Department Of Environment and Natural Resources XII Automated Reporting System: Its Implementation and Performance in The New Normal Mechanism in Monitoring and Evaluation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21280251Keywords:
automated reporting system, DENR Region XII, e-governance, monitoring and evaluation, system acceptability, technology implementationAbstract
This study assessed the implementation and performance of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources XII Automated Reporting System (DARS) as a new-normal mechanism for monitoring and evaluation. It examined the system's acceptability in terms of efficiency, reliability, flexibility, maintainability, and machine independence; its technology implementation in terms of language, database, and interface; and its performance in monitoring and evaluation functions. The study used a quantitative descriptive-correlational design with complete enumeration of 200 respondents composed of 80 DENR-XII officials and 120 DARS focal persons from the Regional Office and field offices. Data were gathered using a validated survey questionnaire with excellent content validity and highly acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.87), and were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, Pearson r, t-test, ANOVA, z-test, percentage, and ranking. Results showed that DARS was rated very high in acceptability (M = 4.63, SD = 0.10), fully implemented in technology implementation (M = 4.52, SD = 0.18), and outstanding in monitoring and evaluation performance (M = 4.65, SD = 0.05). Acceptability had a strong positive relationship with implementation (r = 0.81, t = 19.44), while technology implementation had a strong positive relationship with DENR performance (r = 0.84, t = 21.78). Significant differences were also found among implementation indicators (F = 30.48, Fcrit = 3.01). The findings indicate that DARS improved transparency, timeliness, paperless reporting, data accessibility, and performance monitoring in DENR Region XII, although sustained internet support, system upgrading, training, and IT staffing remain necessary for long-term implementation.
Downloads
References
Ahlemann, F. (2008). Project management software systems: Requirements, selection processes and products (5th ed.). BARC. https://opus.hs-offenburg.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/6976
Aliaga, M., & Gunderson, B. (2000). Interactive statistics. Prentice Hall.
Arnab, R. (2017). Survey sampling theory and applications. Academic Press.
Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19, 775-780.
Benton, M. C. (2020). Assessing developer quality using coding challenges. Software Quality Professional, 23(1).
Blitz, A. (2019). Stepping stones: Virtual restoration and 3D visualization of the tessellated 4th-century Byzantine synagogue floor at Apamea on Orontes, Syria. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 15, e00108.
Butler, D. L., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 2(1), 22-28.
Calzon, B. (2021). Automated reporting: Benefits, examples and best practices. Datapine.
Clemens, G., Clayton, A. D., Schweidtmann, A. M., Manson, J. A., Taylor, C. J., Niño, C. G., & Bourne, R. A. (2020). Automated self-optimization of multi-step reaction and separation processes using machine learning. Chemical Engineering Journal, 384, 123340.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.
Donker, S. F., Brumby, D. P., & Kun, A. L. (2019). History and future of human-automation interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 131, 99-107.
Escap, U., & Macasio, J. (2022). ICT project management theory and application for digital transformation and sustainable development. United Nations ESCAP.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
Heuser, B., Diedrich, C., Fay, A., Jeschke, S., Kowalewski, S., & Wollschlaeger, M. (2014). Challenges for software engineering in automation. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 2014.
Janssen, C. P. (2019). History and future of human-automation interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 131, 99-107.
Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four-stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(3), 122-136.
Maes, P., Eiriksson, E. R., Pedersen, D. B., Frisvad, J. R., Skovmand, L., Heun, V., & Aanæs, H. (2017). Augmented reality interfaces for additive manufacturing. In Image Analysis: 20th Scandinavian Conference, SCIA 2017, Proceedings, Part I (pp. 515-525). Springer.
Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., & Mantel, S. J., Jr. (2017). Project management: A strategic managerial approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Muyuka, N. (2015). Project monitoring and evaluation and its importance. LinkedIn.
Roa, A. (2020). Benefits of automated reporting systems. Source details require verification.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Henry, G. T. (2018). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage.
Tyner, C. (2019). Manual process vs. automated process: A comparison guide. Comidor.
Wickens, C., & McCarley, J. (2017). Commonsense statistics in aviation safety research. In M. Vidulich, P. Tsang, & J. Flach (Eds.), Advances in aviation psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 74-86). Ashgate.
Wilcox, M., & Bourne, M. (2002). Performance and prediction. Performance Measurement Association Conference.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
