RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the data and findings gathered through the research

instruments used in the study. The data were analyzed and statistically treated in order to

evaluate the interpretations of data that will lead to the conclusions and recommendations

of the study.

1. The Stages Undertaken in the Development of the Computer Vision System for

Meat Quality Evaluation using Agile model

An Agile software development methodology is an iterative and incremental

process model that focuses on adaptability to changing product requirements through

rapid delivery of working product features and end-user participation.

Figure 2. Computer Vision System for Meat Quality Evaluation Development

Paradigm
 The Agile model is divided into separate phases, namely, Requirements, Planning,

Designing, Development, Release, and Track and Monitor.

The first phase in the development of the machine learning algorithm for meat

quality standard is the Requirements definition. This phase involves identifying the

problems and gathering necessary information and documents needed to develop the

device as well as defining its functional requirements. A thorough literature search was

conducted by the developer to understand the technical aspects needed to develop a

device that will evaluate and classify pork meat based on quality. Selected meat

inspectors, who are identified as the respondents that will mainly benefit from the

development of the device were interviewed as well to give some ideas about meat

quality inspection.

After gathering sufficient information and considering the target users of the

device, the researcher moved to the second phase of the development which is the

Planning. The researcher has identified the scope of the problem as well as solutions to

them. After the interview with the meat inspector, the problem on the time-consuming

and subjective process of visual meat inspection surfaced which somehow cause

inefficiency when accurate and instantaneous results are needed. The researcher then

thought of, based on literature, the development of a system that will shorten the time

spent in doing the visual inspection with a certain degree of accuracy.

The third phase is Designing. Based on the information gathered from the

literature search and the interview conducted with the meat inspectors, a block diagram

was created.
 INPUT UNIT CONTROL AND DISPLAY UNIT
(Raspberry pi PROCESSING UNIT (LCD)
camera) (Raspberry pi)

Figure 3. Block Diagram for the Computer Vision System for Meat Quality
Evaluation
The design in Figure 3 has helped in specifying hardware and software

requirements. The image of a meat sample is captured using a Picamera. The image

captured is then processed by the meat quality classifier software installed in the

Raspberry pi and then the classification is displayed on the LCD screen.

Figure 4. Interface of the Computer Vision System

The prototype interface of the device was designed as shown in Figure 4. The

prototype interface has two buttons: Capture and Clear. The Capture button takes the

image of the meat sample and triggers the evaluation and classification process. On the
other hand, the Clear button, erases previous classification readings and readies the

camera for another image capture. The white box frame on the left of the interface shows

the captured image of the meat sample while the classification label is shown on the

upper right of the interface.

The fourth phase is Development. Based on the initial designs illustrated on

Figures 3 and 4, all requirements are translated into interfaces and codes. The computer

vision system for meat quality evaluation software was created using Python as the main

programming language. MobileNet, a convolutional neural network architecture was used

as the machine learning technique which enhanced the capability of the computer vision

system. The scripts to retrain the network using the meat sample datasets and all the

numerical calculations on these datasets were provided by Tensorflow. The models and

graphs arising from these datasets were also provided by Tensorflow.

The fifth phase is the Release. This is where the newly developed device was

tested and users were trained on how to use the device.

The testing included comparing the pH values of pork meat with the color-

texture-exudation readings of the system. Each samples were scanned three (3) times and

each readings were recorded and analyzed.

The device was also tested in three (3) public markets in Cavite. These are Silang

Public Market, Tagaytay City Market and Kadiwa Market, Dasmariñas City. The

researcher scanned the pork meat on different times of the day: morning (5:00am -

6:00am), noon (12:00nn -1:00pm) and afternoon (4:00pm). The results were recorded.
 The respondents were then presented with the device and their comments and

suggestions were used to enhance some features of the device.

The sixth phase is Track and Monitor where the device is re-released to the

respondents for use. After this phase, the respondents were asked to evaluate the device

based on the criteria of ISO25010.

2. Evaluation of the Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners on the Computer Vision

System for Meat Quality Evaluation in terms of Functional Suitability, Performance

Efficiency, Usability, Reliability, and Portability

The evaluation of the Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners are presented in the

tables below. The developed device was evaluated in terms of Functional Suitability

(Table 1), Performance Efficiency (Table 2), Usability (Table 3), Reliability (Table 4),

and Portability (Table 5).

Table 1
Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation of Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners’
Evaluation on the Computer Vision System for Meat Quality Evaluation in terms of
Functional Suitability

Meat Inspectors IT Practitioners

Indicators WM VI WM VI TOTAL VI
WM
1) Completeness- 4.57 Highly 4.73 Highly 4.65 Highly
refers to the degree to Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
which the set of
functions covers all the
specified tasks and user
objectives of the
device.
2) Correctness-refers to 4.07 Acceptable 4.30 Acceptable 4.19 Acceptable
the degree to which a
product or system
provides the correct
results with the needed
degree of precision of
 the device.
3) Appropriateness- 4.32 Acceptable 4.53 Highly 4.43 Acceptable
refers to the degree to Acceptable
which the functions
facilitate the
accomplishment of
specified tasks and
objectives of the
device.
OVERALL 4.32 Acceptable 4.52 Highly 4.42 Acceptable
Acceptable
Legend: WM-Weighted Mean; VI-Verbal Interpretation

Table 1 shows the evaluation of the respondents on the device based on

Functional Suitability and is determined specifically by its Completeness, Correctness

and Appropriateness, with a weighted mean of 4.32 and 4.52 respectively, having a

verbal interpretation of Acceptable and Highly Acceptable by the two categories of

respondents and an overall weighted mean of 4.42 with a verbal interpretation of

Acceptable. Completeness has a weighted mean from Meat Inspectors and IT

Practitioners of 4.57 and 4.73 respectively, having a verbal interpretation of Highly

Acceptable and an overall weighted mean of 4.65 with a verbal interpretation of Highly

Acceptable. Correctness as evaluated by Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners got a

weighted mean of 4.07 and 4.30 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable and an overall

weighted mean of 4.19 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable. For Appropriateness, it

has a weighted mean of 4.32 and 4.53 respectively, and has a verbal interpretation of

Acceptable and Highly Acceptable and an overall weighted mean of 4.43 with a verbal

interpretation of Acceptable. This shows that according to the two groups of respondents,

the device was able to provide effectivity in terms of Functional Suitability. The

evaluation result was consistent with the result of the research of Sun et al. (2018) in

which it was stated that the one area where the use of computer vision system has spread
rapidly is in the inspection of food products. The quality attributes of meat products have

been traditionally evaluated by trained personnel, but today have mostly been replaced by

automatic inspection systems based on computer vision and image analysis. It must also

be noted that development in deep learning and convolutional neural network are very

efficient for food classification and recognition. Deep learning learns the image features

and extracts contextual details and global features that will help in reducing the error

remarkably (Bhargava and Bansal, 2018).

Table 2 shows the evaluation of Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners of the

device based on Performance Efficiency and is determined by three criteria: Time

Behavior, Resource Utilization, and Capacity. Time Behavior has an evaluation of 3.96

from Meat Inspectors with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable and the evaluation of IT

Practitioners has a weighted mean of 4.07 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable.

Overall, Time Behavior has a weighted mean of 4.02 with a verbal interpretation of

Acceptable.

Resource Utilization has an evaluation of 4.00 from Meat Inspectors and has a

verbal interpretation of Acceptable and the evaluation of IT Practitioners has a weighted

mean of 4.20 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable. Overall, Resource Utilization got

a weighted mean of 4.10 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable.

Table 2
Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation of Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners’
Evaluation on the Computer Vision System for Meat Quality Evaluation in terms of
Performance Efficiency

Meat Inspectors IT Practitioners

Indicators WM VI WM VI TOTAL VI
WM
1) Time behavior- 3.96 Acceptable 4.07 Acceptable 4.02 Acceptable
 refers to the degree to
which the response and
processing times and
throughput rates of the
device, when
performing its
functions, meet
requirements.
2) Resource utilization- 4.00 Acceptable 4.20 Acceptable 4.10 Acceptable
refers to the degree to
which the amounts and
types of resources used
by the device, when
performing its
functions, meet
requirements.
3) Capacity-refers to 4.07 Acceptable 4.40 Acceptable 4.24 Acceptable
the degree to which the
maximum limits of the
device parameter meet
requirements.
OVERALL 4.01 Acceptable 4.22 Acceptable 4.12 Acceptable

Legend: WM-Weighted Mean; VI-Verbal Interpretation

Capacity has a weighted mean of 4.07 from the evaluation of Meat Inspectors

with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable and a weighted mean of 4.40 from IT

Practitioners with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable. Overall, Capacity got a weighted

mean of 4.24 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable.

Overall, the Performance Efficiency criterion of the device from the Meat

Inspectors and IT Practitioners has an overall weighted mean of 4.01 and 4.22

respectively, with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable. This shows that according to the

two groups of respondents, the device was able to provide effectivity in terms of

Performance Efficiency. Previous research has demonstrated that in the inspection

process and technical evaluation of using electronic media, computer vision has the

advantage of being fast, consistent, objective, non-invasive and inexpensive (A. P. A. d.

C. Barbon et al., 2017, Sanaeifar, Bakhshipour, & de la Guardia, 2016), thus, the

evaluation on the developed device’s performance efficiency validated this finding.

 Table 3
Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation of Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners’
Evaluation on the Computer Vision System for Meat Quality Evaluation in terms of
Usability
Meat Inspectors IT Practitioners
Indicators WM VI WM VI TOTAL VI
WM
1) Appropriateness 4.43 Acceptable 4.73 Highly 4.58 Highly
recognizability-refers to the Acceptable Acceptable
degree to which users can
recognize whether the device
is appropriate for their needs.
2) Learnability-refers to the 4.75 Highly 4.70 Highly 4.73 Highly
degree to which the device Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
can be used by specified
users to achieve specified
goals of learning to use the
product or system with
Acceptableness, efficiency,
freedom from risk and
satisfaction in a specified
context of use.
3) Operability-refers to the 4.50 Highly 4.73 Highly 4.62 Highly
degree to which the device Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
has attributes that make it
easy to operate and control.
4) User error protection- 4.29 Acceptable 4.53 Highly 4.41 Acceptable
refers to the degree to which Acceptable
the device protects users
against making errors.
5) User interface aesthetics- 4.43 Acceptable 4.73 Highly 4.58 Highly
refers to the degree to which Acceptable Acceptable
a user interface enables
pleasing and satisfying
interaction for the user.
6) Accessibility-refers to the 4.36 Acceptable 4.53 Acceptable 4.45 Acceptable
degree to which the device
can be used by people with
the widest range of
characteristics and
capabilities to achieve a
specified goal in a specified
context of use.
OVERALL 4.46 Acceptable 4.66 Highly 4.56 Highly
Acceptable Acceptable
Legend: WM-Weighted Mean; VI-Verbal Interpretation
 Table 3 shows the evaluation of Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners of the

device based on Usability determined by six criteria: Appropriateness Recognizability,

Learnability, Operability, User Error Protection, User Interface Aesthetics, and

Accessibility. Appropriateness Recognizability has an evaluation of 4.43 from Meat

Inspectors with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable and the evaluation of IT

Practitioners has weighted mean of 4.73 with a verbal interpretation of Highly

Acceptable. Overall, Appropriateness Recognizability has a weighted mean of 4.58 with

a verbal interpretation of Highly Acceptable. Learnability has an evaluation of 4.75 from

Meat Inspectors with a verbal interpretation of Highly Acceptable and the evaluation of

IT Practitioners has weighted mean of 4.70 with a verbal interpretation of Highly

Acceptable. Overall, Learnability has a weighted mean of 4.73 with a verbal

interpretation of Highly Acceptable. Operability has an evaluation of 4.50 from Meat

Inspectors with a verbal interpretation of Highly Acceptable and the evaluation of IT

Practitioners has weighted mean of 4.73 with a verbal interpretation of Highly

Acceptable. Overall, Operability has a weighted mean of 4.62 with a verbal interpretation

of Highly Acceptable. User Error Protection has an evaluation of 4.29 from Meat

Inspectors with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable and the evaluation of IT

Practitioners has weighted mean of 4.53 with a verbal interpretation of Highly

Acceptable. Overall, User Error Protection has a weighted mean of 4.41 with a verbal

interpretation of Acceptable. User Interface Aesthetics has an evaluation of 4.43 from

Meat Inspectors with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable and the evaluation of IT

Practitioners has weighted mean of 4.73 with a verbal interpretation of Highly

Acceptable. Overall, User Interface Aesthetics has a weighted mean of 4.58 with a verbal
interpretation of Highly Acceptable. Accessibility has an evaluation of 4.36 from Meat

Inspectors with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable and the evaluation of IT

Practitioners has weighted mean of 4.53 with a verbal interpretation of Highly

Acceptable. Overall, Accessibility has a weighted mean of 4.45 with a verbal

interpretation of Acceptable.

Generally, the Usability criterion of the device from the Meat Inspectors and IT

Practitioners has an overall weighted mean of 4.46 and 4.66 respectively, with a verbal

interpretation of Acceptable and Highly Acceptable. This shows that according to the two

groups of respondents, the device was able to provide effectivity in terms of Usability.

Table 4
Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation of Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners’
Evaluation on the Computer Vision System for Meat Quality Evaluation in terms of
Reliability

Meat Inspectors IT Practitioners

Indicators WM VI WM VI TOTAL VI
WM
1) Maturity-refers to 3.96 Acceptable 4.10 Acceptable 4.03 Acceptable
the degree to which the
device meets needs for
reliability under normal
operation.
2) Availability-refers to 3.93 Acceptable 4.00 Acceptable 3.96 Acceptable
the degree to which the
device is operational
and accessible when
required for use.
3) Fault tolerance- 4.04 Acceptable 4.03 Acceptable 4.04 Acceptable
refers to the degree to
which the device
operates as intended
despite the presence of
hardware or software
faults.
4) Recoverability-refers 3.96 Acceptable 4.13 Acceptable 4.05 Acceptable
to the degree to which,
in the event of an
interruption or a
failure, the device can
 recover the data
directly affected and re-
establish the desired
state of the system.
OVERALL 3.97 Acceptable 4.07 Acceptable 4.02 Acceptable

Legend: WM-Weighted Mean; VI-Verbal Interpretation

Table 4 shows the evaluation of Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners of the

device based on Reliability determined by four criteria: Maturity, Availability, Fault

Tolerance, and Recoverability. Maturity has an evaluation of 3.96 from Meat Inspectors

with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable and the evaluation of IT Practitioners has

weighted mean of 4.10 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable. Overall, Maturity has a

weighted mean of 4.03 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable. Availability has an

evaluation of 3.93 from Meat Inspectors with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable and

the evaluation of IT Practitioners has weighted mean of 4.00 with a verbal interpretation

of Acceptable. Overall, Availability has a weighted mean of 3.96 with a verbal

interpretation of Acceptable. Fault Tolerance has an evaluation of 4.04 from Meat

Inspectors with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable and the evaluation of IT

Practitioners has weighted mean of 4.03 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable.

Overall, Fault Tolerance has a weighted mean of 4.04 with a verbal interpretation of

Acceptable. Recoverability has an evaluation of 3.96 from Meat Inspectors with a verbal

interpretation of Acceptable and the evaluation of IT Practitioners has weighted mean of

4.13 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable. Overall, Recoverability has a weighted

mean of 4.05 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable.

Generally, the Reliability criterion of the device from the Meat Inspectors and IT

Practitioners has an overall weighted mean of 3.97 and 4.07 respectively, with a verbal
interpretation of Acceptable. This shows that according to the two groups of respondents,

the device was able to provide effectivity in terms of Reliability.

Table 5
Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation of Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners’
Evaluation on the Computer Vision System for Meat Quality Evaluation in terms of
Portability

Meat Inspectors IT Practitioners

Indicators WM VI WM VI TOTAL VI
WM
1) Adaptability- 4.14 Acceptabl 4.33 Acceptabl 4.24 Acceptable
refers to the degree e e
to which the device
can effectively and
efficiently be
adapted for
different or
evolving hardware,
software or other
operational or
usage
environments.
2) Installability- 4.21 Acceptabl 4.33 Acceptabl 4.27 Acceptable
refers to the degree e e
of Acceptableness
and efficiency with
which the device
can be successfully
installed and/or
uninstalled in a
specified
environment.
3) Replicability- 4.14 Acceptabl 4.43 Acceptabl 4.29 Acceptable
refers to the degree e e
to which the device
can replace another
specified software
product for the
same purpose in
the same
environment.
OVERALL 4.17 Acceptabl 4.37 Acceptabl 4.27 Acceptable
e e
Legend: WM-Weighted Mean; VI-Verbal Interpretation

Table 5 shows the evaluation of Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners of the

device based on Portability determined by three criteria: Adaptability, Installability, and

Replicability. Adaptability has an evaluation of 4.14 from Meat Inspectors with a verbal

interpretation of Acceptable and the evaluation of IT Practitioners has weighted mean of

4.43 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable. Overall, Adaptability has a weighted

mean of 4.24 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable. Installability has an evaluation

of 4.21 from Meat Inspectors with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable and the

evaluation of IT Practitioners has weighted mean of 4.33 with a verbal interpretation of

Acceptable. Overall, Installability has a weighted mean of 4.27 with a verbal

interpretation of Acceptable. Replicability has an evaluation of 4.14 from Meat

Inspectors with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable and the evaluation of IT

Practitioners has weighted mean of 4.43 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable.

Overall, Replicability has a weighted mean of 4.29 with a verbal interpretation of

Acceptable.

Overall, the Portability criterion of the System from the Meat Inspectors and IT

Practitioners has an overall weighted mean of 4.17 and 4.37 respectively, with a verbal

interpretation of Acceptable. This shows that according to the two groups of respondents,

the device was able to provide effectivity in terms of Portability.

Table 6
Overall Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation of the Respondents on the
Computer Vision System for Meat Quality Evaluation based on Functional
Suitability, Performance Efficiency, Usability, Reliability, and Portability

Meat Inspectors IT Practitioners

Indicators WM VI WM VI

Functional Suitability 4.32 Acceptable 4.52 Highly

Acceptable
Performance Efficiency 4.01 Acceptable 4.22 Acceptable
 Usability 4.46 Acceptable 4.66 Highly
Acceptable
Reliability 3.97 Acceptable 4.07 Acceptable

Portability 4.17 Acceptable 4.37 Acceptable

General Weighted Mean 4.19 Acceptable 4.37 Acceptable

Legend: WM-Weighted Mean; VI-Verbal Interpretation

Table 6 shows the overall general weighted mean of the evaluation of the

respondents on the device per criteria. Based on the criteria, the general weighted mean

of the Meat Inspectors was 4.19 with the verbal interpretation of Acceptable. For IT

Practitioners, the general weighted mean was 4.37 with a verbal interpretation of

Acceptable. This shows that, according to the two groups of respondents, the device is

Acceptable in terms of Functional Suitability, Performance Efficiency, Usability,

Reliability, and Portability. With recent advances in hardware and software, computer

vision system has been allowed to become a technology even more cost-effective, more

consistent, more rapid, and more accurate than ever before (Sun et al., 2017).

3. Difference on the Evaluation of Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners of the Meat

Quality Classifier in terms of Functional Suitability, Performance Efficiency,

Usability, Reliability, and Portability

To determine the difference between the evaluation of Meat Inspectors and IT

Practitioners of the device in terms of Functional Suitability, Performance Efficiency,

Usability, Reliability, and Portability, the z-test is applied. The result of the application of

the test statistics is presented and discussed below:

Table 7
Summary of the z-test Results of the Two Groups of Respondents for Functional
Suitability, Performance Efficiency, Usability, Reliability, and Portability
Criteria z value

Computed Tabular Decision Remarks

Functional Suitability 1.04 1.96 Accept Insignificant

Performance Efficiency 1.04 1.96 Accept Insignificant

Usability 0.26 1.96 Accept Insignificant

Reliability 0.60 1.96 Accept Insignificant

Portability 1.39 1.96 Accept Insignificant

3.1 Functional Suitability

Table 7 shows that there is no difference between the evaluation of Meat

Inspectors and IT Practitioners of the device in terms of Functional Suitability using z-

test. The computed value of z=1.04, 0.05 level of significance with a critical value of 1.96

accepts the null hypothesis.

The result of the non-rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the equality of

evaluation between the two groups of respondents which proves that the device meets the

specification and requirements of the respondents in terms of Functional Suitability.

3.2 Performance Efficiency

Table 7 shows that there is no difference between the evaluation of Meat

Inspectors and IT Practitioners of the device in terms of Performance Efficiency using z-

test. The computed value of z=1.04, 0.05 level of significance with a critical value of 1.96

accepts the null hypothesis.

The result of the non-rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the equality of

evaluation between the two groups of respondents which proves that the device meets the

specification and requirements of the respondents in terms of Performance Efficiency.

3.3 Usability

Table 7 shows that there is no difference between the evaluation of Meat

Inspectors and IT Practitioners of the device in terms of Usability using z-test. The

computed value of z=0.26, 0.05 level of significance with a critical value of 1.96 accepts

the null hypothesis.

The result of the non-rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the equality of

evaluation between the two groups of respondents which proves that the device meets the

specification and requirements of the respondents in terms of Usability.

3.4 Reliability

Table 7 shows that there is no difference between the evaluation of Meat

Inspectors and IT Practitioners of the device in terms of Reliability using z-test. The

computed value of z=0.60, 0.05 level of significance with a critical value of 1.96 accepts

the null hypothesis.

The result of the non-rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the equality of

evaluation between the two groups of respondents which proves that the device meets the

specification and requirements of the respondents in terms of Reliability.

3.5 Portability

Table 7 shows that there is no difference between the evaluation of Meat

Inspectors and IT Practitioners in the device in terms of Portability using z-test. The

computed value of z=1.39, 0.05 level of significance with a critical value of 1.96 accepts

the null hypothesis.

 The result of the non-rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the equality of

evaluation between the two groups of respondents which proves that device meets the

specification and requirements of the respondents in terms of Portability.

4. Implications Drawn from the Results of the Study

It is important to note that there are several limitations to this study that should be

kept in mind when interpreting the findings. First, the transfer learning approach used by

the study builds on the information that already exists in pre-trained models. Second,

models using greater amounts of training data take longer to create, thus using a

relatively modest amount of training data is advised. As a result, these models may be

less accurate than systems that use more training data.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION & RECCOMENDATION

This chapter discusses the summary of findings from the gathered and analyzed

data, the conclusions drawn from the findings and recommendations offered by the

researcher in the light of the findings and conclusions.

Summary of Findings

1. Stages undertaken in the development of the computer vision system for meat

quality evaluation using Agile model

The researcher used the Agile model in the development of the computer vision

system for meat quality evaluation which are further broken down into the following
phases: Requirements, Planning, Designing, Development, Release, and Track and

Monitor.

2. Evaluation of the meat inspectors and IT practitioners on the computer vision

system for meat quality evaluation in terms of:

2.1 Functional Suitability

The evaluation of the developed device in terms of Functional Suitability obtained an

average weighted mean of 4.42 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable.

2.2 Performance Efficiency

The evaluation of the developed device in terms of Performance Efficiency obtained an

average weighted mean of 4.12 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable.

2.3 Usability

The evaluation of the developed device in terms of Usability obtained an average

weighted mean of 4.56 with a verbal interpretation of Highly Acceptable.

2.4 Reliability

The evaluation of the developed device in terms of Reliability obtained an average

weighted mean of 4.02 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable.

2.5 Portability

The evaluation of the developed device in terms of Portability obtained an average

weighted mean of 4.27 with a verbal interpretation of Acceptable.

3. Difference on the evaluation of meat inspectors and IT practitioners of the

computer vision system for meat quality evaluation in terms of Functional

Suitability, Performance Efficiency, Usability, Reliability, and Portability

 The results of the z-test proved that there is no difference between the evaluation

of the Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners in the System in terms of Functional

Suitability, Performance Efficiency, Usability, Reliability, and Portability.

4. Implications drawn based from the results of the study

With the recent advancements in algorithms and computer hardware, computer

vision has the potential to provide even better evaluations of meat quality. The meat

industry in general, may use the findings of this study as a framework for developing

plans, guidelines and necessary steps to make sure that the meat available in the market is

of quality.

Conclusions

Based from the findings of the study, there is no difference between the

evaluation of the Meat Inspectors and IT Practitioners in the System in Functional

Suitability, Performance Efficiency, Usability, Reliability, and Portability as stated in

Chapter 1.

1. The stages undertaken in the development of the computer vision system for meat

quality evaluation using the Agile model are: Requirements, Planning, Designing,

Development, Release, and Track and Monitor.

2. The meat inspectors and IT practitioners evaluated the computer vision system for

meat quality evaluation based on a software quality assessment tool, ISO 25010, in terms

of Functional Suitability, Performance Efficiency, Usability, Reliability, and Portability.

3. There is no difference in the evaluation of meat inspectors and IT practitioners in the

developed device. This proved that the two groups of respondents agree that the
application is “Acceptable” in terms of Functional Suitability, Performance Efficiency,

Usability, Reliability, and Portability.

4. With the recent advancements in algorithms and computer hardware, computer vision

has the potential to provide even better evaluations of meat quality

Recommendations

Based from the findings and conclusions of the study, the following

recommendations are given:

1. The researcher recommends that the NMIS implement the usage of the device for

visual inspection.

2. For future studies, the researcher recommends other comparative tests aside from pH

test.