Appendix Z

Title: Development of a Coffee Bean Roaster with Time and Temperature Monitor

Project Testing and Evaluation

The researchers used a self-made testing matrix to verify the project’s

functionality, accuracy, and reliability. Whereas, the survey instrument formulated
by TUP for industrial technology research was used to ascertain the Functionality,
Workability, Durability, Economy, and Safety of the project.

The participants who evaluated the project comprised of thirty (30)

respondents: eighteen (18) coffee enthusiasts, eight (8) barista’s, and four (4)
coffee business owners. Table 16 below shows the summary of the respondents.

Table 16.
Summary of Respondents

Type Frequency
Coffee enthusiasts 18
Barista 8
Coffee business owner 4
TOTAL 30

As presented in Table 16, most of the respondents are coffee enthusiasts

(f=18) followed by the baristas at f=8, and coffee shop owners at f=4 for a total of
30 respondents. The participants have knowledge about coffee roasting which is
essential in the evaluation of the project.

Project Test Results

Before the research project undergoes evaluation, it has to be tested to

determine if it works according to the design specifications. In this project, the
focus of testing includes Operation, accuracy, and reliability. The results were
presented in tables 17, 18, and 19 respectively.
71
 Table 17.
Test Results for Operation of the Project

Type of Roast Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

City Roast 9.05 10.07 9.57 9.56
City + 9.38 11.07 10.12 10.19
Full City 9.83 11.98 11.07 10.96
Full City + 10.18 12.98 12.16 11.77
Vienna 10.65 13.21 12.89 12.25
* Trials conducted were measured in minutes

As shown in Table 17, the coffee roasting machine is operating according to

the objectives of the study. All the types of coffee roasts were performed several
times but only 3 trials were shown as evidence. It can be seen that the City Roast
average time is 9.56 minutes or 9 minutes and 33 second; City+ averaged 10.19
minutes or 10 minutes and 11 second; Full City averaged 10.96 minutes or 10
minutes 57 seconds; Full City+ averaged 11.77 minutes or 11 minutes and 46
seconds; Vienna averaged 12.25 minutes or 12 minutes and 15 seconds.

Evaluation Results

Using the TUP-approved survey instrument the project was evaluated to

determine the acceptability of the project in terms Functionality, Workability,
Durability, Economy and Safety. The results are presented below.

Table 22 shows the mean distribution of the rating on the functionality of the
project.

Table 22.
Mean Distribution of the Rating on the72
Functionality of the Project
 FUNCTIONALITY Mean S.D Verbal Interpretation
Indicators
1. Ease of use 4.40 0.92 Very Good
2. Provision for comfort and convenience 4.10 0.81 Very Good
3. Appropriateness of size 4.07 0.92 Very Good
Total Mean 4.19 Very functional
Legend: Range of means Verbal Interpretation Description
4.51 – 5.00 Excellent Highly Acceptable
3.51 – 4.50 Very good Acceptable
2.51 – 3.50 Good Moderately acceptable
1.51 – 2.50 Fair Slightly acceptable
1.00 – 1.50 Poor Not acceptable

As seen in Table 22, the ease of use aspect got a mean rating of 4.40

(SD=0.92) interpreted as “very good” and described as very “acceptable”; the

project was also rated “very good” on the provision for comfort and convenience

with a mean rating of 4.10 (SD=0.81) described as “acceptable”; the

appropriateness in size of the project was likewise rated “very good” with a mean

rating of 4.07 (SD=0.92) also described as “acceptable”. The total mean of 4.19

indicates that the project is very functional and acceptable to be used for coffee

roasting.

Table 28 shows the summary of the total means and the overall mean
rating of the acceptability of the project

Table 28.
The overall mean of all the evaluation73
criteria
 Total Mean
Evaluation Criteria Verbal Interpretation
Rating
Indicators
1. Functionality 4.19 Very good
2. Marketability 4.26 Very good
3. Workability 4.07 Very good
4. Durability 4.25 Very good
5. Economy 4.22 Very good
6. Safety 3.94 Very good
Overall mean 4.15 Very acceptable
Legend: Range of means Verbal Interpretation Description
4.51 – 5.00 Excellent Highly Acceptable
3.51 – 4.50 Very good Acceptable
2.51 – 3.50 Good Moderately acceptable
1.51 – 2.50 Fair Slightly acceptable
1.00 – 1.50 Poor Not acceptable

As presented in Table 28, the indicator Functionality has a total mean rating

of 4.19 interpreted as “very good” and described as “acceptable”; Marketability has

a mean rating of 4.26 interpreted as “very good” and described as “acceptable”;

workability was rated mean rating of 4.07 interpreted as “very good” and

described as “acceptable”; Durability was assessed a mean rating of 4.25

interpreted as “very good” and described as “acceptable”; Economy got a mean

rating of 4.22 interpreted as “very good” and described as “acceptable”; Safety has

a mean rating of 3.94 interpreted as “very good” and described as “acceptable.”

The overall mean rating of 4.15 is a sign that the Coffee Bean Roaster with Time

and Temperature Monitor project is “acceptable.”

74