Tools and Equipment Monitoring System Results
This Tools and Equipment Monitoring System Results discussed the presentation of results and analysis of data gathered by the proponents.
This study aimed to determine how it affects and meets the users and expert’s needs by using the Tools and Equipment Monitoring System.
This chapter showed the results of the evaluation of the developed system conducted by the proponents.
User’s Evaluation Results of Tools and Equipment Document Thesis Project
The proponents conducted a random evaluation in both administrative office and employees using PSSUQ (Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire) with 15 total of respondents, the results are followed:
Table 18 Users Evaluation Result
| No. | Criteria | Average | Verbal Interpretation |
| System Usefulness | |||
| 1 | User satisfaction how easy to use the system. | 1.46 | Very Useful |
| 2 | Simplicity of the system. | 2.0 | Very Useful |
| 3 | Able to complete the task and scenarios quickly using the system. | 1.86 | Very Useful |
| 4 | Comfortability of the system. | 2.13 | Very Useful |
| 5 | The system is easy to use and learn. | 1.66 | Very Useful |
| 6 | Become productive quickly using this system. | 2 | Very Useful |
| Mean | 1.85 | Very Useful | |
| Information Quality | |||
| 7 | The system gave error messages that clearly told me how to fix problems. | 1.8 | Very Useful |
| 8 | The system is easy to recover when something went wrong. | 1.93 | Very Useful |
| 9 | The notification is clear. | 2.13 | Very Useful |
| 10 | The information needed is easy to find. | 1.73 | Very Useful |
| 11 | The information was effective in helping me complete the tasks and scenarios. | 1.73 | Very Useful |
| 12 | The organization of information on the system screens was clear. | 1.8 | Very Useful |
| Mean | 1.85 | Very Useful | |
| Interface Quality | |||
| 13 | The interface of this system was pleasant. | 2.2 | Very Useful |
| 14 | Liked using the interface of this system. | 1.86 | Very Useful |
| 15 | This system has all the functions and capabilities. | 2.10 | Very Useful |
| 16 | Over all satisfied with this system. | 1.18 | Very Useful |
| Mean | 1.83 | Very Useful |
| Criteria for Evaluation | Mean | Verbal Interpretation |
| System Usefulness | 1.85 | Very Useful |
| Information Quality | 1.85 | Very Useful |
| Interface Quality | 1.83 | Very Useful |
| Overall | 1.84 | Very Useful |
Table 18 is the User Evaluation Result. It was calculated and resulted in 1.84 which interpret as “Very Useful”.
Experts Evaluation Result
The proponents asked three IT experts to evaluate the system using PSSUQ (Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire) with 5 total of respondents, the results are followed:
Table 19 is the Expert Evaluation Result
| No. | Criteria | Average | Verbal Interpretation |
| System Usefulness | |||
| 1 | User satisfaction how easy to use the system. | 1.60 | Very Useful |
| 2 | Simplicity of the system. | 1.60 | Very Useful |
| 3 | Able to complete the task and scenarios quickly using the system. | 2.20 | Very Useful |
| 4 | Comfortability of the system. | 2.40 | Very Useful |
| 5 | The system is easy to use learn and Use. | 1.60 | Very Useful |
| 6 | Become productive quickly using this system. | 1.40 | Very Useful |
| Mean | 1.80 | Very Useful | |
| Information Quality | |||
| 7 | The system gave error messages that clearly told me how to fix problems. | 2.00 | Very Useful |
| 8 | The system is easy to recover when something went wrong. | 2.40 | Very Useful |
| 9 | The notification is clear. | 1.40 | Very Useful |
| 10 | The information needed is easy to find. | 2.00 | Very Useful |
| 11 | The information was effective in helping me complete the tasks and scenarios. | 1.60 | Very Useful |
| 12 | The organization of information on the system screens was clear. | 1.60 | Very Useful |
| Mean | 1.83 | Very Useful | |
| Interface Quality | |||
| 13 | The interface of this system was pleasant. | 1.60 | Very Useful |
| 14 | Liked using the interface of this system. | 2.40 | Very Useful |
| 15 | This system has all the functions and capabilities. | 1.60 | Very Useful |
| 16 | Over all satisfied with this system. | 1.40 | Very Useful |
| Mean | 1.75 | Very Useful |
| Criteria for Evaluation | Mean | Verbal Interpretation |
| System Usefulness | 1.80 | Very Useful |
| Information Quality | 1.83 | Very Useful |
| Interface Quality | 1.75 | Very Useful |
| Overall | 1.79 | Very Useful |
Table 19 is the Expert Evaluation Result. It was calculated and resulted in 1.79 which interpret as “Very Useful”.
What Chapter IV (Results) Should Contain
Chapter IV of your BSIT capstone documentation presents the FINDINGS of your study, what you discovered when you tested the Tools and Equipment Monitoring System with real users. This chapter is graded on objectivity: present data, don’t argue interpretations (save those for Chapter V).
Standard Chapter IV Outline
- 4.1 Introductionone paragraph restating the research questions.
- 4.2 Demographic Profile of Respondentswho tested the system (department, role, gender, age range).
- 4.3 System Evaluation Resultsusability, accuracy, performance scores.
- 4.4 Hypothesis Testingaccept or reject each hypothesis with statistical evidence.
- 4.5 Summary of Findingsa 1-2 paragraph synthesis (NOT interpretation).
Recommended Evaluation Framework: ISO 25010
Most BSIT capstone panels expect you to evaluate the system against a recognized standard. ISO/IEC 25010Is the most accepted in Philippine universities. Its eight quality characteristics:
- Functional Suitability does the system do what it should?
- Performance Efficiency how fast and resource-light is it?
- Compatibility does it work alongside other systems and on different browsers/devices?
- Usability can a non-technical user operate it?
- Reliability does it stay up and recover from errors?
- Security does it protect data and resist common attacks?
- Maintainability how easy is it to modify and extend?
- Portability can it be deployed to different environments?
Score each characteristic on a 5-point Likert scale via a respondent questionnaire. Aim for at least 30 respondents, a sample size smaller than that won’t satisfy most panel statisticians.
Presenting Survey Results in Tables
Every results section needs at least one table. Standard format for a Likert-scale evaluation:
| Quality Characteristic | Weighted Mean | Verbal Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Functional Suitability | 4.52 | Excellent |
| Usability | 4.41 | Excellent |
| Reliability | 4.28 | Very Good |
| Performance Efficiency | 4.15 | Very Good |
| Overall | 4.34 | Excellent |
The standard verbal interpretations: 4.21-5.00 = Excellent, 3.41-4.20 = Very Good, 2.61-3.40 = Good, 1.81-2.60 = Fair, 1.00-1.80 = Poor. Verify your school’s specific cut-offs.
Common Mistakes in Capstone Results Chapters
- Mixing results with interpretation. Chapter IV presents data; Chapter V interprets it. Saying “the system was excellent because users loved it” belongs in V, not IV.
- Too few respondents. Less than 30 respondents is a red flag. Aim for 30-50 across your target user roles.
- Missing reliability statistics. Calculate Cronbach’s alpha for your questionnaire (≥0.7 is acceptable; ≥0.8 is good).
- No statistical test for hypothesis testing. Use t-test, ANOVA, or chi-square as appropriate. Just listing means is not “hypothesis testing”.
- Tables without captions. Every table needs a number and title: “Table 4.3, Respondent Satisfaction by Department”.
- Forgetting to address negative findings. If one quality scored poorly, name it. Examiners reward honesty; hiding it gets you docked.
Frequently Asked Questions
What should I include in Chapter IV (Results) of a Tools and Equipment Monitoring System capstone?
Chapter IV should contain five sections: 4.1 Introduction restating the research questions, 4.2 Demographic Profile of Respondents (who tested the system), 4.3 System Evaluation Results (usability, accuracy, performance scores by category), 4.4 Hypothesis Testing (accept or reject each hypothesis with statistical evidence), and 4.5 Summary of Findings. Present data objectively, save interpretation for Chapter V.
How many respondents do I need for my capstone evaluation?
Aim for at least 30 respondents across your target user roles (e.g., maintenance staff, supervisors, IT admins). Sample sizes below 30 are statistically weak and a common reason for panel pushback. Distribute the questionnaire to 50-60 respondents to allow for some incomplete responses.
What evaluation framework should I use for a monitoring system?
ISO/IEC 25010 is the most accepted standard in Philippine BSIT programs. Its eight quality characteristics, Functional Suitability, Performance Efficiency, Compatibility, Usability, Reliability, Security, Maintainability, and Portability, give you a structured way to evaluate the system. Score each on a 5-point Likert scale via a respondent questionnaire.
What statistical tests should I use in the results chapter?
For comparing two groups (e.g., before vs after the system): use a paired t-test. For comparing three or more groups (e.g., satisfaction by department): use ANOVA. For categorical relationships (e.g., gender vs preference): use chi-square. Calculate Cronbach’s alpha (≥0.7) for questionnaire reliability. Most BSIT panels accept SPSS, Microsoft Excel’s Data Analysis tool, or free alternatives like JASP.
How do I present negative or low scores in my results chapter?
Present them honestly. If one quality characteristic scored poorly (e.g., Maintainability at 3.1), state the score and name the category in your summary. Hiding negative findings is a common cause for failed defenses, examiners catch it and lose trust in the entire chapter. In Chapter V, you’ll explain the limitation and propose future enhancements that would address it.
Related Capstone Resources
- Best Final Year Projects for IT and CSE Students (2026)
- Final Year Project Ideas for IT Students
- Capstone Project Titles for IT
- Document Management System Reference Project
- DFD for Inventory Management System (related domain)
Inquiries
if you have any questions or suggestions about Tools and Equipment Document Thesis Project , please let me know by dropping your comment below.