“…A total of 16 criteria and 13 subcriteria were identifed. Tese criteria were (1) total number of lecturers/supervisors, (2) total number of students (i.e., (2.1) minimum number of students permissible on any project and (2.2) maximum number of students permissible on any project), (3) total number of projects, (4) profle of student in terms of preferences or similarities in student preferences or choices over projects, (5) student discipline [34], (6) suitability of student discipline to project, (7) total number of disciplines, (8) fnal year project prerequisites, (9) lecturers/ supervisors preferences, e.g., (9.1) research interests/areas, (9.2) lecturers' expertise/feld of specialization [35,36], (9.3) professional support [27,37], (10) lecturer and student relationship [37], (11) popularity of project, e.g., (11.1) least popular/preferred and (11.2) most popular/preferred, (12) popularity of lecturer, (13) workload, e.g., (13.1) project and lecturers total capacity, (13.2) availability, (13.3) total project lower quota, (13.4) total lecturer lower quota, (13.5) individual student projects, (13.6) group student projects [34,38], ( 14) students' performance on projects [31], (15) students' gender [27], and ( 16) Other (e.g., university requirements). Te 16 criteria were encapsulated into the developed framework for this study, using process mapping principles to increase our understanding of the theory of student-to-supervisor assignments [39][40][41].…”