Assignment Task Your assignment consists of two tasks: task one is a report evaluating software engineering process activities involve in designing cash machine software for a bank(worth 75% of the total marks for the assignment), and task two is a critical self-reflective commentary on task one (worth 25% of the total marks for the assignment). Task 1 A local bank intends to install a new automated teller machine (ATM) to allow users (i.e. bank customers) to perform basic financial transactions. Each user can have only one account at the bank. ATM users should be able to view their account balance, withdraw cash (i.e. take money out of an account), deposit funds (i.e. place money into an account) and print a receipt. The user interface of the machine has a screen that displays messages, a keypad to receive input from the user, a cash dispenser that dispense cash to the user and deposit slot that receives the deposit from the user. The bank needs to develop software for the ATM. An ATM session consists of authenticating a user (i.e., proving the user's identity) based on an account number and personal identification number (PIN), followed by creating and executing financial transactions. To authenticate a user and perform transactions, the ATM must interact with the bank's account information database. For each bank account, the database stores an account number, a PIN and a balance indicating the amount of money in the account. The bank has hired the services of software consultancy firm UH Solutions, for which you work to prepare a report to include: 1. Systems specification including functional AND non-functional requirements. 2. Software designing to meet the requirements specification. 3. Software validation plan. 4. Software development framework choice. This should focus on reliability, security and efficient time delivery of the software. 5. Suggestions for testing techniques to identify strengths and weaknesses in terms of security and performance. Deliverables You should submit your report to Turnitin and Portal. It should include the following elements: • Requirements specification report includes functional, performance and operational requirements. • Human computer Interaction design principles application and architecture designs in the form of design sketches. • Identification of different validation methods used for software development process. • Explanation ofmethodology e.g. use of waterfall or spiral or any agile development methodology and (SDLC) software development life cycle. Task One is worth 75% of the total marks for the overall assignment. The marking criteria is outlined below. Marking Criteria Pass: A Pass submission would show effective understanding of functional, non-functional requirements, human computer interaction design, software development life cycle, evidence of requirements validation. 2:2: A 2:2 submission would show evidence of research and understanding of software processes, software process models, fundamental process activities of software requirements engineering, software development plan, testing, and evolution. 2:1: A 2:1 submission would show understanding of architectural design, views and patterns, principal components and their relationships and application of user interface principles; (i.e. strive for consistency, enable frequent users to use shortcuts, offer informative feedback, design dialog to yield closure, offer simple error handling, permit easy reversal of actions, support internal locus of control, reduce short-term memory load). First: A First class submission would show a full understanding of system maintainability, dependability characteristics such as: reliability specification, security risk management, responsiveness and process time. Software testing completion criteria, unit testing, integration testing, system and acceptance testing and CMMI process improvement framework. Task 2: Self-Reflective Commentary Your second task is to write a self-reflective commentary about your analysis of software engineering process activities to develop a software for the ATM. You should write a self-reflective commentary (approx. 800 words +-10%) critically reflecting on your Project. You commentary should critically explore the work you have done to produce your Project. You should reflect on: 1. Your research as you produced your Project. 2. The decisions you made as you worked on your Project. 3. Where you think you succeeded and where you think you could have room for improvement. 4. What you would do differently if you were to attempt to do your Project again and what you would do with your Project if you could develop it further. Your commentary should show evidence of your reading and research and use Harvard referencing. Your commentary is a chance for you to critically analyse your own work, showing an awareness of strengths as well as identifying potential areas which could use improvement if they were to be done again. Deliverables You should attach your commentary to your Project documentand submit one document to Turnitin and Portal. Task Two is worth 25% of the total marks for the overall assignment. The marking criteria is outlined below. Marking Criteria Pass: A Pass commentary would show limited research and understanding of how the project fitted with wider business contexts. It would demonstrate an attempt at self-reflection. It would be fully referenced. 2:2: A 2:2 commentary would show evidence of basic research and understanding of how the project fitted with wider business contexts. It would show a degree of self-reflection. It would be fully referenced and also demonstrate critical self-reflection and awareness. 2:1: A 2:1 commentary would show evidence of a wide range of appropriate research and an awareness of how the project fitted with wider issues, debates and business challenges. It would show a degree of self-reflection and understanding of the process of practice-research. It would be fully referenced and also demonstrate self-reflection and awareness. First: A First class commentary would show a critical discussion of a wide range of research covering practical and theoretical, critical literature; critical self-reflection and an understanding of how the project fitted with wider issues, debates and business challenges. It would be fully referenced and also demonstrate critical self-reflection and awareness.