Project Handbook for Master of Science – Computing and Information Systems

The project route provides an opportunity for an MSc CIS student to focus on an investigation that is of interest to that individual and that culminates in an original contribution to the discipline of Computing and Information Systems. With respect to the implications of this choice for the student, the project route consists of foundation courses (3–12 credits), core courses (15 credits), a minimum of one elective course (3 credits), and a project (9 credits). The project is carried out under the supervision of a committee and would normally be completed near the end of the student's program. To complete the credit requirements for the project, the student must complete the following courses:

• COMP 600. The student may register for this course and start the project only after completing the required foundation and core credits. This course serves as both an orientation to research as well as an opportunity for completing the initial tasks of the research project.
• COMP 697. The student can enroll in COMP 697 and start the project only after completing COMP 600. The course focuses on developing a proposal for the project and forming a project supervisory committee.
• COMP 698. The student can enroll in COMP 698 any time after they have successfully completed COMP 697. This course focuses on implementing the project.
• COMP 699. The student can enroll in COMP 699 any time after they have successfully completed COMP 698. By the end of this course, the student should produce the final project report and submit it to the review committee.
• COMP 700. The student can enroll in COMP 700 any time after they have successfully completed COMP 699. This course is dedicated for the research review and examination as well as completing any eventual revisions recommended by the committee.

Note: The project courses are not conventional courses; however, they are treated similarly for administrative purposes. The student must register for these courses in sequence and will be given a mark of Pass or Fail according to the project supervisory committee’s decision after completion of each course.

Master’s Project Requirements

It is expected that research projects be based on an identified research problem and a well-defined research question, so most of the research work focuses on designing, implementing, and evaluating a solution. The project can involve the development of computing systems, integration of existing systems, and/or data collection and analysis for improving computing solutions. The integrative project can also deal with the development of technologies for intra- and inter-organizational systems in the form of an integrated technical architecture (hardware, software, networks, and data) to serve organizational needs in a rapidly changing competitive and technological environment. A master’s-level project should satisfy an acceptable combination of the following criteria:

• It deals with a novel exploratory implementation, the results of which will be of some interest to the computing and information systems community.
• It involves novel implementation techniques for computing and information systems.
• It involves the implementation of a practical piece of nontrivial software whose availability could have some impact on information technology users.
• It examines a practical problem or series of problems that can be adequately addressed in reasonable time and effort.

After completing COMP 600, students taking the project route should have completed the research scoping, the research initialization, and a good part of the literature review that helps with grasping different aspects of the research question and problem to be solved. So, during following courses of the research project (COMP 697–700), the student will focus on designing the solution, writing the project proposal, implementing the solution, evaluating the solution, writing the project final report, and completing the project examination.

COMP 697: Research Proposal Writing and Oral Examination

Proposal Writing

In this phase, the student develops a project proposal that defines the research questions and outlines the implementation plan. The proposal should clearly describe the problem to be examined, articulate the research questions, describe supporting literature, identify data sources, and list potential participants. The project proposal should also present the research methodology to be used and outline the design of the proposed solution.

The student is expected to follow the Project Proposal Template in Appendix A, which details the requirements of the proposal. The final proposal should not exceed twenty-five (25) letter-size pages, including references but excluding supporting appendices.

The student is expected to review Ethics Policies, Guidelines, and Permissions and the Student Academic Misconduct Policy with their supervisor, to ensure compliance throughout the research process.

The student is encouraged to present and discuss the project proposal with peers on the COMP 697 discussion board. This peer review may take the form of formal and informal presentations and discussions (e.g., poster presentations, abstracts, or draft proposals).

The student should consider the following quality issues when producing the project proposal:

• Does the student properly identify the research problem and research question?
• Are the research question, hypothesis, and verification mechanisms defined?
• Does the literature review consider all appropriate sources of information?
• Does the project proposal adequately describe the research methodology and outline the steps for developing the solution?
• Does the proposal describe the general architecture or design of the proposed solution?
• Are the needed resources (i.e., hardware and software environment) outlined in the proposal?
• Does the project conform to the research ethics policies of AU?

Some projects are done in collaboration with other partners (industrial, governmental, etc.) in the form of sponsorship. The sponsorship can take different forms, either through making a financial contribution, providing access to resources and data for the project, or providing another in-kind contribution. If the project involves a sponsor, the student must ensure that the proposal reflects the sponsor’s priorities and constraints. This can be achieved by involving the sponsor in the proposal development. All areas that involve the sponsor, their subordinates or superiors, or processes that may potentially be out of the ordinary for the normal workflow should be reviewed with the sponsor before the project proposal is submitted and approved. A qualified member from the sponsoring entity can serve as a co-supervisor or participate as member of the project supervisory committee.

Supervisory Committee Formation

A supervisory committee must be established for project proposal review and oral examination. The supervisor works with the student on selecting the supervisory committee. A master’s project supervisory committee is normally comprised of a minimum of two people, one being the supervisor.

• The chair of the committee shall be the supervisor, normally from the student’s faculty or centre/school.
• The other committee members may include the sponsor (if applicable) and co-supervisors (if applicable), or one FST faculty member.

The committee members must meet the eligibility criteria requirements and must not be in a position of conflict of interest (AU Policy), such as having been or being currently associated with the student, supervisor, or co-supervisor as a close friend or relative, or be in a commercial, business, or financial relationship.

Once the committee is selected, the supervisor completes the Master's Project Supervisory Committee Form (Appendix B) and submits it for approval to the graduate program director.

Proposal Review and Oral Examination

After the project proposal has been completed, the supervisor will distribute it to the project supervisory committee for review and ensure that all committee members approve the project proposal.

Following this review, the student incorporates feedback from the committee and distributes the final version of the project proposal to the committee members. The supervisor will then arrange for the oral examination.

During the oral examination, the student conducts a formal presentation of the proposal to the committee, normally within a closed session (no one besides the student, the supervisory committee, can be present). The presentation is followed by an oral examination, in which the committee will ask questions related to the proposal, raise questions or issues the student may anticipate in conducting the research, and determine whether the student is adequately knowledgeable in the proposed research area to proceed with the project implementation. In case of technical difficulties in running the oral examination, the chair of the committee may ask for adjournment.

The proposal and the oral examination are adjudicated at the same time and can be one of the following decisions:

Pass

The committee members agree that no revisions are needed. The student receives a clear Pass.

Pass, Subject to Minor Revisions

Minor copy-editing revisions may be needed. The student cannot proceed to COMP 698 until the supervisor has approved the revisions. In some cases, the supervisor may also want another committee member to approve the revisions.

Pass, Subject to Major Revisions

The proposal requires substantial revisions. A reconvening of the committee is not normally required but may occur depending upon the preference of the committee members.

Normally, the committee members must review the revisions and determine whether the revisions are adequate and that the student can receive a Pass. The student cannot proceed to COMP 698 until the committee members have approved the revisions.

Fail

The proposal is unacceptable (e.g., is poorly written, does not adequately address the research question, contains inadequate proposed solutions or recommendations, contains other significant omissions, or displays evidence of academic misconduct, such as plagiarism).

Depending upon the reason for the Fail, the supervisor and committee may recommend to the program director that the student be allowed a second and final resubmission of the proposal. It must be made clear to the student what will be required to achieve a Pass and what assistance the student may expect from the supervisor and committee members in performing the required revisions.

Any student who receives a Fail on the second attempt may be required to withdraw from the program with a Fail appearing on the transcript.

Adjournment

In the case where the examination committee recommends an adjournment, the student is given a second opportunity for the oral examination. At the second attempt, the oral examination and proposal must be rated as a Pass or Fail. Under extraordinary circumstances, the student may obtain an Adjournment on the second attempt.

Once the oral examination is complete, the chair must ensure the student is not present while the committee deliberates. After the deliberations and decision, the chair informs the student of the adjudication outcome and communicate to them any requested revisions as well as their completion deadline in writing. The supervisor assumes the responsibility to ensure the revisions are completed by the agreed upon date.

Once the project proposal is approved and if a sponsor is involved in the project, before starting COMP 698, both the student and sponsor must sign a Letter of Agreement (see Appendix C). The Letter of Agreement will act as an informal contract between the student and the organization sponsoring the project (the sponsor). Any commitments from both sides needed for the implementation of the project should be described in the Letter of Agreement. An original signed copy of the Letter of Agreement must be forwarded to the program director, the supervisor, the project sponsor, and the graduate program advisors at fstgrad@athabascau.ca .

Once the project proposal examination is complete and any eventual revisions incorporated into the final proposal, the supervisor must communicate the examination results to the graduate program advisors at fstgrad@athabascau.ca no later than one month after completing COMP 697. The student will be able to register to COMP 698 after receiving a PASS grade for COMP 697.

COMP 698: Implementation

The purpose of the implementation stage is to complete the project work and evaluate its results according to what has been described in the project proposal. The design of the proposed solution can be refined during this stage and adjusted according to technical challenges or constraints faced while doing the implementation. Sush challenges need to be documented and reported in the project report. For the successful completion of the research project, the student must produce a solution to the identified research problem in accordance with the deliverables specified in the approved project proposal and produce a project report that satisfies the requirements of the program and the university. During this stage, the student is responsible for both executing implementation tasks and managing the implementation process, which includes

• conducting meetings with potential project participants and the supervisory committee.
• determining the hardware and software environment and tools.
• working out the testing scenarios (cases) of the implemented system.
• conducting tests and collecting evaluation data.
• completing data analysis and interpreting results.
• producing advancement reports and/or advancement updates to the supervisory committee.
• discussing and reviewing the results and the draft project report with committee members.

A draft report outlining the completion of the project tasks as well as the achieved deliverables and findings must be reviewed and approved by the supervisor and project sponsor (if applicable) before registering in COMP 699.

COMP 699: Project Report Writing

The aim of this phase is to produce a final project report that satisfies the requirements of the program and the university and to ensure that the project objectives have been achieved. This phase may also include the finalization of the project findings by completing the data analysis and interpretation of results. The student can use previously produced advancement reports and presentations including the project proposal to produce the final report. While writing the project report, the student should brief the project supervisory committee and other participants about the findings, hypothesis verification, conclusions, and recommendations drawn from the project results. The student should seek final feedback from all involved parties before submitting the final project.

The student should produce the project report in accordance with the Project Report Style Guide and Template (see Appendix D).

The student should consider the following quality issues when producing the project report:

• Does the literature review consider all appropriate sources of information?
• Does the student properly address the problems identified in the project proposal using valid tools or methods?
• Does the final project report adequately describe how the student applied the research methodology and steps outlined in the original project proposal?
• Does the final project report clearly describe the student’s contributions throughout the project?
• Are the hardware and software environment, the running environment, the user manual, testing cases, experimental settings (e.g., subjects), and data gathering techniques (when appropriate) described in or attached to the final project report?
• Does the final project report demonstrate proper and effective use of software engineering tools, such as UML diagrams, statistical analysis, or qualitative analysis tools when appropriate?
• Are the developed software package, findings, conclusions, and recommendations in the project supported by collected evidence and other information described in the literature review?
• Does the project conform to the research ethics policies of AU?
• Will the project stand up to rigorous academic scrutiny?

Important: While writing the project report, the student, with the help of the supervisor, should ensure that all copyright issues have been resolved. For more information about intellectual property, please refer to the FGS intellectual property guidelines. Also, once the project report has been submitted for examination, the student must not make changes to the project report unless requested to do so by the examination committee.

COMP 700: Research Review and Examination

Once the project report is ready, the student should submit it to the supervisory committee, who will review the submission and provide their preliminary acceptance. They will also provide their feedback and indicate that the student is ready to proceed to the examination.

Once the supervisory committee provides their preliminary acceptance, the supervisor should work to set up the examination committee and arrange for the final project examination.

Examination Committee Formation

An examination committee must be established for project review and oral examination. The supervisor works with the student on selecting the examination committee. A master’s project examination committee is normally comprised of all members of the supervisory committee plus one faculty member at arm’s length. A faculty member who served in the project proposal review and examination can also serve as the faculty member at arm’s length.

• The chair of the committee shall be the supervisor, normally from the student’s faculty or centre/school.
• The other supervisory committee members may include the sponsor (if applicable) and co-supervisors.
• One faculty member at arm’s length will also join the committee.

The committee members must meet the eligibility criteria requirements and must not be in a position of conflict of interest (AU Policy), such as having been or being currently associated with the student, supervisor, or co-supervisor as a close friend or relative, or be in a commercial, business, or financial relationship.

Once the committee is selected, the supervisor completes the Project Examination Committee Form (Appendix E) and submit it for approval to the graduate program director.

Oral Examination

After the project has been completed, and the project supervisory committee provide their preliminary acceptance to the supervisor, the student is required to defend the project through an oral examination.

The oral examination is organized and chaired by the supervisor. The student should discuss with the supervisor the procedure to be used during the oral examination. For example, they can decide if the presentation and question period will be closed or open to the public, they can choose an appropriate preferred technology for the oral examination, they can select the date and time for the examination in consultation with the committee members, etc.

As a guideline, the oral examination consists of a 20-minutes presentation followed by 40 minutes of questions and answers. Other guidelines to consider are as follows:

• The supervisor chairs the examination and communicates the examination date, time, and procedures to the committee members before starting the examination.
• The supervisor should have back-up phone numbers for the student and each of the committee members so they can be contacted and reconnected to the examination in case the technology fails during the examination.
• In case of technical difficulties in running the oral examination, the chair may ask for adjournment.
• At the beginning of the oral examination, the chair introduces the student by reading their name, degree being sought, and academic unit of student, as well the title of the project.
• During the oral examination, the student is allowed to refer to the project report and other supporting materials (such as data-gathering instruments) related to conducting the research.
• Each committee member may ask specific questions to clarify or challenge the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the project. They may also ask general questions that relate to the project or its future development.
• Question time will be split fairly between the committee members, including the supervisor, who will be chairing the examination. One or two questioning rounds can be used depending on the time allocated for the examination.
• The sequence order for questioning starts with the external member/member at arm’s length, then sponsor (if applicable), then co-supervisor (if applicable), then supervisor.
• After completion of the rounds of questions, the chair will ask the student if they wish to add anything to the material presented.
• The chair must ensure the student and the observers are not present while the committee deliberates.
• The chair will ask each committee member in sequence their adjudication for the project report and oral examination, based on the regulations.
• After the deliberations and decision, the student is reconnected with the committee.
• The chair informs the student of the adjudication outcome.
• Any revisions and their completion deadline should be verbally discussed with the student and also provided to the student in writing by the supervisor. The supervisor or the committee members must decide who will assume the responsibility for ensuring the revisions are completed by the agreed upon date.

The project report and the oral examination are adjudicated at the same time and can result in one of the following decisions:

Pass

The committee members agree that no revisions are needed. The student receives a clear Pass.

Pass, Subject to Minor Revisions

Minor copy-editing revisions may be needed. The student cannot proceed to graduation until the supervisor has approved the revisions. In some cases, the supervisor may also want another committee member to approve the revisions.

Pass, Subject to Major Revisions

The project report requires substantial revisions. A reconvening of the committee is not normally required but may occur depending upon the preference of the committee members.

Normally, the committee members must review the revisions and determine whether the revisions are adequate and that the student can receive a Pass. The student cannot proceed to graduation until the committee members have approved the revisions.

Fail

The project report is unacceptable (e.g., is poorly written, does not adequately address the research question, contains inadequate proposed solutions or recommendations, contains other significant omissions, or displays evidence of academic misconduct, such as plagiarism).

Depending upon the reason for the Fail, the supervisor and committee may recommend to the program director that the student be allowed a second and final resubmission of the project report. It must be made clear to the student what will be required to achieve a Pass, and any assistance the student may expect from the supervisor and committee members in performing the required revisions.

Any student who receives a Fail at the second attempt may be required to withdraw from the program with a Fail appearing on the transcript.

Adjournment

In the case where the examination committee recommends an adjournment, the student is given a second opportunity for the oral examination. At the second attempt, the oral examination and project report must be rated as a Pass or Fail. Under extraordinary circumstances, the student may obtain an Adjournment on the second attempt.

Assessment Form Submission

Once the project examination is done and the requested revisions completed, the supervisor needs to make sure that each committee member completes and submits their assessment using the assessment form in Appendix F. All assessment forms should be forwarded to the graduate program advisors at fstgrad@athabascau.ca no later than one month after the student’s completion of COMP 700. The student will be able to apply for graduation after receiving a PASS grade for COMP 700.

Final Project Report Submission and Application to Graduate

Project Report Revision

The student is responsible for revising their submitted project report according to the supervisory committee’s requests for changes to the project. If the committee requests minor revisions, a copy of the revised project report should be submitted to the supervisor for validation of the revisions. If the committee requests major revisions, a copy of the revised project report should be submitted to the project supervisory committee for validation of the revisions. The student will not be recommended for graduation if the revised project is not validated.

Project Submission

The project report must be formatted in accordance with the Project Report Style Guide and Template (see Appendix D).

Submission of Project Report

A copy of the .pdf version of the approved project report and supporting materials must be submitted to Athabasca University before students can be authorized for graduation. These project report files should be submitted to the graduate program advisors at fstgrad@athabascau.ca who will check the project report file and arrange to have it stored in the Athabasca University Digital Thesis and Project Room (DTPR).

Application to Graduate

Once the program requirements have been met and the final project report submitted, the student must contact the graduate program advisors at fstgrad@athabascau.ca to apply for graduation.

For guidance on using AI in your research process, refer to the Research Orientation Handbook.

There have been a number of problems with previous project proposals and final reports that have occurred so frequently that it is worth identifying them explicitly. Some of these are major problems that will typically require major revisions to your proposal, while others are less serious but make your reviewers’ tasks difficult.

The following are the most common serious problems seen in previous MSc CIS projects:

• Failure to identify and clearly state a specific problem that you are addressing.
  You must make it clear to the committee what you are intending to do. Even if you are planning on doing work that is more generally focused (such as developing a taxonomy or a framework) rather than, for example, solving a specific implementation problem, you must clearly identify what it is you intend to do. A good guideline is that you should be able to specify what it is you are trying to do in a single sentence, perhaps with a couple of sentences of clarification afterward.
• Failure to clearly describe the methodology you will use to complete your work.
  While, at the time you are writing your proposal, you will be unable to provide complete details on how you will solve your problem, you must be able to describe the techniques you plan on using and explain why they are appropriate for what you are trying to do. You should also discuss whether and how you would alter the proposed techniques for use in your work.
• Failure to properly organize your proposal or project report.
  If you do not organize your proposal in a logical fashion, it is extremely difficult for the reviewing members of the supervisory committee to tell that you have a good understanding of the area and therefore prepared to begin your proposed work. Most importantly, your project proposal or final report itself, and each section within it, must have good flow. This means that each statement must logically follow the one preceding it. You must always present complete trains of thought. There should be no leaps of faith required to understand what you are writing about. This reflects the process of scientific reasoning. Ideas should carefully follow from one step to the next as in a mathematical proof. It is also a good practice to look at each paragraph in each section individually and ask yourself, “Does this paragraph correspond to the title of this section?” If your answer is “No,” then you need to consider removing or refocusing that paragraph. A common example of this occurs when related work is discussed in a different section. (This is often easily identified by the presence of many citations in the paragraph in question, like in a paragraph about the design or implementation of the proposed solution.)
• Failure to make comparisons between related work.
  It is insufficient to simply enumerate work related to your proposed research. You must logically organize and discuss the related work, so it is clear to the reader how the various previous research efforts relate to each other and, especially, how they relate to what you are proposing.
• Failure to remember that the review committee is, by its constitution, a multidisciplinary committee.
  You must write your proposal accordingly. You are not writing to an expert audience within your specific chosen area of study. Consequently, you must always define all acronyms and explain terms before you use them. You may assume only a general, undergraduate level of knowledge and must, in your project proposal, explain everything beyond that. Always follow the adage, “Know your audience!”

The following are some common, less serious, problems often seen in MSc project proposals and reports:

• Grammatical and spelling errors.
  The prevalence of such errors speaks negatively to your concern for detail and your industriousness. These are characteristics that are fundamental to success in scientific research and higher-level study such as the MSc degrees. You should remember that negative impressions of your written work will often be reflected later in, for example, reference letters written for you. As a first step, you should always spell-check your proposal or project report. Remember, however, that spell-checkers are not perfect and will fail to detect certain errors. Further, grammatical checkers are notoriously bad in certain situations; technical writing, such as that in a project proposal, is one such situation. The bottom line is that automatic checking must be only a first step. Careful, human proofreading is also needed. If necessary, it might be useful to arrange to have proofreading of the final (submitted) version of your report done by a professional editor or at least a highly proficient English speaker. A report which has obviously been poorly proofread may be returned for improvement prior to review.
• Inadequate and/or dated citations.
  Whenever you refer to the work of others (including figures you may have reproduced), to specific systems, and/or to specific claims that you do not explicitly justify within your proposal, you need to provide a citation to the related work. Further, such citations should always be made on the original reference to the corresponding system or piece of work. There are no exceptions to these two rules. Further, when selecting citations, you should always pick the best possible reference, where best is judged in terms of direct relevance, quality of the source, and recentness of the citation. Always try to avoid the use of old citations that might have been superseded by more recent work.
• Incomplete and/or inappropriate references.
  Each reference you provide should be as complete as possible. This means that it should include such elements as page numbers, date of publication, etc. Sometimes getting this information requires a little extra work (especially if you find the paper online), but this information should be included so that it is easy for the reader to locate the reference if they need to. (Note also that this will be even more important for your project document itself since a larger audience will likely read it.) It is also increasingly common to see references to web-based documents, such as technical reports, that are not refereed and are thus of dubious quality and value. Such references should be used extremely sparingly in your report and certainly should not be used alone to argue for any key point that your work depends on. Always try to find references from recognized journals, books, and top-tier conferences whenever possible. A proposal that obviously makes little or no attempt to provide complete and consistent bibliographic entries may be returned for improvement prior to review.

In rare situations, students may not be able to complete their research project for different reasons. If the issues causing such situations cannot be resolved with the help of the supervisor and other supervisory committee members, such as the sponsor, the student may be allowed to switch from the project-based route to the course-based route (essay).

The process for switching from project to essay needs to be initiated by the student through a discussion with their supervisory committee. The steps to consider for this process are as follows:

• The student discusses the issues making the project impossible to complete with their supervisory committee and gets their approval to switch to the essay route.
• The student prepares an essay mini-proposal and gets it approved by their supervisor.
• The student submits the mini-proposal along with approval from their supervisor to the program director.
• Once the essay mini-proposal is approved by the program director, the student can register for the essay course(s).

The student can elect to do their essay on a topic different from the one they were investigating in their research project or repurpose and rescale their project mini-proposal to fit the requirement of essays.

Students who completed COMP 600 as part of the project route but will be investigating a topic different from their previous project will be required to retake COMP 600 before registering in COMP 696. Any completed project courses will not count toward the program, and the student will need to take two more elective courses to fulfil the required credits for the course-based route.

Students who completed COMP 600 as part of the project route and will be investigating the same topic as their previous project do not have to retake COMP 600 and can register in COMP 696 once the essay mini-proposal is approved. Other completed project courses (COMP 697, COMP 698, and COMP 699) will not count toward the program, and the student will need to take two more elective courses to fulfil the required credits for the course-based route.

• Project Proposal Template

• Project Supervisory Committee Form

• Letter of Agreement Template

• Project Report Style Guide and Template

• Project Examination Committee Form

• Project Assessment Form