Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
5. Acknowledgement
15
6. References
16
Appendices
17
Guiruela, Ramiel B.
+63-977-430-0977
ejason.barretto@gmail.com
+63-905-519-3038
ramielbguiruela@gmail.com
Villegas, Fernando T.
+63-915-149-5830
cedriceduard@gmail.com
OVERVIEW
The purpose of the Capstone Project is to demonstrate the
proponents competence in investigating a research topic and
reporting the findings with full documentation, and complete
tabular presentation in a manner that can be understood by both
an individual knowledgeable in the topic, and an individual
whose advanced training is in another discipline.
Modern life offers a lot of option of services and goods for
consumers. Thus, compared to a decade ago, it can be seen that
peoples expenses are dramatically increasing day by day. As
such, the task of keeping track of ones expenditures has
become essential in setting up a proper budget for days to
come.
General Terms
Budget, Finance, Debt, System, Family, Individual
Keywords
Applications, Android, Play Store, User, IDE, Material Design,
Android Studio
1.
Project Context
1.1.1
Introduction
andeevillegas@gmail.com
1.1.2
1.3
1.4
1.1.3
General Objective
1.1.4
Specific Objectives
Allocation of Expenditures
Debt Management
Generation of Reports
1.6
Definition of Terms
1.5
Tracking of assets/money
2.
Review of the Related Literature and
Studies or System
This chapter covers the following: Local Literature, Local
Studies, Foreign Literature and Foreign Studies.
Local Literature
2.3
Foreign Literature
Local Study/Systems
1.2
Foreign Study/Systems
3.
Requirement Analysis
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
Conceptual Paradigm
1.2.4
1.2.5
10
1.2.6
11
1.2.7
12
1.2.8
13
14
Complexity of the application leads to many forms represented in the figure above.
15
1.3
Requirements Documentation
Quantitative Methods
Internet-Based Research
1.4
Technical Background
1.4.1
Product Description
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
User Requirements
User must have a working Android Phone
Knowledgeable in Android Operating System
Able to understand basic English language
System Requirements
512MB RAM
Dual-core 1Ghz
480x800 Display
Recommended System Requirements:
16
1.5
1GB RAM
Quad-core 1.5Ghz
Touchscreen enabled phone
480x800 Display
17
1.6
18
19
1.7
Implementation Plan
1.8
Implementation Result
4.
Summary, Conclusion and
Recommendations
This chapter covers the different aspect of the study
specifically about the findings of the survey, summary and
recommendations.
Summary
1.8.1
1.8.1.1
Design
Total
0%
18
100%
Mean
1 Strongly
Disagree
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
15
83.3%
4 - Agree
11.1%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
5.6%
2 - Disagree
0%
4.78
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
13
72.2%
4 - Agree
27.8%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
0%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
18
100%
Total
Mean
4.72
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
50%
4 - Agree
28.9%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
11.1%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
18
100%
Total
Mean
4.39
20
Rating
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
12
66.7%
4 - Agree
3 Neither
nor Disagree
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
12
66.7%
27.8%
4 - Agree
22.2%
5.6%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
11.1%
2 - Disagree
0%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
18
100%
18
100%
Total
Mean
4.61
Total
Mean
4.56
Rating
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
14
77.8%
4 - Agree
11.1%
Rating
Interpretations
4.51- 5.00
Strongly Agree
3.51 4.50
Agree
2.51 3.50
1.51 2.50
Disagree
3 Neither
nor Disagree
11.1%
1.00 1.50
Strongly Disagree
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
18
100%
Table 6. Mean
Rating
Frequency
5 Strongly Agree
49
4 - Agree
19
2 - Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree
Total
72
Mean
4.62
1.8.1.2
Rating
Functionality
Total
Mean
4.67
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
11
61.1%
4 - Agree
33.3%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
11.1%
2 - Disagree
5.6%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
21
Total
18
100%
Mean
4.50
2.51 3.50
1.51 2.50
Disagree
1.00 1.50
Strongly Disagree
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
13
4 - Agree
Rating
Frequency
5 Strongly Agree
65
72.2%
4 - Agree
18
16.7%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
11.1%
2 - Disagree
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree
0%
18
100%
Total
Mean
Total
90
Mean
4.63
4.61
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
15
83.3%
4 - Agree
16.7%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
2 - Disagree
1 Strongly
Disagree
Total
Mean
1.8.1.3
Usability
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
50%
0%
4 - Agree
44.4%
0%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
5.6%
0%
2 - Disagree
0%
18
100%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
18
100%
4.83
Total
Mean
4.44
Interpretations
4.51- 5.00
Strongly Agree
3.51 4.50
Agree
22
Rating
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
13
72.2%
4 - Agree
22.2%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
5.6%
2 - Disagree
1 Strongly
Disagree
Total
5 Strongly Agree
32
4 - Agree
19
0%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly Disagree
18
100%
Mean
4.67
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
10
55.6%
4 - Agree
38.9%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
5.6%
2 - Disagree
1 Strongly
Disagree
Total
Mean
54
Mean
4.53
1.8.1.4
Maintainability
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
50%
4 - Agree
44.4%
0%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
5.6%
0%
2 - Disagree
0%
18
100%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
18
100%
4.50
Total
Mean
4.44
Rating
Interpretations
4.51- 5.00
Strongly Agree
3.51 4.50
Agree
2.51 3.50
1.51 2.50
Disagree
1.00 1.50
Strongly Disagree
Total
Frequency
Rating
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
12
66.7%
4 - Agree
27.8%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
5.6%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
0%
23
Disagree
Total
18
Mean
100%
4.61
5 Strongly
Agree
13
72.2%
4 - Agree
22.2%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
5.6%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
18
100%
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
44.4%
4 - Agree
44.4%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
11.1%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
18
100%
Total
Mean
4.67
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
14
77.8%
4 - Agree
11.1%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
11.1%
1.8.1.5
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
18
100%
Total
Mean
4.33
Portability
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
13
72.2%
4 - Agree
16.1%
3 Neither
nor Disagree
11.1%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
18
100%
Total
Total
Mean
4.67
Mean
4.61
Rating
Number of
Respondent
Rating
Interpretations
4.51- 5.00
Strongly Agree
3.51 4.50
Agree
2.51 3.50
1.51 2.50
Disagree
1.00 1.50
Strongly Disagree
Percentage
Table 26. Mean
Rating
Frequency
24
5 Strongly Agree
40
4 - Agree
2 - Disagree
Total
1 Strongly Disagree
Mean
Total
54
Mean
4.65
1.8.2
1.8.2.1
Usability
3 Neutral
5%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
20
100%
4.45
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
45%
4 - Agree
35%
3 Neutral
20%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
20
100%
Total
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
45%
4 - Agree
11
55%
3 Neutral
0%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
20
100%
Total
Mean
4.45
Mean
Rating
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
40%
4 - Agree
45%
3 Neutral
15%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
20
100%
Total
Table. 28. The application is user-friendly.
Rating
4.25
Mean
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
10
50%
4 - Agree
45%
4.45
Number of
Percentage
25
Respondent
Respondent
5 Strongly
Agree
10
50%
5 Strongly
Agree
11
55%
4 - Agree
45%
4 - Agree
40%
3 Neutral
5%
3 Neutral
5%
2 - Disagree
0%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
20
100%
20
100%
Total
Mean
4.45
Total
Mean
4.50
Summary of Usability
Table 32. Likert Scale
Rating
Interpretations
4.51- 5.00
Strongly Agree
3.51 4.50
Agree
2.51 3.50
Neutral
1.51 2.50
Disagree
1.00 1.50
Strongly Disagree
Frequency
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
10
50%
4 - Agree
35%
3 Neutral
15%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
20
100%
Total
5 Strongly Agree
46
4 - Agree
45
3 Neutral
2 - Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree
Mean
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
12
60%
4 - Agree
25%
3 Neutral
15%
2 - Disagree
0%
1.8.2.2
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
20
100%
Total
100
Mean
4.37
Functionality
Number of
Percentage
Rating
4.35
Total
26
Mean
4.45
1 Strongly Disagree
Total
80
Mean
4.42
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
11
55%
4 - Agree
30%
3 Neutral
15%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
Total
20
Mean
100%
4.40
1.8.2.3
Maintainability
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
11
55%
4 - Agree
25%
3 Neutral
20%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
20
100%
Total
Mean
4.35
Rating
Rating
Interpretations
4.51- 5.00
Strongly Agree
3.51 4.50
Agree
2.51 3.50
Neutral
1.51 2.50
Disagree
1.00 1.50
Strongly Disagree
Frequency
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
20%
4 - Agree
45%
3 Neutral
35%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
20
100%
Total
Mean
3.85
5 Strongly Agree
44
4 - Agree
26
3 Neutral
10
2 - Disagree
Rating
Number of
Percentage
27
Respondent
5 Strongly
Agree
10
35%
4 - Agree
25%
3 Neutral
25%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
20
100%
Total
Mean
4.25
Interpretations
4.51- 5.00
Strongly Agree
3.51 4.50
Agree
2.51 3.50
Neutral
1.51 2.50
Disagree
1.00 1.50
Strongly Disagree
1.8.2.4
Portability
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
13
65%
4 - Agree
20%
3 Neutral
15%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
20
100%
Total
Mean
4.50
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
14
70%
4 - Agree
15%
3 Neutral
15%
Frequency
2 - Disagree
0%
5 Strongly Agree
25
1 Strongly
Disagree
0%
4 - Agree
19
Total
20
100%
3 Neutral
16
Mean
2 - Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree
Total
60
Mean
4.15
4.55
Number of
Respondent
Percentage
5 Strongly
Agree
15
75%
4 - Agree
0%
3 Neutral
25%
2 - Disagree
0%
1 Strongly
0%
28
1.10 Recommendations
Disagree
Total
20
Mean
100%
4.50
5.
Summary of Portability
Table 48. Likert Scale
Rating
Interpretations
4.51- 5.00
Strongly Agree
3.51 4.50
Agree
2.51 3.50
Neutral
1.51 2.50
Disagree
1.00 1.50
Strongly Disagree
Frequency
5 Strongly Agree
42
4 - Agree
3 Neutral
11
2 - Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree
Total
60
Mean
4.51
1.9
Conclusion
Cloud Syncing
Strong account encryption
QR Scanning for product input
Acknowledgement
6.
References
29
30
Appendices
A. GANTT
CHART OF
DEVELOPMENTA
L SCHEDULE
Activities
Topic Research
Search for topics
Brainstorming
Abstract Making
Title Proposal
Technical Adviser Consultation
Dissertation
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Appendices
T.A. Consultation for
Documentation Approval
Revision of Documentation
Creating Application Prototype
Mobile Application
Development
Resources
Application Drawer
Backend Database
Syncing
Graphs
Reports
Icons
Layout
T.A. Consultation for
Application Checking
Revision for Changes
Application Testing
Initial Testing
Final Testing
Revision for Changes
Fixing bugs or errors
Implementation
Implementation to App Store
July
1
Aug
3
Sept
3
Oct
2
Nov
2
Dec
2
Jan
1
Feb
1
Mar
3 4
B. PRESENTATI
ON OF
FINDINGS
83%
Question #2
Agree
Strongly agree
72%
Question #3
50%
Strongly agree
39%
Question #4
The application matches the prescribed design for the target audience
6%
28%
67%
B. Functionality
Question #1
Question #2
11%
11%
Agree
Strongly agree
78%
Question #3
6%
33%
61%
Agree
Strongly agree
Question #4
Question #5
Agree
Strongly agree
83%
C. Usability
Question #1
6%
Agree
50%
44%
Question #2
Strongly agree
6%
22%
Agree
Strongly agree
72%
Question #3
6%
Agree
56%
39%
D. Maintainability
Question #1
Strongly agree
6%
Agree
50%
44%
Strongly agree
Question #2
6%
28%
67%
Agree
Strongly agree
Question #3
44%
Strongly agree
44%
E. Portability
Question #1
Question #2
6%
22%
Agree
Strongly agree
72%
Question #3
78%
C. SURVEY
FORM
Survey Form
SoftwareTitle: Budget MonitoringApplication (BMA)
Evaluators Name:
Date:
We would like to know the performance status of Budget Monitoring Application (BMA). This
survey is conducted to know the specific setbacks from its users.
Direction: Kindly check ( ) the corresponding level of agreement on the following criteria:
1 Strongly Disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neutral
4 Agree
5 Strongly Agree
Criteria
Usability
1. The overall interface looks good.
2. The application is user-friendly.
3. The application has a great User Interface.
4. The application is easy to understand.
5. The application is easy to learn.
Functionality
1. The application runs smoothly.
2. The application is bug-free; program runs properly.
3. The application accepts user-defined category.
4. The application can generate reports.
Maintainability
1. The application data is easy to manipulate.
2. The application data is secure.
3. The application data can be backup and restored.
Portability
1. The application file size is small.
2. The application is easy to install.
3. The application can be use in any version of Android device.
Page 1 of 1
4 5
D. APPROVAL
SHEET FOR
INITIAL AND
FINAL TESTING
E. CERTIFICATE
OF
IMPLEMENTATIO
N
F. CERTIFICATE
OF AUTHENTIC
AUTHORSHIP
G. USER
MANUAL
H. RSUM
Barretto,Emmanuel JasonG.
Block 29 Lot 8 Casimiro Westville
Homes Bacoor Cavite, Philippines
MobileNo.: +63 947-440-3678
e-Mail: ejasonbarretto@gmail.com
Objective:
To beableto useand apply theknowledgeI learned and theskills I acquired in
Information Technology. To further learn and gain experiencein aprofessional
workingenvironment, at the sametime, to beapart of ateamwhereI could
contributeto thebest of my abilities.
Technical Skills:
AdvanceMicrosoft Office
MySQL
Microsoft SQL Server
Microsoft Access
Visual Basic.net
PHP (Hypertext Preprocessor)
Java
JavaScript
HTML (Hyper Text Markup
Language)
ActionScript
AdobePhotoshop
AdobeFlash
Educational Background:
Adamson University
Bachelor of Sciencein Information Technology
Manila, Philippines
St. AndrewsSchool Paranaque
Secondary
LaHuerta, Paranaque
C++
NetBeans
Visual Studio
Assembly Language(8086)
Sony Vegas
Audacity
Dreamweaver
Basic Software
Troubleshooting
Basic PCHardware
Troubleshooting
2011-present
2007-2011
SeminarsAttended:
MSDN Session at Globe
Makati City
May 2015
Customer Service
Adamson University
2014
Technical Skills:
MySQL
Mac OS X
Microsoft Office
Visual Basic.net
PHP (Hypertext Preprocessor)
Java
JavaScript
HTML (Hyper Text Markup
Language)
ActionScript
Educational Background:
Adamson University
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology
Manila, Philippines
Binakayan National High School
Secondary
Binakayan, Kawit, Cavite
Seminars Attended:
Mozilla Firefox Adamson Seminar
Computer Science AVR, SV Bldg.
Adamson University
2011-2016
2009-2010
October 2014
May 2015
Training:
Magsaysay Group of Companies
Kalaw St., Manila
On-The-Job Trainee
Villegas,FernandoT.
1828 G. Perfercto St.
Tondo, ManilaPhilippines
MobileNo.: +63927-255-8992
E-Mail: andeevillegas@gmail.com
Objective:
To obtain aposition within my chosen field whereI can utilizemy skills as a hardworking, well-educated employeewhileexpandingmy talent, skills.
Technical Skills:
Microsoft Office
MySQL
Microsoft SQL Server
Microsoft Access
Visual Basic.net
PHP (Hypertext Preprocessor)
HTML (Hyper Text Markup
Language)
ActionScript
AdobePhotoshop
AdobeFlash
C++
NetBeans
Visual Studio
Assembly Language(8086)
Sony Vegas
Audacity
Basic Software
Troubleshooting
Basic PCHardware
Troubleshooting
Educational Background:
Adamson University
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology
Manila, Philippines
2011-2016
2010
2006-2010
January 2016
May 2015
2013