate
schedule through which the UCMS will be developed and subsequently implemented. Through
this analysis, a timing concern was identified and the demand for a methodology that will enable
design and development to parallelly take place was uncovered.

Advantages:

a. The criterion enabled the development of a comprehensive implementation schedule,

enabling optimal resource allocation and minimizing time-related difficulties.

b. The criterion-driven schedule will enable both students and faculty members to begin
using new systems quickly after deployment.

c. Through this criterion, the methodological needs of the UCMS development and design
were also identified.

Disadvantages:

a. Dependencies unforeseen by the schedule feasibility analysis can lead to delays and
bottlenecks.

b. Due to the scheduling analysis prioritizing fast development, the execution of tasks in
short periods may shorten development quality, as rushed processes could generate
programming errors and system faults.

6. Security Concerns

Although security concerns are not necessarily a direct feasibility criteria, the inclusion of this
variable in the feasibility study allowed for the recognition of pressing security threats that the
university might face through the UCMS, as well as efficient mitigation strategies and the
likelihood.

Advantages:

a. The security concerns section successfully evaluated the different threats to data and IT
security.
 b. Exploring this variable led to the development of mitigation strategies of potential data
and IT security threats.

c. The exploration of security concerts also enabled the categorization of each threat
according to its likelihood.

Disadvantages:

a. Security threats unforeseen by the security analysis may arise.

b. The security protocols highlighted as mitigation strategies may create complications for
users while accessing the system.

In a nutshell, the feasibility criteria in the system investigation that took place in the feasibility
study are both boosted by advantages and weighed down by certain advantages. Ultimately, the
scales tip in the favor of the inclusion of these criteria, as well as the assessments enabled by
them, since the positives outweigh the negative. These feasibility criteria uncovered valuable
findings that led to a concrete conclusion on the viability of the UCMS.

Critical Evaluation of Methodological Strengths/Weaknesses and the

Feasibility Study for the UCMS
Undertaking a critical evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses offered to the UCMS by agile
and traditional system analysis methodologies, as well as the feasibility study done above, is a
key step before commencing its design phase.
Traditional Methodologies:

Strengths

1. Smooth Project Management:

The project management process will become smoother through the established structural
sequence that starts with requirement gathering and leads to design before implementation, and
the testing phase prior to deployment. This will ensure the smooth and linear development of
the UCMS.

2. Accurate Schedules and Budget Estimates:

In applying a traditional methodology like Waterfall or Spiral, the UCMS will have to follow a
planned approach to create foreseeable time schedules and budget estimates during each
phase.

3. Maintenance Ease:
The development process includes complete document compilation which promotes
maintenance ease and knowledge preservation, enhancing the lifecycle of the UCMS.
4. Suited to Stable Environments:
This approach delivers its best performance under stable requirement circumstances, which is
ideal for an academic institution.

Weaknesses

1. Inflexibility:
The project becomes less adaptable after its initiation because the design process is resistant to
modifications in requirements, potentially making the UCMS static and unable to reflect evolving
academic trends and standards, which is an important requirement in the evolving field of higher
education.

2. Higher Chances of Stakeholder Dissatisfaction:

The product is revealed to the stakeholders at the very end which leads to higher chances of
dissatisfaction when final products do not match their expectations. Thus, following a traditional
methodology may cause the UCMS to accumulate a gap between user expectations and the
final system delivered.

3. A Singular Delay Leads to Overall Project Delay:

The delay of any single project phase leads to complete project duration extension, which is
likely to happen in a system like the UCMS with multiple technical features and a complex
backend infrastructure.

Agile Methodology:

Strengths

1. Flexibility:
Changing requirements during a project receive easier implementation because Agile
methodologies permit modifications regardless of the current stage of the project. This will help
the UCMS stay aligned with changing requirements that emerge in the evolving field of
education. For example, improving grading mechanisms through developing AI-detection
features and other new technologies that students begin using.

2. Higher Chances of User Satisfaction:

As regular stakeholder participation is a hallmark of agile methodologies, the project maintains
alignment with their set expectations until the final delivery. This will aid the UCMS in having a
higher user satisfaction with its various users i.e learners, lecturers and administrators.

3. Increased Testability:
Throughout the development process, Agile methodologies enable the delivery of operational
features in short portions to allow testers and users to adopt, as well as examine the work,
which will release a testable and iterative UCMS.
4. Collaborative Approach:
Agile methodologies encourage close collaboration between developers, stakeholders, and end-
users which leads to constant project refinement, potentially boosting the quality of the UCMS.

Weaknesses:

1. Inaccurate Project Schedule and Cost Estimate:

Embracing Agile methodologies leads to the downside of not being able to accurately predict
when a project will end and how much it will cost due to the frequent changes. This could delay
the delivery of the UCMS and exceed development costs beyond the allocated budget.

2. Existence of a Learning Curve:

Team members inexperienced with Agile methodologies, which are not as straightforward as
traditional methodologies, might contribute to bottlenecks and delay the delivery of the UCMS.

3. Insufficient Documentation:
Since working software takes precedence over documentation in Agile methodologies, the
issue of insufficient documentation can potentially arise. This can create problems in the
maintenance of the UCMS.

4. Scope Creep:
The scope of projects tends to expand beyond limits when multiple modifications occur, which
may cause the final iteration of the UCMS to be distant from the original conceptualization.

Taking these strengths and weaknesses into consideration, Agile Modeling (AM) should be the
selected methodology as the UCMS project requires ongoing stakeholder feedback and
potential post-development modifications due to the nature of the education field. This will also
suit its short development timeline of 1 month and 2 weeks which necessitates parallel tasks.
System development through Agile will allow fast development cycles and continuous
optimization so the system stays in line with evolving user requirements. However,
documentation and scope review must be prioritized to overcome the limitations of Agile
methodologies.

Evaluation of UCMS Feasibility Study

The feasibility study done above comes with the following merits and pitfalls.

Strengths:

1. Comprehensive Market Analysis:

The feasibility study analyzed existing industry demands while performing competitor analysis
and collecting information about the users' needs. Thus, the analysis effectively demonstrates
how the UCMS delivers the clients' customized solutions at affordable prices.

2. Clearly Assessed Technical Feasibility:

The document outlined suitable technologies (HTML, CSS, JS, Python and MySQL) while
considering implementation simplicity against technical complexity, offering the economical
advice to the institution of utilizing their existing IT department for the development.

3. Identified Stakeholder Role in Organizational Feasibility:

The feasibility study showed recognition for stakeholder backing and operational connections for
development support. It was effective in this, concluding with the recommendation of a
procedure for training users to enable successful system adoption.

4. Elaborate Financial Feasibility:

The feasibility study produced precise budget estimates and identification of monetization
opportunities. Through its proposed financial advantages, the system will provide the university
with cost reductions in administration. Ultimately, this will boost student enrollments.

5. Identified Security Threats:

The feasibility study was successful in identifying vital security threats and presenting well-
founded solutions for defense, laying out the foundation for a secure UCMS.

Weaknesses:

1. Limited Competitor Analysis:

The feasibility study lists Moodle Blackboard and Canvas as competitors yet offers little detailed
information about what makes these platforms less suitable. A more detailed feature
comparison would function as an effective addition to bolster the argument.

2. Limited Risk Assessment:

Significant weight is put weight on security risks while overlooking the identification of alternative
potential risks, such as operational ones, which might cause project delays, user adoption
issues and technical hurdles.

3. Scheduling Concerns:
A 1 month period, combined with 2 weeks, to complete the project appears highly challenging.
This may lead to the rushed and unrefined development of the UCMS>

Overall Assessment:
The feasibility report successfully addresses key criteria related to market opportunity
recognition, technical feasibility and organizational backing and security requirements. However,
it needs strengthened assessment of risks and competitors while also presenting a detailed
methodology review to suit the parallel, time-bound needs of the project .
System Review Using Agile Modelling (AM) Methodology
The development and deployment of the University Course Management System (UCMS) at
Bright Horizons should utilize Agile Modeling (AM) as the most appropriate methodology. The
model known as Agile Modeling enables organizations to complete development cycles through
iterative sprints which receive constant stakeholder input and provides adaptable solutions, thus
matching the needs of the university for a flexible and effective system.

The following features of Agile Modelling (AM) make it ideal for this business problem:

1. Iterative Development and Prototyping

The UCMS development will follow short work cycles known as sprints which permit immediate
updates leading to successive rounds of improvements. Before final deployment, the core
system features will undergo prototype testing which will lead to their refinement.

2. Active Stakeholder Participation

The software development process will incorporate continuous feedback from end users i.e
professors, students and administrative staff. The feedback received from these users will aid in
ranking essential functions to meet practical demands.

3. Simplicity and Continuous Refinement

The system design will design with the basic essential features, followed by refinement and
extra features based on user needs. These design improvements will be made by developers
through repeated usability testing and performance assessment.

4. Collaboration and Adaptability

The project implementation will occur through continual collaboration between the teams of IT
developers, faculty representatives and administrators. Any modifications to the system will
occur because of institutional development or regulatory changes.

5. Faster Product Delivery

As outlined in the feasibility study, the UCMS has a short development period. Agile Modelling
(AM) will allow for parallel phases and team collaboration which will ultimately result in faster
delivery of the UCMS to end users.

The aforementioned points demonstrate that through the application of Agile Modeling, the
development process for UCMS will proceed efficiently with flexibility innovations to suit the
university requirements.

Assessing the Effectiveness of the Methodology

Agile Modeling (AM) shows effectiveness for developing the University Course Management
System (UCMS) because it offers adaptable structures, multiple development cycles and
stakeholder-informed processes. The following elements demonstrate how AM is effective for
resolving Bright Horizons' business problem:

1. Flexibility and Responsiveness to Change

a. The Agile method enables regular modifications to the system through feedback
received from students, professors and administrators.

b. Changes within student education management processes like course structures and
grading systems can occur without interrupting the whole system.

2. Faster Time-to-Market

a. Agile methodology delivers initial access to the most vital application modules such as
student enrollment procedures and grade tracking systems through incremental version
releases.

b. The multistage deployment strategy accelerates the system delivery process as it boosts
the implementation time.

3. Improved Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement

a. Organizational shifts toward regular review sessions help maintain user participation so
end-users can prevent business and technical requirements from becoming mismatched
with the design.

b. The system operations undergo continuous validation procedures from lecturers, along
with students and administrators, who confirm the system delivers what they need.

4. Risk Reduction and Quality Assurance

 a. Testing occurs repeatedly after sprints which helps detect problems and solve them
efficiently before bigger issues arise.

b. Perpetual security risk assessments combined with system updates will prevent the
exposure of sensitive stakeholder data to unauthorized users.

5. Scalability and Long-Term Viability

a. The modular approach to development will enable the organization to scale their
systems, which makes them ready to accept new AI-driven features and reporting
analytics in the future.

b. The institution can extend the system to different universities without substantial
modifications to its design.

Criteria Assessment Impact on UCMS Development

Flexibility & High Allows continuous adjustments based on

Responsiveness to stakeholder feedback without disrupting the entire
Change system.

Faster Time-to-Market High Incremental releases ensure core features are

available early, reducing waiting time.

Collaboration & High Regular sprint reviews involve students,

Stakeholder professors, and administrators.
Engagement

Risk Reduction & High Iterative testing identifies issues early, preventing
Quality Assurance large-scale failures.

Scalability & Long- High Modular development allows future

Term Viability enhancements without major redesigns.

Thus, Agile Modelling (AM) emerges as a suitable methodology for the UCMS. It provides
feedback-informed development, parallel iterative phases which speed delivery time,long-term
viability and the high flexibility which is ideal for evolving educational trends.

Justifying the Methodology Choice

The following justifications solidify the choice of Agile Modelling (AM) as the appropriate
methodology, given the context of the UCMS.
1. Frequent User Feedback & Collaboration Ensures a Seamless User Experience
A necessary requirement for UCMS is its operation as an intuitive system for all academic
users, including students and teaching staff along with administrative personnel. It needs to be
ensured that students, professors and administrators can use the system to accomplish
standard operations that include course enrollment, grade tracking and assignment upload
abilities.

Why Agile Modelling (AM)?

Students and faculty members gain access to development activities under Agile principles
allowing feedback before the system construction finalizes. This ensures that:

a. Users can easily understand and complete the registration procedures as usability
issues are identified and eliminated through user feedback.

b. Academic staff members can submit and handle their educational content in an efficient
manner without facing complicated processes.

c. Real-life user feedback supports the maintenance of system interface usability and
accessibility, as well as interface response speed.

Example
Agile Modelling (AM) has shown high potential in educational contexts (Salza et al., 2019), from
being used in classroom settings to the development of educational software.

2. Incremental and Iterative Development will Ensure Early Release of Basic System
Functionalities
Core student registration, along with grade management functionalities, must primarily as they
form the foundational features of the UCMS, while supplementary features will be implemented
at a later time according to the UCMS requirements.

Why Agile Modelling (AM)?

Through Agile Modelling, students and professors can benefit from obtaining crucial UCMS
features including course enrollment and grade reporting functionalities before additional
enhancements take place. This ensures:

a. The university can enable course enrollment and grade monitoring functions right away
even though certain non-essential features (analytics) remain under development.

b. Professors gain access to upload courses and administer assignments through UCMS
during its initial deployment stages.

c. The identification of bugs and usability issues occurs before UCMS gets released across
the entire system.
Example
Longitudinal research has shown that Agile Modelling (AM) tends to improve the efficiency of
software delivery in various applications, reducing the delivery time (Heikkilä et al., 2015).

3. Academic Policy Updates Need Flexible Infrastructure

The UCMS must be adaptable to potential university policy changes for grading. enrollment and
course structures without accumulating excessive system development costs.

Why Agile Modelling (AM)?

The Agile methodology will enable Bright Horizons to handle changing requirements as it will
readily accept these evolving demands.

a. For example, new grading scales and other changes can be integrated without
postponing the execution of any system elements because of the adaptive nature of the
methodology.

b. The UCMS enables new modules and hybrid learning options to be added without
affecting operational functionalities.

c. Continuous improvements in data privacy regulations as well as security measures

become possible through real-time implementation rather than system-wide
reconstruction.

Example
Research on the application of Agile methods to software projects has demonstrated high
flexibility in features, as well as significant user satisfaction (Aldave et al., 2019).
4. Effective Risk Management will Ensure Secure Handling of Student Data
The database of the UCMS needs to maintain sensitive academic records which include grades.
as well as enrollment information. Hence, the system security protocols must be built strongly to
stop breaches of confidential data and to prevent unauthorized users from accessing
information.

Why Agile Modelling (AM)?

Agile conducts real-time security validations and testing processes that avoid security risks from
remaining unaddressed after system completion. This means:

a. The testing of role-based access controls (students, professors, admins) during each
development phase helps stop unauthorized data release.

b. System developers will double-check the encryption and authentication protocols during
the pre-deployment stage to ensure compliance with UAE education standards and any
global data protection regulations.
 c. Systematic threat identification of cyber intrusions will allow Bright Horizons to mitigate
significant security threats.

Example
Research has shown that Agile development achieves standard software security through user
feedback, stakeholder involvement and iterative testing (Bartsch, 2011).

5. Iterative Parallel Phrases will Ensure Timely Development

The software development of the UCMS needs to maintain a balanced budget and achieve
implementation within one month and two weeks according to the feasibility study.

Why Agile Modelling (AM)?

The Agile features within this model lead to the following:

a. Parallel iterative phases significantly reduce development time.

b. The system development starts with constructing essential features that enable user
registration and grading functions to provide early functional benefits.

c. To prevent both development time wastage and additional costs, the system avoids
unnecessary functionalities in the early versions.

d. Essential system repairs and enhancements are maintained by development teams who
can efficiently improve operational function at no extra development costs.

Example
An investigation into Agile effectiveness shows that Agile methodologies, such as Agile
Modelling (AM) lead to the fast and continuous delivery of high quality software (Moniruzzaman
& Hossain, 2013).
Given these justifications, I selected Agile Modeling (AM) for developing the UCMS because it
supports its ideal development scenarios. Due to its capability to provide early functional parts
and adapt to academic regulations, along with enhancing security measures and cost reduction
features, Bright Horizons should use this methodology for their business needs.

Requirements
The system design will attempt to adhere to the following user and system requirements.

User Requirements:

1. Students need an easily navigable platform, one that will offer straightforward use in
both course enrollment and grade monitoring features.

2. Teachers and professors need tools to administer courses, as well as monitor and grade
the performance of their students.

3. Administrative teams need smooth operations, automations in repetitive processes and

improved recordkeeping, as well as reporting features

Functional System Requirements:

The operational specifications for the UCMS establish particular requirements, including:

1. Student Registration and Enrollment

 a. The application must enable secure account creation, followed by safe log-in
procedures.

b. Each student should be able explore listed courses with their corresponding descriptions
and details.

c. Under given deadlines, students must be able to register for courses or drop them.

d. The system must allow administrators to confirm or deny the requests of student
enrollment.

2. Course Management

a. Professors must have the control to upload new courses, along with updating or erasing
existing ones.

b. Through the system, professors must have access to upload all teaching resources,
starting from lectures, through readings to assignments.

c. Each enrolled student must have the option to download all course content directly from
their enrolled classes.

d. Teachers must have the ability to add both assignment due dates, along with
submission requirements for students.

3. Grade Management

a. The professors must have full authority to set grades, update them and make final grade
announcements.

b. Students should access grading results to see all their grades along with any other
academic performance data, such as teacher feedback.

c. Professors maintain the ability to deliver feedback together with grades to students.

4. Reporting and Analytics

a. The system needs to provide faculty members with tools for generating performance
reports about their students.

b. Students and faculty members need to be able to monitor both basic completion
statistics and overall grade performance.

5. User Authentication and Authorization

 a. Students should authenticate using their student role while professors should be able to
use their professor profiles, along with administrative roles for administrators

b. System users must have access to secure login procedures, as well as password
recovery methods.

Non-Functional System Requirements:

The system quality attributes will be derived from these non-functional requirements.

1. Security

a. Role-based access control (RBAC) must function as a method to block unauthorized

users from entering the system.

b. The system should use encryption to protect important information such as grades,
alongside other student records.

c. The system needs to deliver protected authentication methods through multi-factor

authentication systems (MFA).

d. The system must adhere to mitigation techniques for the security risks identified in the
feasibility study, along with an incident response plan.

2. Performance and Scalability

a. The system must be capable of handling simultaneous usage by various users.

b. The system needs flexible capacity to handle a higher number of enrolled students
throughout time periods.

3. Usability and Accessibility

a. The system should present users with an easy-to-use interface which enables
straightforward navigation.

b. The system must have intuitive adaptability for users accessing it through smartphones,
tablets and laptop screens.

c. The system must adhere to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) for ensuring
universal access.

4. Availability & Reliability

 a. The system needs to operate continuously at a complete availability rate.

b. Student records must be secured by backup systems that enable instant recovery if
information is lost.

These requirements lay the foundation for the UCMS design plan, as well its eventual
evaluation.

Design Specification

Version Author Description of Date Completed

Version

1.0 Anusha Asim Initial Release 27/03/2025

1. Introduction

1.1 Scope
This design specification document outlines the architecture, features and technical
requirements for Bright Horizons' University Course Management System (UCMS). It aims to
serve as a guide for developers to guarantee adherence to the user requirements and system
objectives outlined in the requirements document above.

1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to define the system design, its behavior, interface and
security. The document will provide visualizations and explicit directions to enable smoother
development, making sure that the UCMS will meet performance, usability and scalability
requirements.

1.3 Definitions, Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym Meaning

UCMS University Course Management System

AM Agile Modelling

2. System Overview

The Level 0 Data Flow (contex) diagram (Figure 1) provides a high-level overview of the
system and its components, illustrating the flow of the core processes that must be kept in sight
during the development stages.
Level 0 (Context) Data Flow Diagram

FIGURE 1

An exemplary flow within the system is depicted at the student level below, displaying the case
of a student registering for a course. This must be prioritized during the initial sprints and
iterations.

Following this, a Level 1 Data Flow Diagram (see Figure 2) can be referred to.

Level 1 Data Flow Diagram

This Level 1 Data Flow Diagram depicts the core subprocesses of assignment uploading,
review and grading.

FIGURE 2

Going into more detail, the Level 2 Data Flow Diagram (see Figure 3) depicts the process
through which a faculty member may update their profile details on the UCMS. Being an
additional feature, this must only manifest in future iterations after all key functionalities are
successful. Essentially, it is not a primary focus.

Level 2 Data Flow Diagram

FIGURE 3

Revisiting the essential requirements, the flowchart below (Figure 4) depicts the lecturer flow of
uploading a lesson on the UCMS and administering a quiz. This is one of the key functionalities
of the UCMS.

Flowchart Depicting Lesson and Quiz Upload on UCMS

FIGURE 4

2. System Components
The primary components of the system and their relationships are depicted in terms of their
relational contexts in the Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) below (Figure 5). The earlier
iterations of the UCMS can focus primarily on students and faculty i.e lecturers, then
subsequently expand to include administrator roles and processes in future iterations.

Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD)

FIGURE 5

Closing in from the macro level, the following use case diagrams depict potential actions by the
primary actors of the UCMS i.e faculty and students.

Use Case Diagrams

FIGURE 6
3. Interface

User-friendliness and navigation ease is prioritized in the interface of the UCMS.

3.1 Graphical User Interface (GUI)

The following high-fidelity wireframe prototypes depict key pages of the UCMS, at the faculty
and student level.

High-Fidelity Wireframe 1 - Registration Page (For students)

High-Fidelity Wireframe 2 - Log in Page (For faculty and students)

High-Fidelity Wireframe 3 - Grade Management Page (For faculty)

High-Fidelity Wireframe 4 - Grades Viewing Page (For students)

High-Fidelity Wireframe 5 - Timetable Page (For students)
High Fidelity Wireframe 6 - Assignments Page (For students)
4. Tools and Technologies
The UCMS development system will have an organized technology stack to ensure operational
efficiency as well as scalability and security features. The University's IT department can
manage the selected tools and technologies.

4.1 Front-End (User Interface)

Technologies:
HTML, CSS, JavaScript

The designed interface aims to offer students, along with faculty members and administrative
users, straightforward access to the UCMS platform through an easy-to-navigate and interactive
interface.

These technologies serve this need as they will allow cross-platform operations and create
user-friendly interfaces which lead to improved accessibility.

4.2 Back-End (Processing Layer)

Technology:
Python
The core of the UCMS performs business procedures (like student enrollment), along with user
request handling and system operation administration.

Thus, it gains benefits from Python due to its versatility, readability and the comprehensive
libraries at its disposal.

4.3 Database (Data Management)

Technology:
MySQL

The UCMS will also function as a data repository for academic records that contain student
profiles, along with course enrollment data, grades and staff data.

These databases can be hosted on MySQL, which acts as a tool for managing academic data
through structured storage, optimized querying and dependable operations when processing
high volumes of academic data.

4.4 Hosting & Deployment

Tool:
Heroku

The cloud infrastructure of Heroku will provide the UCMS with hosting services, serving both the
availability and scalability needs.

This deployment system becomes more efficient due to the cloud infrastructure of Heroku, while
its automatic infrastructure ensures minimal maintenance operations.

4.5 Security Measures

Technologies:
SSL encryption, user authentication, secure access controls

These technologies will protect sensitive student and faculty data from unauthorized access and
cyber threats. Compliance with security standards and protection of academic records will be
achieved through this combination of encryption and authentication protocols.

This technology selection allows the UCMS to provide high performance and security, along
with ease of use as well as technical feasibility for the university's IT staff to create and support
the system.

4.6 Test Plan

Testing will be a vital part of development as the completion of each sprint will lead to a round of
testing. A tentative testing plan is outlined below:
 Sprint Testing Focus Test Cases

Sprint 1 User authentication, 1. Verify login/logout

database integration functionality.
2. Test account creation and
password resets.
3. Ensure database stores and
retrieves user data correctly.

Sprint 2 Course enrollment, 1. Ensure students can

grading, and enroll/drop courses.
assignment uploads 2. Verify professors can grade
assignments.
3. Test file upload/download
functionalities.

Sprint 3 Data protection, secure 1. Validate encryption of stored

access user data.
2. Implement and test Two-
Factor Authentication (2FA).
3. Check unauthorized access
restrictions.

Sprint 4 Admin control over 1. Ensure admins can

users and roles add/edit/delete users.
2. Validate role-based access
restrictions.
3. Test admin dashboard
functionalities
 Sprint 5 UI/UX improvements 1. Verify screen reader
for accessibility compatibility
2. Ensure high-contrast mode
works correctly
3. Conduct usability testing for
differently-abled users

4.8 Incident Response Plan

In the case of IT security or system malfunction incidents, the incident response plan (IRP)
outlined below can be followed for quick resolution:

Incident Type Response Actions Responsible Team Resolution

Timeframe

System Downtime 1. Identify cause (server IT Department Within 2 hours

issue, database failure,
etc.).

2. Restart affected services.

3. Notify users via

email/system alert.

Data Breach 1. Isolate compromised IT Security Auditor & Within 24 hours

systems. IT Department

2. Investigate breach
source.

3. Notify affected users &

authorities.

4. Implement additional
security measures.

Unauthorized 1. Lock compromised IT Security Auditor Within 4 hours

Access accounts.
 2. Analyze access logs.

3. Reset passwords and

enhance authentication.

Lost Data 1. Restore from the latest IT Department Within 6 hours

(Accidental backup.
Deletion)
2. Investigate cause of
deletion.

3. Implement preventive
measures.

Slow System 1. Analyze server load & IT Department Within 8 hours

Performance database performance.

2. Optimize queries and

increase resources if
needed.

Phishing or 1. Block malicious accounts. IT Security Auditor Within 12 hours

Malware Attack
2. Run security scans.

3. Educate users on safe

practices.

4.9 Release Plan

The development of various iterations of the UCMS must align with the Release Plan below.
Assessing the Effectiveness of the System Design
The success of the UCMS design is assessed in terms of its alignment with the user and
system requirements, as well as adherence to the Agile Modelling (AM) process adopted.

Alignment with User and System Requirements

The UCMS design properly satisfies its essential requirements through the following features:

1. Student Registration and Enrollment: The system enables students to complete the
essential processes of registering, viewing course grades and timetables through an easy-to-
use interface.

2. Course Management: The system equips instructors with the ability to upload their lectures,
quizzes, assignments, as well as course resources thus enabling effortless content
organization.

3. Grade Management: The system enables professors to add academic input in the form of
grade entry and management so students can conveniently check their academic outcomes.

4. Reporting and Analytics: The system delivers analytical data through reporting features
(the notification icon) which enables lecturers to look out for submissions and notifies the
students when their academic outcomes are available.

Additionally, the design specification incorporates:

1. Security Measures (e.g., authentication, encryption, role-based access)

2. Scalability (modular design for future enhancements)

3. Accessibility (screen reader support, high-contrast mode for future iterations)

Thus, the system plan showcases its capabilities of fulfilling functional requirements and non-
functional needs via these aspects.

Effectiveness of the Agile Modelling (AM) Methodology

The design plan follows the Agile Modelling (AM) Methodology selected during the pre-planning
phase. It incorporates flexibility, iterative development and user-centeredness.

Agile Modelling Application in UCMS Design Effectiveness

Principle

Iterative Features were broken into sprints High

Development (e.g., core functionalities first,
security later).

User-Centric System design prioritizes usability, Moderate

Approach accessibility, and security.

Incremental Started with core functionalities with High

Design future plans to expand to
administrator actions and
accessibility.

Continuous The design plan incorporates testing High

Testing & into each sprint cycle
Feedback

Advantages of the Design Approach

Using Agile Modelling allowed the UCMS design to adjust to changing needs which enhanced
efficiency and satisfaction for users.

1. The sprint-based method used modular development to handle key features before
planning for additional growth.

2. The combination of Python (backend) with MySQL (database) maintains system

scalability as it processes big academic records with effectiveness.

3. Security Vulnerabilities were reduced early in the plan through the inclusion of features
that brought two-factor authentication (2FA) and encryption capabilities.

4. Within the design plan, enhanced accessibility was the focus of UI/UX design in later
sprints to achieve better user experience across the system.

Limitations and Challenges

 1. Student, faculty and administrator permission management require advanced
implementation to avoid security vulnerabilities, which might require expanding the
technological stack.

2. Future usage of MySQL to handle large academic datasets will need optimization
strategies, along with index creation, to achieve ideal performance.

3. A drawback exists in cloud hosting as Heroku simplifies development but external cloud
usage leads to potential long-term expense costs.

4. There is an absence of advanced analytical features such as automated report

generation.

The design plan specifically reflects these strengths and limitations, along with unique ones.

Requirement Effectiveness Gaps

Student Registration Secure login, course exploration, Admin approval for enrollment
& Enrollment enrollment/drop options. not mentioned.

Course Management Professors can manage courses, No mention of assignment

upload materials, and submission deadlines.
assignments.

Grade Management Professors can set/update No details on grade history or

grades; students can view them. downloadable reports.

Reporting & Analytics Faculty can generate student No mention of advanced

performance reports, which analytical features like
students can view. automated reports.

Authentication & Secure login with role-based No details on password

Authorization access control. recovery methods.

Performance & Cloud-based system ensures No details on handling peak

Scalability reliability. loads.

Availability & Cloud hosting ensures uptime and Backup frequency and disaster
Reliability data security. recovery unclear.

Overall Assessment
Under this UCMS system analysis and design approach, all fundamental requirements,
including functionality, user experience, security and scalability are posed to be balanced.
Through Agile Modelling, I achieved a framework that combines structural development with
flexibility to enable iterative testing before completing development stages, leading to cyclical
improvement processes. Future updates will address existing performance optimization issues
and complex role management problems which affect the database system.

The UCMS is planned to be an efficient and rigorous university course management system by
following user requirements, alongside system needs, through the implementation of Agile
Modelling (AM).

References
Tsymbal, L., & Kalenyuk, I., 2023. DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE GLOBAL
EDUCATION MARKET. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-
0742/2023-9-5-266-274.

Ashour, S., 2020. How technology has shaped university students’ perceptions and
expectations around higher education: an exploratory study of the United Arab Emirates.
Studies in Higher Education, 45, pp. 2513 - 2525.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1617683.

Salza, Pasquale, et al. “Agile Methodologies in Education: A Review.” Agile and Lean Concepts
for Teaching and Learning, 25 Oct. 2018, pp. 25–45, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2751-
3_2.

Heikkilä, V., Paasivaara, M., Rautiainen, K., Lassenius, C., Toivola, T., & Järvinen, J., 2015.
Operational release planning in large-scale Scrum with multiple stakeholders - A longitudinal
case study at F-Secure Corporation. Inf. Softw. Technol., 57, pp. 116-140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFSOF.2014.09.005.

Aldave, A., Vara, J., Granada, D., & Marcos, E., 2019. Leveraging creativity in requirements
elicitation within agile software development: a systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw., 157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.110396.

Bartsch, S., 2011. Practitioners' Perspectives on Security in Agile Development. 2011 Sixth
International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, pp. 479-484.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ARES.2011.82.
Moniruzzaman, A., & Hossain, S., 2013. Comparative Study on Agile software development
methodologies. ArXiv, abs/1307.3356.
Student Declaration