Home⇛UE Research Journal⇛vol. 28 no. 2 (2025)

Development and Evaluation of UE – Research Management System

John Ryan Celis | Erwinaldgeriko Lagda

 

Abstract:

This study developed and evaluated a data-driven Research Management System (RMS) for the University of the East (UE) to facilitate and speed up documentation caused by the absence of a centralized research platform. The system was designed to streamline research submission, approval workflows, integration of external research profiles, and reporting functions. A quantitative research design was employed, with the system developed through a user-centered, iterative prototyping approach and evaluated using user acceptance testing based on the ISO/IEC 25010 quality model. Fifty respondents—including faculty, department chairs, deans, and administrators—assessed six quality characteristics: Functional Suitability, Usability, Performance Efficiency, Reliability, Security, and Overall Satisfaction. The system achieved an overall mean rating of 4.62 (Strongly Agree), with performance efficiency (4.70), usability (4.64), and reliability (4.62). Open-ended feedback highlighted the need for clearer input validation, UI/UX improvements, added support features (e.g., chat assistance, password recovery), and enhanced functions such as dashboards and search tools. Overall, the UE RMS demonstrated to be an efficient, secure, and user-friendly platform that improves transparency, accountability, and research productivity. Its positive evaluation confirms strong alignment with ISO/IEC 25010 standards and its potential as a sustainable digital solution for higher education institutions.



References:

  1. Ahmad, H. S., Bazlamit, I. M., & Ayoush, M. D. (2017). Investigation of document management systems in small size construction companies in Jordan. Procedia Engineering, 182, 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. proeng.2017.03.101
  2. Al-Qutaish, R. E. (2010). Quality Models in Software Engineering Literature: An Analytical and Comparative study. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Quality-Models-in-Software-Engineering-Literature%3A-Al-Qutaish/77b51002b53d002278997c71c72eaf2300a87ec7
  3. Azeroual, O., Saake, G., & Abuosba, M. (2019). ETL Best Practices for Data Quality Checks in RIS Databases. Informatics, 6(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6010010
  4. Azeroual, O., Saake, G., & Schallehn, E. (2018). Analyzing data quality issues in research information systems via data profiling. International Journal of Information Management, 41, 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018. 02.007
  5. Behkamal, B., Kahani, M., & Akbari, M. K. (2009). Customizing ISO/IEC 9126 quality model for evaluation of B2B applications. Information and Software Technology, 51(3), 599–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.08.001
  6. Binh, L. D., Thang, N. N., & Tuan, N. A. (2023). A study on the impact of knowledge management on scientific research outputs at Vietnam National University, Hanoi. VNU Journal of Science Policy and Management Studies, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1116/vnupam.4424
  7. Bouasangthong, V. (2024). The  development of the Research Management System of National University of Laos. Vālasān Vithanyāsāt Mahāvithanyālai Suphānuvong. 10(4), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.69692/sujmrd1004258
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  9. Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). London Oxford University Press. - References - Scientific Research Publishing. (n.d.). https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1948986
  10. Canlas, R. B., Piad, K. C., & Lagman, A. C. (2021). An ISO/IEC 25010 Based Software Quality Assessment of a Faculty Research Productivity Monitoring and Prediction System. International Conference on Industrial Technology, 2, 238–242. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512576.3512619
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage. - References - Scientific Research Publishing. (n.d.). https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers?ReferenceID=1964849
  12. De Melo, W. S., Braga, H. F. G. M., Cardoso, M. V. L. M. L., Melo, E. S. J., & Monteiro, F. P. M. (2024). Software evaluation on infant development to support teaching and professional training*. Revista Latino-Americana De Enfermagem, 32, e4284. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.7248.4284
  13. De Vera, M. J. (2022). Quantitative research methods: A practical guide for senior high school and college students. Rex Bookstore.
  14. Donner, E. K. (2023). Research data management systems and the organization of universities. In Digitalization, AI and the Future of Universities (pp. 199-212). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53497-7_11
  15. Gañgan, M. G. T. (2025). Web-Based Market Goods Trading System of Agri-Pinoy Trading Center. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis, 08(06). https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmra/v8-i06-59
  16. Haoues, M., Mokni, R., & Sellami, A. (2023). Machine learning for mHealth apps quality evaluation. Software Quality Journal, 31(4), 1179–1209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-023-09630-8
  17. Harish, C. K., & Rathod, G. (2025). The role of information literacy in enhancing faculty research productivity: A case study of Mangalore University-Affiliated Colleges. International Journal of Research in Library Science, 11(2), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.26761/ijrls.11.2.2025.1869
  18. Howell, L. P., Hogarth, M., & Anders, T. F. (2002). Creating a mission-based reporting system at an academic health center. Academic Medicine, 77(2), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200202000-00007
  19. Innocent, R., & Bupo, G. O. (2025). Utilization of technological tools and academic research productivity among postgraduate business education students in Rivers State universities. Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 6(3), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.63561/fnas-jmse.v6i3.902
  20. ISO/IEC 25010:2011. (n.d.). ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/35733.html
  21. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert scale: explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/bjast/2015/14975
  22. Melendres, U. M., & Aranda, K. M. (2024). Development and evaluation of a Web-Based Resident Information Management System. Journal of Computer, Software and Program., 1(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.69739/jcsp.v1i1.50
  23. Mkumbwa, R. D., Pancras, G., & Sirili, N. S. (2025). Going paperless: the strengths and limitations of electronic research ethics information management system in a health training institution in Tanzania. BMC Health Services Research, 25(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-12151-0
  24. Nielsen, J. (2012). Usability 101: Introduction to usability. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles /usability-101-introduction-to-usability/
  25. Noche, E. B., Ventayen, R. J. M., & Galas, E. M. (2023). Deployment of Preprint Servers and Online Journals as Campus Research Management System Using Open-Source Applications. None, 06, 353–358. https://doi.org/10.1109/icbir57571.2023. 10147462
  26. Pitukhin, E. A., Zyateva, O. A., & Peshkova, I. V. (2023). Modern approaches to management of University scientific activity indicators. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2526, 030003. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0115675
  27. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
  28. Salomón, S., Duque, R., Bringas, S., & De Oliveira, K. M. (2025). Quality‐in‐Use in Practice: A study for Context‐Aware software systems in pervasive environments. Journal of Software Evolution and Process, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2764
  29. Tarima, S., Meurer, J. R., Friedland, D., Ojiako, N., Anello, M., Zimmerman, D., McCoy, R., & Shaker, R. (2025). Integrated Clinical Research Ensembles: A pathway to increased academic productivity. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10. 1017/cts.2025.10130
  30. Triyana, M. H., & Fianty, M. I. (2023). Optimizing Educational institutions: Web-Based document Management. International Journal of Science Technology & Management, 4(6), 1653–1659. https://doi.org/10.46729/ijstm. v4i6.976
  31. Tsuda, N., Washizaki, H., Honda, K., Nakai, H., Fukazawa, Y., Azuma, M., Komiyama, T., Nakano, T., Suzuki, H., Morita, S., Kojima, K., & Hando, A. (2019). WSQF: Comprehensive Software Quality Evaluation Framework and Benchmark Based on SQuaRE. None, 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1109/icse-seip.2019.00045.
  32. Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J., Da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., . . . Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic