CHAPTER I BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Introduction â€œTechnology can change the way students think, learn and revolutionize,â€ says the Chief Executive Officer on Education and Technology (Courte, 2005). Technology also calls for broadening the definition of student achievement to include digital-age literacy, inventive thinking, effective communication and high productivity-skills necessary for students to thrive in the 21st century. According to the report, technology can help deliver significant results when combine with other key factors known to increase achievement, such as clear, measurable objectives; parental and community involvement; increase time spent on task; frequent feedback; and the teacherâ€™s subject-matter expertise. In this age of computers, many educators see it as inevitable that students will someday learn in classrooms without walls, desks, or face-to-face contact with teachers. The gradual degeneration of the conventional examination system manifested in frequent leakage of question papers, manipulation of marks, copying and use of unfair means by all involved (administration not ruled out). This conventional examination system was also referred to as paper-and-pencil tests. This is a fixed-item test in which the student and/or examinee answer the same questions. Fixed-item test waste studentsâ€™ time because they give students a large number of items that are either too easy or too difficult. As a result, the tests give little information about the particular level of ability of each student. With recent advancement in measurement theory and the increased availability of microcomputers in schools, the practice of using electronic examination system may change. Computerized tests may replace paper-and-pencil tests in some instances. These scenarios triggered the researchers to conduct and Electronic Qualifying Examination that would be beneficial to the College of Science. The system being studied would facilitate the systematic storage, updating and retrieval of pertinent examinee data as well as checking and scoring of examinee answers to test questions. It is also able to generate reports ofÂ ratings and statistics of the test scores. However, it does not monitor the usersâ€™ actions and event to block the users. Statement of the Problem Generally, this study sought to determine the operations and performance of an Electronics Qualifying Examination System Compared with the traditional qualifying examination procedure and process. Specifically, it endeavored to answer the following questions: 1. What are the existing problems being encountered on the current conventional qualifying examination? 2. What will be the design of an electronic qualifying examination system in terms of the following: 2.1 Process; 2.2 Data; 2.3 Language; 3. What is the level of acceptability of the proposed system in the College of Science? Objective of the Study In general, this study aimed to determine the performance and operation of an Electronic Qualifying Examination System compare with the current qualifying examination procedure and process. In particular, it envisioned to: 1. Determine the existing problems being encountered on the current conventional qualifying examination; 2. Design an Electronic Qualifying Examination System in terms of the following. 2.1 Process; 2.2 Data; 2.3 Language; and, 3. Ascertain the level of acceptability of the proposed system in the College of Science. Scope and Limitation of the Study This study was conducted in the College of Science, University of EasternÂ Philippines. It is limited only to the performance of the specified functions such as scheduling, the actual examination and the retrieval of the examination results. It is meant to assist the users, especially the examination personnel to meet the needs of the students or applicants. If at present, the facilities and equipment of the College of Science are inadequate, this system may be used in the future. The proposed system was drawn randomly. It will not monitor the user action and even block the user. Moreover, the system will not suggest what would be the appropriate course does the examinee will take. The system does not guarantee complete benefits to all users. This may be bound to happen that some of them might experience technical difficulties that are not covered by the system such as the malfunctioning of the computer. Such scenarios are beyond the control of the system. Nevertheless, this will be more comprehensive and interesting if this will be introduced or presented covering the other services of the College. Significance of the Study The Electronics Qualifying Examination would replace the Paper-pencil-type of examination. It provides easy transaction between the test administrator and the examinee. The results of this study would be beneficial to the following: College of Science. The Proposed system would be beneficial to the College of Science in terms of improving its management system. Through the existence of the proposed system, workflow during the qualifying examination would be minimized. Human resource will be reduced and security will be foolproof. Examinees. This system will provide them a convenient way of taking the qualifying examination. The system provides an instant checking and scoring scale of each examination that would enable them to get their results in a few hours. In this way, they will be able to minimize their time, effort and money splat on each activity. College Guidance Personnel. In general, this system would greatly increase the flexibility of test management. It reduces their time in administering the examination, thus reduces their fatigue also. It also provides them convenience throughout the examination process. They will likewise be able to immediately get feedback whether the given examination is easy or difficult. Future Researchers. This study can be used as a springboard for further study. This can be used as their reference or guide in the development of a system they are going to develop. Definition of Terms For easy understanding, the following terms were defined operationally and conceptually. Conventional Examination. Operationally, it refers to the current system, which is the paper-pencil examination. Data. It is information in a form suitable for processing by a computer, such as the digital representation of text, numbers, graphic, image and sound. Strictly speaking it is mean, an item of information (Cowart, 2000). In this study, this would refer to the information extracted from the examinee, their profile, schedules and results. It represents the facts, concepts or instruction produced by the examinee and the test administrator. Database. Conceptually, it is an application used to store and manipulate data. The application may be a simple one that provides for flat files only and that cannot be programmable, or it may have the capability of producing databases that are programmable and relational (Dictionary of Information Technology, 1995). Operationally, this will be a storage device used to store important data and information in accordance to the system such as examinee profile, schedules and the results of examination. End-User. Conceptually, it refers to the person who uses the application program and computer products to produce his or her own results. This is a person at the end of a long chain of people who design and make computerÂ products. The end user is usually the person who buys the products (Cowart, 2000). It refers to the test administrator and examinees involved in this investigation. Electronic Examination. According to Webster dictionary, to be electronic is to incorporate your work with the use of the computer (The New Webster Pocket Computer Dictionary, 1998). In this study, it is meant to take an examination with the use of a computer system, its hardware software and peripherals. Error. A mistake. An error or bug in the system may cause the computer to crash (Dictionary of Information Technology, 1995). Examinee. Generally speaking, it points to a person taking the actual examination. Password. According to the Websterâ€™s dictionary, a password is a security code that is required in the use of a computer, a particular program, or a certain file. Computer files protected by a password require the user to type the needed password before the protected files can be made available (The New Websterâ€™s Pocket Computer Dictionary, 1998). Operationally speaking, this will be a secret word a user must input into the Computer in order the gain access to the electronic qualifying examination. Problems. Operationally, this refers to the existing obstacles that the Guidance Office is experiencing. The problems encountered were in scheduling, actual examination and the retrieval of results. This is the main reasons why the proponents conducted this study, in order to reduce and lessen the existing problems Procedure. Operationally and conceptually, it is sequence of steps taken by the system to carry out its job. Process. Operationally, it is to carry out an action such as the scheduling process. Profile. Operationally it refers to the personal information of the examinee such as last name, first name, age, gender, ID number, status, address and score in the test/ examination. Report. Conceptually speaking, it is a document from the computer or that is an output or a hard copy that summarizes the outcome from data processing (Cowart, 200). This would be the printed report copy of schedules and results of the examinee. It isÂ collected data and information from the database. System. According to the book, it is everything that is needed to carry out a certain task. Just like a computer system, it includes the hardware, software and the manuals (Cowart, 2000). Operationally, it refers to the Electronic Qualifying Examination. This will enable the College of Science to replace the current conventional system of Qualifying Examination. It involves three major processes that includes the scheduling, the actual examination and the retrieval of data. Test Administrator/Examiner. Operationally, it refers to the person or persons involved in giving an examination. They are the oneâ€™s responsible in operating the examination.
MGM 399 1:30-2:50 PepsiCoâ€™s Restaurants PepsiCo started off being a passive company, but later took a more aggressive stance into acquiring key figures like Frito Lay, Pizza Hut, and KFC. The mastermind CEO Calloway orchestrated unique mindsets within each business, and also learned through experience (buying a bakery that failed). Calloway has a lot of success but now faces another important decision: Should he acquire Carts of Colorado? I believe this decision does have some issues and some risk, however overall the benefits might outweigh the problems.If PepsiCo has the right managerial experience and finances Calloway might want to acquire or at least do business with COC. As stated in the case PepsiCo has many competitors in the restaurant industry. The primary reason for acquiring COC is to give PepsiCo a larger advantage over their competitors and maintain sustainable growth. One way these carts can be of great value is their accessibility. Having a low cost mobile service has great benefits. You can read also Classifications of RestaurantsAn example of mobility might be in an amusement park, or a populated city. Another advantage towards acquiring COC might be backward integration. If the carts are doing well other companies might want to buy carts from PepsiCo. A costly venture within the carts is technology. Research and development might be costly in the beginning stages. Management has to be efficient and up to date just as it would be in a restaurant. According to PepsiCoâ€™s Foodservice Revenue of $250 billion 25% of that is from Quick Service.From the expertise with quick service, this should be implemented to increase revenue with the COC. From the case COC was technically bankrupt, and owed $1. 25 million. Pizza Hut helped to keep COC in business. PepsiCo has the capabilities that COC did not have in order to achieve sustainability. PepsiCo analyzed COC as not being the lowest-cost cart and kiosk manufacturer. They also evaluated its engineering and design to be around 18 months ahead of its competitors. This can be very attractive looking at the short term.Maintaining the competitive advantage in technology can be costly, especially since PepsiCo does not have much experience in this field. If PepsiCo acquires COC they would have to invest in technology which could be too expensive. The first recommendation is getting the carts or kiosks in the best location possible according to demographics and population. Backward integration may be possible down the road, but can also oppose a threat by giving competitors some market share. The main risk factor or issue down the road might be the technological aspect.I would suggest hiring managers that have mixed expertise with engineering/design, and with restaurant management skills. PepsiCo can definitely use their success in the quick service business. By using similar standards as they did with Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC can be very helpful in order to reach their growth goals. The low cost of the carts/kiosks may be one of the more attractive incentives. My overall decision is to not acquire COC, but come up with some kind of an agreement/contract to do business with them.The main reason for not acquiring COC is PepsiCo would have to invest a lot in resources that deal with technology/R&D. I think it is too risky to get involved in areas where you do not have the correct resources/capabilities to maintain net gains. After a few years the competitors would have the same machines and loss could be evident. COC can provide a temporary competitive advantage. By just doing business with COC this can secure a competitive advantage in the industry for snacks/beverages/food at a low risk.