practical exercise interface structure diagram using microsoft visio for aviation sys analysis method 2
Hello,
Here are the instructions for this assignment. Thanks:
In this individual practice exercise activity, you will create an Interface Structure Diagram in a physical modeling process. Generally, a systems analyst creates an ISD for each Process in a Level 0 DFD. In this individual practical exercise, you will utilize the data from the two DFD fragments that you created in Module 6.
You will design your ISD to show how a user would navigate through the various screens in the information system.
Requirements
Create your ISD utilizing Microsoft Visio®.
Create a new ISD from ‘scratch’, ensure that you select the Categories (not Featured) menu selection from above the templates that are presented and select General/Basic Diagram. Once you open a basic diagram, select More Shapes/Software & Database/Database/Chen’s Database Notation in the Shapes menu and select Create. You will drag/drop and vertically combine three separate Entity shapes to build each of your interface elements.
You must present name data in text boxes that are reflective of the interface elements (screens, forms, and reports) that will be presented to the users of your inventory management system. You must utilize a tree-type numbering system for the interface elements.
When evaluating the menus, be sure to consider those that might be associated with your aviation-related business.
Your ISD data must address the following requirements:
- Submit your ISD in a Portrait orientation.
- Submit the following data in your ISD:
- Do not follow the data presented in Figure 9-10 in the textbook
- ONE main menu interface element.
- Title the main menu interface element “Main Menu.â€
- Number the main menu interface element ‘0’ (zero) in the top section and “1.1” in the bottom section.
- TWO submenu interface elements under the main menu.
- Title the two submenu interface elements with the same noun-related titles of the two Data Stores in the DFD fragments submitted in Module 6.
- Number the two submenu interface elements as follows:
- “1†and “2†in the top sections.
- “1.1.1†and “1.1.2†in the bottom sections.
- Number the submenu interface elements in the top and bottom sections relative to the main menu numbers.
- THREE interface elements (screens, forms, or reports) per submenu interface element.
- Title the interface elements (screens, forms, or reports) with the same verb-related data of the two processes in the DFD fragments in Module 6. Note: You will have to create a new type of IMS process data for each submenu interface element to fulfill the requirement for THREE interface elements.
- Number the interface elements (screens, forms, or reports) in the top and bottom sections relative to the submenu interface element numbers.
- “1.1,†“1.2,†“1.3†in the top sections for the three interface elements (screens, forms, or reports) of submenu “1.â€
- “2.1,†“2.2,†And “2.3†in the top sections for the three interface elements (screens, forms, or reports) of submenu “2.â€
- “1.1.1†in each of the bottom sections of the three interface elements (screens, forms, or reports) of submenu “1.â€
- “1.1.2†in each of the bottom sections of the three interface elements (screens, forms, or reports) of submenu “2.â€
- Submit your ISD in VSDX file format.
Here is the grading rubic:
MGMT 321 7.2 Practical Exercise Rubric
MGMT 321 7.2 Practical Exercise Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Deliverable Requirements The percentage of the deliverable(s) that meet the assignment’s requirements.
50.0 pts Excellent The deliverable(s) met ALL of the assignment’s requirements. |
45.0 pts Very Good The deliverable(s) met MOST of the assignment’s requirements. |
40.0 pts Satisfactory The deliverable(s) met MANY of the assignment’s requirements. |
35.0 pts Near Failing The deliverable(s) met SOME of the assignment’s requirements. |
0.0 pts Failing The deliverable(s) did NOT meet ANY of the assignment’s requirements. |
50.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Quality of Deliverable(s) The overall quality of the deliverable(s) with regard to the composition and detail.
25.0 pts Excellent The composition and detail of the deliverable(s) was at a VERY HIGH level. |
21.0 pts Very Good The composition and detail of the deliverable(s) was at a HIGH level. |
17.0 pts Satisfactory The composition and detail of the deliverable(s) was at a MODERATE level. |
13.0 pts Near Failing The composition and detail of the deliverable(s) was at a LOW level. |
0.0 pts Failing The composition and detail of the deliverable(s) was at an UNSATISFACTORY level. |
25.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Accuracy of the Deliverable(s) The accuracy of the values presented in the deliverable(s).
25.0 pts Excellent ALL of the data in the deliverable(s) was accurate. |
21.0 pts Very Good MOST of the data in the deliverable(s) was accurate. |
17.0 pts Satisfactory MUCH of the data in the deliverable(s) was accurate. |
13.0 pts Near Failing SOME of the data in the deliverable(s) was accurate. |
0.0 pts Failing NONE of the data in the deliverable(s) was accurate. |
25.0 pts
Total Points: 100.0