Design and Development of an Automated Bursary Management System for Federal Polytechnics in North-East Nigeria: A Case Study of Federal Polytechnic Bauchi

Danlami, A. B. (2022). Information communication technology improves efficiency, transparency, and financial management in the bursary department of Federal Polytechnic in the Northeast. International Journal of Computer Science and Mathematical Theory, 8(2), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.56201/ijcsmt.v8.no2.2022.pg64.80 Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 Farias-Gaytan, S., Aguaded, I., & Ramirez-Montoya, M.-S. (2023). Digital transformation and digital literacy in the context of complexity within higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 386. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01875-9 Fernández, A., Gómez, B., Binjaku, K., & Meçe, E. K. (2023). Digital transformation initiatives in higher education institutions: A multivocal literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 12351–12382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022- 11544-0 Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625 Hoda, R., Salleh, N., Grundy, J., & Tee, H. M. (2017). Systematic literature reviews in agile software development: A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology, 85, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.01.007 International Organization for Standardization. (2023). ISO/IEC 25010:2023: Systems and software engineering—Systems and software quality requirements and evaluation —Product quality model. https://www.iso.org/standard/78176.html Runeson, P., & Höst, M. (2009). Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 14, 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9102-8 Data and Statistical Analysis Note The manuscript uses the institutional ABMS UAT dataset as the primary empirical data source and the accompanying statistical workbook as the supporting analysis record. The statistical results reported in the findings section were recalculated after data-quality screening to account for item-level missing responses and unengaged response patterns. The final analytical sample of 117 respondents was used for inferential analysis. Statistical Tables Quality check Finding Decision Initial records 120 respondents Retained for screening Item-level missingness 12 missing responses / 600 items (2.0%) Available-item construct means used; no case had >1 missing item Straight-line responses 3 respondents (2.5%) Excluded from inferential analysis Construct-level extreme values None beyond ±3 SD No deletion for outlier status Final inferential sample 117 respondents Used for reliability, correlation and regression Table 1. Statistical output reproduced from the supplied analysis workbook. Construct N Mean SD Minimum Maximum IJCSMT PU 117 2.99 0.70 1.0 5.0 PEOU 117 2.93 0.74 1.0 5.0 SEC 117 3.00 0.79 1.0 5.0 USE 117 2.92 0.84 1.0 5.0 Table 2. Statistical output reproduced from the supplied analysis workbook. Construct Items Complete item cases Cronbach’s α PU 5 114 0.829 PEOU 5 114 0.861 SEC 5 114 0.895 USE 5 114 0.892 Table 3. Statistical output reproduced from the supplied analysis workbook. PU PEOU SEC USE PU 1.000 0.239 0.273 0.365 PEOU 0.239 1.000 0.163 0.614 SEC 0.273 0.163 1.000 0.549 USE 0.365 0.614 0.549 1.000 Table 4. Statistical output reproduced from the supplied analysis workbook. Predictor B SE β t p PU 0.149 0.076 0.124 1.963 0.052 PEOU 0.584 0.070 0.514 8.318 < .001 SEC 0.457 0.066 0.431 6.917 < .001 Table 5. Statistical output reproduced from the supplied analysis workbook. Model statistic Value R 0.773 R2 0.598 Adjusted R2 0.587 F(3, 113) 55.979 Model p < .001 N 117 Table 6. Statistical output reproduced from the supplied analysis workbook. Hypothesis Result Decision H1: PU positively predicts USE β = .124, p = .052 Not supported at α = .05 H2: PEOU positively predicts USE β = .514, p < .001 Supported H3: SEC positively predicts USE β = .431, p < .001 Supported Table 7. Statistical output reproduced from the supplied analysis workbook. Data-status note: The UAT dataset and statistical results reported in this manuscript represent the institutional ABMS user-evaluation evidence confirmed for use in the Federal Polytechnic Bauchi study. The analysis was subjected to data-quality screening before inferential testing.