Download the complete Computer science topic and material (chapter 1-5) titled AGENT-BASED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM here on PROJECTS.ng. See below for the abstract, table of contents, list of figures, list of tables, list of appendices, list of abbreviations and chapter one. Click the DOWNLOAD NOW button to get the complete project work instantly.
The Project File Details
The problem of performance evaluation is a hydra-headed monster that affects business growth because of non-existence of evaluation process in many organizations. In organizations with an evaluation process in place, performance evaluation is not properly automated; they are usually inconclusive and incomplete due to biased, partial and inadequate handling of performance metrics. In order to achieve the goal of objectivity, credibility and trust in staff appraisal, a system that achieves unbiased, comprehensive and self-information gathering should be provided. This study, therefore, focused on developing an Agent-Based Performance Evaluation System towards addressing these deficiencies.
In developing the proposed system, the spiral model of the Software Development Life Cycle was adopted. The metrics that were used by the system to evaluate performance included attendance, staff’s responsiveness, punctuality and projects. The programming environment used for the development include Netbeans IDE, Hypertext Mark-up Language, MySQL, MySQL DB connector, Apache and PHPmyAdmin. The system/application was evaluated in a social context at T&K printing solutions, Lagos. The company via the Human Resource Manager utilized, tested and evaluated the system on four (4) employees. The evaluation was based on the system’s efficiency and user friendliness/usability.
A model of agent-based performance evaluation system for managing staff-work information and auto-Scoring based on organization’s predefined uniform company-wide appraisal score-weights was developed. An agent-based performance evaluation application was created as an instantiation of the model. The evaluation of the system revealed the manager’s appreciation for the system because employees were glad to have their strengths and weaknesses revealed to them as regards execution of particular projects.
In conclusion, the research found that a proper appraisal of employees can serve as a motivating factor encouraging commitment towards the growth of any organization. It is, therefore, recommended that prompt and unbiased performance appraisal system be deployed by organizations.
Keywords: Performance Evaluation, Agent, Appraisal, Performance Metrics, Auto-Scoring.
Word Count: 303
Title Page i
Table of Contents ix
List of Tables xi
List of Figures xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.2 Statement of the Problem 2
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.2 Uses of Appraisal Systems 7
2.4 Performance Appraisal Objectives 10
2.5 Elements of Performance Appraisal 12
2.7 Different Techniques of Performance Appraisal 13
2.8 Software Agents 18
2.9 Review of Existing Related Performance Evaluation Systems 19
2.11 Summary 27
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction 28
3.1 Proposed System 28
3.2 Adopted Software Development Model 29
3.3 Entity Relational Diagram of the System 31
3.4 Use Case Diagrams 32
3.5 Development tools 34
4.2 Architecture of the Proposed System 38
4.5 Application Graphical Interfaces 45
4.6 Application Platform 59
4.6.1 Software Requirement 60
220.127.116.11 The User Software Requirements 60
18.104.22.168 Hardware Requirement 60
4.7 System Evaluation 60
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction 62
5.1 Summary 62
5.2 Conclusion 63
5.3 Recommendations 63
5.4 Contribution to Knowledge 63
5.5 Suggestion for Further Studies 64
LIST OF TABLES
2.1: Uses of Appraisal System (Source: Davis, 1993) 7
2.2: Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of the Appraisal Techniques 17
2.3: Fuzzy Set definition (Source: Arbaiy & Suradi, 2007) 22
4.1: Staff-response rate per email 40
4.2: Metrics and Weight definition 41
4.3: Metrics and Weight definition with the relevant components 43
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 – A Model of Performance Evaluation System 11
2.2 – The working interface when staff member login to system Jian-wei, 2014) 20
2.3 – The working interface of the customized paper structure for appraisal of employees 21
2.4 – Fuzzy Inference Structure 22
2.5 – A model of performance appraisal system 25
2.6 – A Model of the Performance Appraisal Process 26
3.1 – Original diagram of Spiral model 29
3.2 – Entity-Relation Diagram 32
3.3- Use Case Diagram for Employee 33
3.4- Use Case Diagram for Supervisor 33
3.5- Use Case Diagram for HR Manager 34
4.1 – Architecture of the RTE Performance Evaluation System 38
4.2 – Activity Flow Diagram of the application 44
4.3 – Login Page 45
4.4 – Work Details Page 46
4.5 – Add New Project 47
4.6 – Employee Login Page 48
4.7 – Rate Project Page 49
4.8 – Project Marked as Completed 50
4.9 – Reassigning Project Page 51
4.10 – Employee Portal 52
4.11 – Employee Profile page 53
4.12 – Employee Project page 54
4.13 – Employee Read Message Page 54
4.14 – Employee Send Message Page 55
4.15 – Rating Result Page 56
4.16 – Employee Attendance Page 57
4.17 – Employee Attendance Page 58
4.18 – Employee Attendance Page 58
4.19 – Employee Attendance Page 59
Largely, the need for evaluation is to reward high performing employees, recognize areas for improvement of staff as well as organizations, and provide recommendation in case of un-reconcilable negligence of staff (Shamsuzzoha, 2013) Though these reasons should make any organization want to adopt evaluation system, most organizations that perform evaluations disrupt the system with too many human interpretations or bias. Others run away from implementing these performance systems due to cost Performance evaluations are usually not as effective as they should be because some organization’s performance process lack credibility; no clarity in the aspect of job being evaluated, no standards against which performance is measured (Cintron, 2011). Performance Evaluation is bias, manual, vague and incomplete in most Organizations (Daoanis, 2012). Most Organizations do not have intelligent systems to appraise their staff thereby adopting manual process which injects subjectivity into staff appraisal (Kateřina, 2013). A recent investigation of major U.S organizations revealed that 40% of managers admitted to forging or controlling performance data because it was clear to them that the evaluation served no valuable purpose in the way it was managed in their Organization (Gordon, 2016).
Appraisal system should track targets, accomplishments and projects of each employee, otherwise, a staff is appraised based on human judgments and traits. Employee is then evaluated by finding a score that best characterizes his or her level of performance for every quality rather than the competence and accomplishment of tasks. A need for automation of the process is indicated. Employee performance is essentially identified with employment obligations, which are expected from a worker, and how well those obligations were accomplished. Managers assess their employees’ performance on a yearly or quarterly basis, keeping in mind the end goal, to help them recognize and recommend areas for improvement (Shaout et al., 2014). The cogent components of an effective appraisal and performance system should include regular feedbacks aimed at providing employees with feedbacks expounding employee’s strengths and improvement areas, to deduce appropriate support plans and to help in decision making on issues such as compensations and recommendations (Chris, 2011). Thus, performance evaluation (PE) is key in enhancing the quality of work input, in inspiring staff and making them more engaged. PE additionally introduces a foundation for increment in monthly remuneration and guides an organization in the development of its employee succession and promotion plans (Shaout et al., 2014).
Several appraisal methods, such as graphic rating scale method, forced choice distribution method, behavioural check list method and so on, were used for employee performance appraisal. New methods like Management by Objectives (MBO) and assessment centres have been suggested (Shaout et al., 2014). The need for an efficient performance evaluation system cannot be overemphasized. Review of existing performance evaluation frameworks and systems revealed subjectivity concerns as performance scoring still remains based on human judgementImpraise (Daoanis, 2012), talentpeak (Cintron, 2011), Performly (Lawler, 2012), PeopleGoal (Katerina, 2013), Namely (Boachie-Mensah, 2012), Tessello (Bretz, 1992), and Fego (Kondrasuk, 2011), ClearCompany (Mayhew, 2016), BambooHR (Capterra, 2015) among others, computer-based applications designed to handle employee appraisals are still subject to human biases because the employer/manager have to play some roles in the appraisal process; giving the score, checking the feedback report, sending the feedback report to be sent to the employee, and so on. The need to rid biasness and quit robbing employees of their promotion calls for an intelligent based performance evaluation system.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The problem of performance evaluation is a hydra-headed monster which includes non-existence of the process in many organizations. Organizations that put checks and balances into their operations are few. Those who do, spend hours of valuable man-power trying to manually arrive at the staff performance evaluation. When these are done, various data are exposed to personal bias. At other times the performance evaluation are inconclusive and incomplete as there is no clarity of performance metrics. In order to achieve the goal of objectivity, credibility and trust in staff appraisal, a system that achieves unbiased, comprehensive and self-information gathering should be provided.
Computer-based performance evaluation systems in literature have been limited by lack of sufficient automation and lack of consideration of some relevant evaluation metrics. The search for ideal performance evaluation system remains elusive making it a viable research area.
There is, therefore, the need for a computer-based performance evaluation system that will be staff-centric, task-centric and environment-centric, which this study will focus upon.
1.3 Objective of the Study
The main objective of this study is to develop an agent-based Perfomance evaluation model.
The specific objectives are to:
The tasks undertaken in order to accomplish this research are as follows:
The proposed system only targets employee appraisal and does not extend to other areas of the employee career that are not directly linked to the employees’ performance evaluation. The variables that were of interest in the study, therefore, are those that clearly define the employee in terms of performance.
As the world innovates in technology, computing assumes everywhere and anywhere paradigm, enabling improved service delivery, and supporting seamless productivity. With new organizations joining the ecosystem of products and services management, it is imperative and highly significant to automate staff performance using unbiased and complete model. Such performance approach must put flexibility in centre stage, thereby allowing organizations achieve transparent performance rating for members of staff.
The proposed approach would enable automated appraisal scores for every staff. A manager or project team head can provide weight values to agreed appraisal metrics. Management can detect staff’s attitude to work automatically through intelligent approaches such as Staff-Computer Inactivity Time and Staff-Email response time, among others. An appraisal administrator can view non-editable appraisal scores at will. The system also allows management provide informed judgement and decisions based on the appraisal outputs.
This approach would go a long way in enhancing work-experiences, staff outputs and overall company achievement as they can share and learn from genuine and unbiased appraisal reportage.
All project works, files and documents posted on this website, projects.ng are the property/copyright of their respective owners. They are for research reference/guidance purposes only and the works are crowd-sourced. Please don’t submit someone’s work as your own to avoid plagiarism and its consequences. Use it as a guidance purpose only and not copy the work word for word (verbatim). Projects.ng is a repository of research works just like academia.edu, researchgate.net, scribd.com, docsity.com, coursehero and many other platforms where users upload works. The paid subscription on projects.ng is a means by which the website is maintained to support Open Education. If you see your work posted here, and you want it to be removed/credited, please call us on +2348159154070 or send us a mail together with the web address link to the work, to [email protected] We will reply to and honor every request. Please notice it may take up to 24 – 48 hours to process your request.