Employee Performance Evaluation

Session: 2022-2026

Submitted by:

Muhammd Faizan Asim 2022-CS-111

Abdur Rehman Kazim 2022-CS-115
Arbaz Khan 2022-CS-123
Aleena Shiekh 2022-CS-130
Afeera Fatima 2022-CS-151

Supervised by:
Dr. Syed Khaldoon
Nazeef ul Haq

Course:
CS-262L Database Systems

Department of Computer Science

University Of Engineering And Technology,
Lahore, Pakistan
 Employee Performance Evaluation 2

Contents

1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1 Project Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Scope and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Key Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 Technology Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Programming Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1 Backend Development: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.2 Frontend Development: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3 Desktop Application: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Database Management System (DBMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Version Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Development Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 Power BI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6 Web Pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.7 SSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.8 Pandas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 Users of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.1 Human Resources (HR) Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 Database Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1 CRUD Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1 Business Rules and Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2 Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.3 Explanation of Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.4 Relationship Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Analysis Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.1 Business Rules and Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2 Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.3 Explanation of Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.4 Relationship Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 ETL Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.1 Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5 Database Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1 CRUD-Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2 CRUD-Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3 Final Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

CS-263L Database Systems

 Employee Performance Evaluation 3

6 Data Flow Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6.1 DFD of CRUD Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2 DFD of Analysis Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

7 Evaluation Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.1 Retrieve Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.2 Obtain Metric Weightage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.3 Calculate Weighted Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.4 Total Weighted Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.5 Calculate Final Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

8 User Interface Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

8.1 Web Pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.2 Power BI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.3 WinForms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

9 Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.1 Functional Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.2 Full Functional Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.3 Existence Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

10 Relationship Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.1 Strong Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.1.1 Employee - Person Relationship: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.1.2 Groups - GroupEmployee, GroupEvaluation Relationships: . . . . . . 30
10.1.3 Evaluation - Employee, Metrics Relationship: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10.1.4 Metrics - Evaluation, GroupEvaluation Relationships: . . . . . . . . . 30
10.2 Weak Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10.2.1 Employee - Person Relationship: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10.2.2 GroupEmployee - Groups, Employee Relationships: . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.2.3 Evaluation - Employee, Metrics Relationship: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.2.4 GroupEvaluation - Groups, Metrics Relationships: . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.3 Strong Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.4 Weak Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

11 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.1 Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.2 Integration Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.3 Security Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.4 User Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11.5 Maintenance Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11.6 Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

CS-263L Database Systems

 Employee Performance Evaluation 4

12 Future Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12.1 Enhanced Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12.2 Seamless Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12.3 Advanced Security Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12.4 User Experience Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12.5 Predictive Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12.6 Mobile Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

13 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

14 Github Project Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 5

List of Figures
1 ER Diagram of CRUD database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Relationship between Employee and Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 Relationship between Employee and Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4 Relationship between Employee and Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5 Relationship between Group and Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6 Relationship between Group and Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7 ER Diagram of Analysis Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8 Relationship between Evaluation and Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9 Relationship between Group Evaluation and Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10 Relationship between Metrics and Area of Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11 Relationship between Weightage and Lookup Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12 Relationship between Weightage and Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13 ER Diagram of ETL Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14 Database Design of CRUD Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
15 Database Design of CRUD Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
16 Database Design after ETL process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
17 DFD of CRUD Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
18 DFD of Analysis Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
19 Web page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
20 Web page Add Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
21 Web page Create Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
22 Web page Group Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
23 Power BI showing Employee Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
24 Power BI showing Employee Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
25 Power BI showing Employee Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
26 Power BI to filter Employee Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
27 WinForm of Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
28 WinForm to create group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
29 WinForm of Employee Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
30 WinForm of Employee Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 6

1 Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
The Employee Performance Evaluation (EPE) project aims to revolutionize the process of
managing and assessing employee performance within an organization. By leveraging modern
technology and best practices in performance management, the EPE system offers a com-
prehensive solution for enhancing productivity, accountability, and employee development.

1.2 Scope and Objectives

The scope of the EPE project encompasses the development of a robust system for tracking
employee information, managing department details, overseeing group assignments, defining
performance metrics, and conducting periodic performance evaluations. The primary objec-
tives of the project include:
• Streamlining the process of performance evaluation and feedback.
• Providing a centralized platform for managing employee data and performance records.
• Facilitating informed decision-making by Supervisors.
• Enhancing transparency and accountability in performance management practices.

1.3 Key Features

The EPE system boasts several key features designed to meet the diverse needs of modern
organizations:
• Employee Information Management: Comprehensive employee profiles with detailed
information such as personal details, job roles, and performance history.
• Department and Group Management: Structured hierarchy for organizing employees
into departments and groups, with designated supervisors for each group.
• Metric Definitions: Customizable metrics to measure various aspects of employee per-
formance, aligned with organizational goals and objectives.
• Performance Evaluations: Periodic evaluations conducted to assess employee perfor-
mance, capturing ratings and remarks for analysis and feedback.
• Data Integrity and Consistency: Ensuring the accuracy and reliability of evaluation data
through normalization and enforcement of business rules.
• User-Friendly Interface: Intuitive interface for administrators to easily manage employee
and group information, conduct evaluations, and generate performance reports.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 7

2 Technology Stack
The development of the Employee Performance Evaluation (EPE) system leveraged a variety
of tools and technologies to ensure robustness, scalability, and maintainability. The following
are the key tools and technologies utilized:

2.1 Programming Languages

2.1.1 Backend Development:
Javascript served as the primary programming language for backend development. Lever-
aging frameworks such as Express Js with Node Js and using the ssms NPM package for
database connectivity, we built the core web application, enabling efficient data processing,
logic implementation, and server-side functionality.

2.1.2 Frontend Development:

We embraced a monorepo architecture using Jx to manage our frontend projects efficiently.
With React as our primary framework, we created dynamic and responsive interfaces, com-
plemented by HTML, CSS, and JavaScript for interactive elements. Jx facilitated seamless
collaboration and code reuse, enhancing our development process and enabling rapid iteration.

2.1.3 Desktop Application:

Made a Desktop Version of the application for Employees and HR. Utilized C Windows Forms
for development. HR dashboard allows management of Groups and Employees with evaluation
mechanism.

2.2 Database Management System (DBMS)

MS SQL Server was selected as the relational database management system (RDBMS) to
store and manage employee data, performance metrics, and evaluation records. Leveraging
the robust features of MS SQL Server, we ensured data integrity, consistency, and reliability,
supporting efficient data retrieval and manipulation operations within the EPE system.

2.3 Version Control

Git, in conjunction with platforms such as GitHub, was utilized for version control throughout
the development process. This enabled seamless collaboration among team members, central-
ized management of the codebase, and effective tracking of changes, ensuring transparency
and accountability in the development workflow.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 8

2.4 Development Environment

Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) such as Visual Studio provided a comprehensive
platform for writing, debugging, and testing code. These tools offered advanced features and
debugging capabilities, enhancing the productivity and efficiency of the development team
during the implementation phase of the EPE system.

2.5 Power BI
Microsoft’s Power BI played a pivotal role in streamlining the process of analysis using graph-
ical tools and charts. With its powerful data visualization and analysis capabilities, Power
BI enabled the creation of interactive reports and dashboards from various data sources,
facilitating data-driven decision-making within the organization.

2.6 Web Pages

Web pages were instrumental in providing an interactive user interface for easy access to
analysis within the EPE system. Designed to be user-friendly and intuitive, these web pages
facilitate seamless navigation and data analysis, enhancing the overall usability and effective-
ness of the system.

2.7 SSIS
SSIS, renowned for its powerful data integration and ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) capa-
bilities, was employed to manage, transform, and transfer data between various systems and
databases efficiently. By ensuring data integrity and consistency, SSIS played a crucial role
in optimizing data workflows within the EPE system.

2.8 Pandas
Pandas, a Python library, was utilized for data cleaning within the database. Offering high-
performance data manipulation and analysis tools, Pandas proved to be instrumental in clean-
ing and preprocessing data, ensuring data quality and reliability within the EPE system.

3 Users of the Project

The Employee Performance Evaluation (EPE) system can serve various stakeholders within
the organization, each with specific roles and responsibilities. Understanding the needs and re-
quirements of these users is essential for designing and implementing a system that effectively
supports their objectives. Below is the key user of the EPE system:

3.1 Human Resources (HR) Personnel

Responsibilities:

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 9

• Managing employee data and records.

• Assisting with performance evaluation processes.
• Providing support and guidance on HR-related matters.
Interactions:
• Accessing employee profiles and performance data.
• Assisting managers and supervisors with performance evaluation tasks.

4 Database Overview
4.1 CRUD Database
The CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) database serves as the operational backbone
of the Employee Performance Evaluation (EPE) system. It facilitates the management of
transactional data related to employee information, department details, group assignments,
metric definitions, and evaluation records.

4.1.1 Business Rules and Explanations

Employee Data Management:
• Business Rule: All employee records must include complete and accurate personal
details, job roles, and performance history.
• Explanation: This rule ensures that the CRUD database maintains high-quality em-
ployee data, which is crucial for effective performance evaluation, decision-making, and
organizational planning.
Performance Evaluation Records:
• Business Rule: Every performance evaluation record must capture relevant metrics,
ratings, and remarks to assess employee performance comprehensively.
• Explanation: By adhering to this rule, the CRUD database facilitates fair and consistent
performance assessments, fosters transparency, and supports continuous improvement
initiatives within the organization.
Data Integrity and Consistency:
• Business Rule: Ensure that all data entered into the database adheres to predefined
standards and formats, preventing inconsistencies and errors.
• Explanation: Maintaining data integrity and consistency is essential for reliable per-
formance evaluation and decision-making processes. It reduces the risk of errors and
ensures the accuracy and reliability of the information stored in the database.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 10

4.1.2 Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD)

Below is the Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) illustrating the database structure of the
CRUD database:

Figure 1: ER Diagram of CRUD database

4.1.3 Explanation of Entities

• Department: Represents different departments within the organization.
• Employee: Stores employee information.
• Group Employee: Maps employees to their respective groups.
• Groups: Represents employee groups within departments.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 11

• Lookup Table: A lookup table storing values categorized for various attributes within
the system.
• Person: Stores personal information of individuals.
• Supervisor: Maps employees to their supervisors.

4.1.4 Relationship Participation

• Employee - Department:
– Participation: Mandatory for Employee, Optional for Department.
– Every employee must belong to a department, but a department may or may not
have employees.

Figure 2: Relationship between Employee and Department

• Employee - Designation:
– Participation: Mandatory for Employee, Optional for Designation.
– Every employee must have a designation, but a designation may not necessarily be
assigned to any employee.
However, it’s possible that certain designations defined in the lookup table are not
currently assigned to any employee. This could occur due to changes in organizational
structure, job vacancies, or newly created roles that have not yet been filled.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 12

Figure 3: Relationship between Employee and Designation

• Employee - Person:
– Participation: Mandatory for Employee and Person.
– Each employee’s personal information must be stored, and every personal record
must be associated with an employee.

Figure 4: Relationship between Employee and Person

• Group - Supervisor:
– Participation: Optional for Group, Mandatory for Supervisor.
– A group may or may not have a supervisor, but every supervisor must be associated
with a group.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 13

Figure 5: Relationship between Group and Supervisor

• Group - Department:
– Participation: Mandatory for Group, Mandatory for Department.
– Every group must belong to a department, and every department must have at
least one group.

Figure 6: Relationship between Group and Department

4.2 Analysis Database

The Analysis database, named "EPE_Analysis", serves as a crucial component within the
Employee Performance Evaluation (EPE) system. This database is designed to store aggre-
gated data, derived metrics, and analytical insights essential for advanced analytics, reporting,
and decision-making processes.

4.2.1 Business Rules and Explanations

Data Management:

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 14

• Business Rule: Data stored in the Analysis database must be accurate, complete, and
up to date to ensure the reliability of analytical insights and reporting.
• Explanation: Maintaining data accuracy and currency is essential for generating mean-
ingful analytics and reports. It ensures that decisions made based on the analysis are
well-informed and aligned with the current state of the organization.
Metric Aggregation:
• Business Rule: Aggregated metrics stored in the Analysis database should be calculated
consistently and accurately to provide reliable insights into organizational performance.
• Explanation: Consistency in metric aggregation methodologies ensures that analytical
insights are comparable over time and across different areas of the organization. It
enhances the credibility of the analysis results and supports data-driven decision-making
processes.
Dashboard Configuration :
• Business Rule: Dashboard configurations must be customizable to meet the diverse
analytical needs of users while maintaining usability and accessibility.
• Explanation: Customizable dashboards empower users to tailor the presentation of
analytical insights according to their preferences and specific requirements. It enhances
user experience and facilitates effective data interpretation and decision-making.

4.2.2 Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD)

Below is the Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) illustrating the database structure of the
Analysis database:

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 15

Figure 7: ER Diagram of Analysis Database

4.2.3 Explanation of Entities

• Area of Evaluation: Represents different areas or categories used for evaluating em-
ployee performance.
• Evaluation: Stores records of performance evaluations conducted for employees.
• Group Evaluation: Tracks evaluations conducted at the group level.
• Lookup Table: Manages lookup values categorized for various attributes within the
system.
• Metrics: Defines performance metrics used for evaluating employee performance across
different areas.
• Weightage: Stores weightage percentages associated with each metric and lookup
value.

4.2.4 Relationship Participation

• Evaluation - Metrics:
– Participation: Mandatory for Evaluation, Mandatory for Metrics.
– Every evaluation must be associated with a metric, and every metric must be
evaluated in at least one evaluation.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 16

Figure 8: Relationship between Evaluation and Metrics

• Group Evaluation - Metrics:

– Participation: Mandatory for Group Evaluation, Mandatory for Metrics.
– Each group evaluation must be associated with a metric, and every metric must
be evaluated within the context of a group evaluation.

Figure 9: Relationship between Group Evaluation and Metrics

• Metrics – Area of Evaluation:

– Participation: Mandatory for Metrics, Mandatory for Area of Evaluation.
– Every metric must belong to an area of evaluation, and each area of evaluation
must have at least one metric associated with it.

Figure 10: Relationship between Metrics and Area of Evaluation

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 17

• Weightage – Lookup Table:

– Participation: Mandatory Weightage, Mandatory for Lookup Table.
– Every weightage entry must be linked to a lookup value, and each lookup value
must have weightage associated with it.

Figure 11: Relationship between Weightage and Lookup Table

• Weightage - Metrics:
– Participation: Mandatory for Weightage, Mandatory for Metrics.
– Each weightage entry must be associated with a metric, and every metric must
have weightage specified.

Figure 12: Relationship between Weightage and Metrics

4.3 ETL Database

4.3.1 Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD)
Below is the Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) illustrating the database structure of the
ETL database:

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 18

Figure 13: ER Diagram of ETL Database

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 19

5 Database Diagrams
5.1 CRUD-Database

Figure 14: Database Design of CRUD Database

5.2 CRUD-Analysis

Figure 15: Database Design of CRUD Database

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 20

5.3 Final Database

Figure 16: Database Design after ETL process

6 Data Flow Diagrams

Here are the DFD diagrams of the CRUD and analysis databases of the Employee Performance
Evaluation (EPE) project:

6.1 DFD of CRUD Database

This diagram illustrates the data flow within the CRUD database, showing how data is cre-
ated, read, updated, and deleted. It highlights the interaction between different components
and entities within the database.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 21

Figure 17: DFD of CRUD Database

6.2 DFD of Analysis Database

This diagram represents the data flow within the Analysis database, focusing on the aggre-
gation and analysis of data for reporting and decision-making purposes. It demonstrates how
data is processed and transformed to derive meaningful insights.

Figure 18: DFD of Analysis Database

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 22

7 Evaluation Mechanism
Here are the steps involved in evaluating employee performance:

7.1 Retrieve Evaluations

• Query the evaluation table to retrieve all evaluations associated with the target em-
ployee.

7.2 Obtain Metric Weightage

• Fetch the weightage percentage for each metric associated with the employee’s depart-
ment from the metric weightage table.

7.3 Calculate Weighted Points

• Multiply the points gained in each evaluation by the corresponding weightage percentage
obtained in step 2.
• Divide the result by 100 to obtain the weighted points for each evaluation.

7.4 Total Weighted Points

• Sum up the weighted points obtained from step 3 for all evaluations.

7.5 Calculate Final Percentage

• Divide the total sum of weighted points by the raw sum of points gained in evaluations
to determine the final performance percentage.

8 User Interface Design

8.1 Web Pages
The Employee Performance Evaluation (EPE) system will feature user-friendly web pages
accessible via standard web browsers. These pages will provide interfaces for users to inter-
act with various system functionalities, such as submitting performance evaluations, viewing
reports, and managing user accounts.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 23

1. Main Page

Figure 19: Web page

2. Add Supervisor

Figure 20: Web page Add Supervisor

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 24

3. Group

Figure 21: Web page Create Group

4. Group Employee

Figure 22: Web page Group Employee

8.2 Power BI
Integration with Power BI will allow users to access comprehensive data visualizations and
analytics, providing insights into employee performance trends, departmental metrics, and

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 25

organizational benchmarks. The interactive dashboards created using Power BI will enable
stakeholders to make informed decisions based on real-time data.
1. Employee Details

Figure 23: Power BI showing Employee Details

2. Employee records

Figure 24: Power BI showing Employee Records

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 26

3. Employee Rating

Figure 25: Power BI showing Employee Rating

4. Filter Employee Details

Figure 26: Power BI to filter Employee Details

8.3 WinForms
Additionally, the EPE system will incorporate WinForms-based interfaces for desktop ap-
plications, offering a more tailored experience for specific tasks such as data entry, report
generation, and administrative functions. This integration will cater to users who prefer
desktop-based interactions or require offline access to certain functionalities.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 27

1. Add Employee

Figure 27: WinForm of Employee

2. Create Group.

Figure 28: WinForm to create group

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 28

3. Employee Evaluation.

Figure 29: WinForm of Employee Evaluation

4. Employee Details.

Figure 30: WinForm of Employee Details

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 29

9 Dependency
9.1 Functional Dependency
Functional dependency refers to the relationship between attributes within the database ta-
bles. In the Employee Performance Evaluation (EPE) system, there is no strict functional
dependency where one attribute uniquely determines another within the same table.

9.2 Full Functional Dependency

Full functional dependency occurs in certain relationships where specific attributes completely
determine others within the database tables. For example, in the evaluation table, the ob-
tained marks attribute is fully functionally dependent on attributes retrieved from both the
employee and metric tables.

9.3 Existence Dependency

Existence dependency refers to the reliance of certain records on the existence of others. In
the EPE system:
• In the Employee table, the existence of an employee depends on a corresponding record
in the Person table.
• In the GroupEmployee table, the existence of a group employee record depends on the
existence of both a group and an employee.
• In the Evaluation table, the existence of an evaluation record depends on both an
employee and a metric.
• In the GroupEvaluation table, the existence of a group evaluation record depends on
both a group and a metric.

10 Relationship Strength
10.1 Strong Relationship
In the Employee Performance Evaluation (EPE) database, strong relationships are prevalent
among various entities, ensuring data integrity and coherence throughout the system. Here’s
how these strong relationships manifest within the database:

10.1.1 Employee - Person Relationship:

• Each employee record is directly associated with a corresponding person record, identi-
fied by a unique primary key.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 30

• This relationship is strong because the existence and identification of an employee record
do not depend on the presence of any other entity.

10.1.2 Groups - GroupEmployee, GroupEvaluation Relationships:

• Both the GroupEmployee and GroupEvaluation entities have a strong relationship with
the Groups entity.
• Each group employee record and group evaluation record is directly tied to a specific
group, identified by a unique primary key.
• These relationships are strong because the existence and identification of group-related
records do not rely on any other entity.

10.1.3 Evaluation - Employee, Metrics Relationship:

• Each evaluation record is directly associated with both an employee and a metric record,
identified by unique primary keys.
• This relationship is strong because the existence and identification of an evaluation
record do not depend on any other entity.

10.1.4 Metrics - Evaluation, GroupEvaluation Relationships:

• Both the Evaluation and GroupEvaluation entities have a strong relationship with the
Metrics entity.
• Each evaluation record and group evaluation record is directly tied to a specific metric,
identified by a unique primary key.
• These relationships are strong because the existence and identification of evaluation-
related records do not rely on any other entity.

10.2 Weak Relationship

In the Employee Performance Evaluation (EPE) database, weak relationships are character-
ized by entities that do not have a primary key attribute capable of uniquely identifying them
on their own. Instead, they depend on related strong entities for identification, typically
through a partial key. Here are examples of weak relationships in the EPE database:

10.2.1 Employee - Person Relationship:

• The Employee entity is weak in relation to the Person entity.
• An employee record depends on a corresponding person record for identification.
• The partial key of the Employee entity, such as the User_id attribute, combines with
the primary key of the Person entity to form a unique identifier for the employee.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 31

10.2.2 GroupEmployee - Groups, Employee Relationships:

• The GroupEmployee entity is weak in relation to both the Groups and Employee entities.
• A group employee record depends on both a group and an employee record for identi-
fication.
• The partial keys of the GroupEmployee entity, such as Group_id and Employee_id
attributes, combine with the primary keys of the Groups and Employee entities to form
a unique identifier for the group employee.

10.2.3 Evaluation - Employee, Metrics Relationship:

• The Evaluation entity is weak in relation to both the Employee and Metrics entities.
• An evaluation record depends on both an employee and a metric record for identification.
• The partial keys of the Evaluation entity, such as Employee_id and Metric_id at-
tributes, combine with the primary keys of the Employee and Metrics entities to form
a unique identifier for the evaluation.

10.2.4 GroupEvaluation - Groups, Metrics Relationships:

• The GroupEvaluation entity is weak in relation to both the Groups and Metrics entities.
• A group evaluation record depends on both a group and a metric record for identifica-
tion.
• The partial keys of the GroupEvaluation entity, such as Group_id and Metric_id at-
tributes, combine with the primary keys of the Groups and Metrics entities to form a
unique identifier for the group evaluation.

10.3 Strong Entities

• Employee:
– Represents individual employees within the organization.
– Possesses a primary key attribute (Empl_id) that uniquely identifies each em-
ployee.
– The Employee entity stands independently and does not rely on other entities for
identification.
• Groups:
– Represents groups or teams within the organization.
– Possesses a primary key attribute (id) that uniquely identifies each group.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 32

– The Groups entity is a strong entity as it can stand on its own without depending
on other entities for identification.

10.4 Weak Entities

• Person:
– Represents individuals’ personal information, including email, phone number, and
address.
– Lacks a primary key attribute capable of uniquely identifying each record.
– Depends on other entities, such as Employee, for identification through a partial
key.
• Evaluation:
– Represents performance evaluations conducted for employees.
– Does not have a primary key attribute capable of uniquely identifying each evalu-
ation record.
– Relies on attributes from related entities, such as Employee and Metrics, for iden-
tification through a partial key.

11 Limitations
11.1 Scalability
The current system may face challenges in scaling to accommodate a growing number of
users and increasing data volume. As the organization expands, there may be limitations in
handling large-scale performance evaluations and data analytics.

11.2 Integration Complexity

Integrating the Employee Performance Evaluation (EPE) system with existing HR manage-
ment software or other organizational systems may pose challenges due to differences in data
formats, APIs, and compatibility issues.

11.3 Security Risks

The system may be susceptible to security vulnerabilities, including data breaches, unautho-
rized access, and potential cyber threats. Ensuring robust security measures and compliance
with data protection regulations is crucial to mitigate these risks.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 33

11.4 User Adoption

User adoption and acceptance of the new system may be hindered by resistance to change,
lack of training, or unfamiliarity with the technology. Addressing user concerns and providing
adequate training and support are essential for successful adoption.

11.5 Maintenance Overhead

Ongoing maintenance and updates to the EPE system may require significant resources in
terms of time, manpower, and costs. Ensuring effective maintenance processes and resource
allocation is necessary to prevent system downtime and performance issues.

11.6 Compatibility
• Compatibility issues may arise when integrating with other systems or software compo-
nents, especially if they use different data formats or communication protocols.
• Ensuring seamless interoperability between the database and external systems may re-
quire additional effort and resources.

12 Future Goals
12.1 Enhanced Scalability
Implementing scalable architecture and infrastructure to support the growth of the organiza-
tion and accommodate increasing user and data demands.

12.2 Seamless Integration

Enhancing integration capabilities to seamlessly connect with other organizational systems,
such as HRIS, payroll, and performance management platforms, to streamline data exchange
and workflow automation.

12.3 Advanced Security Measures

Implementing advanced security measures, such as multi-factor authentication, encryption,
and intrusion detection systems, to strengthen data protection and mitigate security risks.

12.4 User Experience Improvements

Continuously enhancing the user interface design, navigation, and functionality to improve
user experience and increase user satisfaction and productivity.

CS-263L Database Systems

Employee Performance Evaluation 34

12.5 Predictive Analytics

Leveraging advanced analytics and machine learning algorithms to enable predictive analytics
capabilities, such as forecasting employee performance trends, identifying potential issues,
and recommending proactive interventions.

12.6 Mobile Accessibility

Developing mobile applications or responsive web interfaces to provide users with anytime,
anywhere access to the EPE system, facilitating remote performance evaluations and decision-
making processes.

13 Conclusion
The evaluation mechanism outlined above provides a systematic approach to assess employee
performance within the Employee Performance Evaluation (EPE) system. By following these
steps, organizations can effectively analyze employee contributions, align performance with
organizational goals, and identify areas for improvement. Through comprehensive evaluation
processes, the EPE system facilitates data-driven decision-making, fosters employee develop-
ment, and supports the overall success of the organization.

14 Github Project Link

The project code and related materials can be found on GitHub at the following link:
https://github.com/Arbazkhan04/DBFinalPID-9.

CS-263L Database Systems