Download Software Engineering: Analyzing and Evaluating Structure Charts and more Exams Software Engineering in PDF only on Docsity!
Discussion Assignment First of all, I have to re-arrange the question for better follow up and understanding. Secondly I will then define the main term of reference – “Morphology.” Looking at the question, I will like to break it down as follow: Analyze and evaluate the following structure chart. a) Describe the morphology. b) Is this diagram final or does it have problems? c) If so, what are the problems and how would you fix them? Before responding to part a, b, & c respectively, lets first of all look at the meaning of “Morphology.” Contextually, it is define as the study of shapes and forms, and it is concerned with the structure and arrangement of these shapes or forms of objects and their conformity to come out with a whole working system (Conger, 2008, pg.283). To best analyze and evaluate the structure chart, I would like us to NOTE that Morphology is used in two ways: First , as an analytical tool to investigate the composition of an existing product. And second , as a creative and synthesizing tool for designing a new product. But designing also has two major divisions, that is, (a) for artistic designing, with emphasis on appearance and ergonomics, and (b) for engineering designing, with emphasis on the internal and cross-boundary workings of the technical product (Conger, 2008). Having understood what morphology is all about, the type of morphology that is used in the given structure chart reflects a creative and synthesizing tool for designing a new product. And it can be described as follows: The module “Appl. Structure” calls “Get g”, which in turn calls “Get d”, and “Get d” calls “Process 1”, and “Process 1” returns to “Get d”, which in turn calls “Process 2” and returns to “Get d”, which in turn call “Process 3”. “Process 3” returns back to “Get d”, which then returns to “Get g”, which then calls “Process 4”, and then returns back to “Get g”, which in turn calls “Process 5”, and returns back to “Get g”, which then returns back to “Appl. Structure”. Then “Appl.
Structure” calls “Make i”, which in turn calls “Process 6”. “Process 6” returns back to “Make i”, which in turn calls “Process 7”. “Process 7” returns to “Make i”, which then returns back to “Appl. Structure”. Then “Appl. Structure” calls “Process 8”, which returns back to “Appl. Structure” when it is finished (Software Design, n.d., pg.3-4). As per the second part of the question, my opinion is that the diagram is not final, and it does have a problem. This then leads me to the third part of the question which is explained below. The major problems that are found with this diagram is that it has lots of processing bottlenecks, as an input-bound processing structure which can possibly leads to inefficient production environment. Another possible problem with this structure is that, there are too much communication overhead skewed on the input side. To fix these problems, I think the only way out is to modify the input- process-output view of the application structure chart, such that the rectangles are arranged in a hierarchy to show control superiority, coordination modules, and a balanced structure in order to ensure efficient production environment (Conger, 2008, pg.281, 283-284) NB: Word Count = 537
References
Conger, S. (2008). The New Software Engineering. Retrieved Thursday 14th^ November, 2019 from: https://learn.saylor.org/pluginfile.php/235273/mod_resource/content/3/Conger- NewSoftwareEngineering.pdf Chapter 7: Process Oriented Analysis Chapter 8: Process Oriented Design Software Design (n.d.). Retrieved Thursday 28th^ November, 2019 from: http://userpages.umbc.edu/~cseaman/ifsm636/lect1025.pdf
- Decision Trees is used as there are also few conditions to be tested in the ATM system. Having listed out these tools and techniques, I will then extract the information needed for the automated application to be used to build the context diagram, and there are two things to take into consideration, that is, “external entities and data-flows” (Cogner, 2008) as follows:
- Georgia Bank
- Bank holds at least one Account.
- Account.
- Cash Cards.
- Cash Card accesses Account.
- Transaction refers to Account.
- Transaction Executing Unit. THE LEVELS SET OF DFDS Georgia Bank
( Software Design, n.d. ) GEORGIA BANK ATM DATA FLOW AND EXTERNAL ENTITIES DIAGRAMS (Software Design, n.d.) Cash Card Correct PIN Refers to Access Access Account Cancel Transaction Password / PIN Requesting Denial Notice No Yes Cash Dispensing Approval Credit Limit Exceeded Card Data Cash Card Validating Accounting Checking Transaction Executing Start ATM Insert Card Eject Card Password/PIN Checking Transaction Processing Georgia Bank (^) WithdrawalInput Amount Soure or Destination of Data Data Store Processing Transforming Data Flow Data Flow
post of Monica Auriemma, Erick Kwete, Smadar Mavor, and Yuji Tokumasu. I was also encouraged knowing that most of the reactions to my presentation are commendable. Truth be told, this unit is really loaded with great stuff to assimilate within a busy week. Despite the challenge, I still did my best to have learned a lot in this unit. For example, I have come to learn what “structured analysis, context diagram, Data Flow Diagram, data dictionary, structure chart, function point, top-down, bottom-up, and morphology” are all about (Conger, 2008). As a good self-directed learner I am enthusiastic in getting the best out of this course. Looking at the second part of the question, the example of data flowing between two entities in my home is centered on “Food Items Requesting in the Home,” and in order to come out with this, there must be a Process (Food Items Requesting System) and the two Entities (Supplier and Kitchen) which are external entities. That is, in this case we need the process, the external entities, the connectors or data flow which represent information exchange between these entities and the process (Conger, 2008). The following is the data flowing system of these two entities: DATA FLOWING SYSTEM NB: Word Count = 324
References
Inventory Order Order Entity 1 Entity 2 Supplier (^) Kitchen Level 0 Food Items Requesting System
Conger, S. (2008). The New Software Engineering. Retrieved Thursday 14th^ November, 2019 from: https://learn.saylor.org/pluginfile.php/235273/mod_resource/content/3/Conger- NewSoftwareEngineering.pdf
