Is creating fully functional software considered to be a quasi experiment? I'm sorry if this is a bit subjective, but I really don't know where to find the truth.

In my hometown, lecturers usually will only approve research in computer science &amp; information system where the result is new software.  The goal is creating a software that can be used directly by business.  Usually, research that can't be 'seen' and used directly will be rejected and considered useless.  

As in my university, lecturers said that creating new software is a type of research called a quasi experiment. Students are expected to perform the following activities: gathering requirements, designing UML models, and implementing the source code.  In the seminar (final exam), lecturers will ask a lot about business process and customer satisfaction.  No maths.  Most questions are subjective and hard to prove.

Is it true that creating a fully functional software or web site like this is a kind of quasi-experimental research?
As undergraduate research, you mostly don't have the time, experience nor support to create a full fledge project from scratch. By that I mean creating original work in you field. Thus, given the scope of the project, implementing a software is a valuable exercice that can also be really useful for research. For exemple, in my domain (bioinformatics) there is a special issue of NAR (Nucleic Acids Research) solely devoted to webservers. The latest issue can be found here.

I think one of the big issues you are facing (in almost every field) is that the amount of knowledge you get when leaving the bachelors has been pretty constant for the past 50 years. At the opposite, the level of new research has grown exponentially in these time. Thus, the gap to create something new is constantly growing.