rand f reports

7/31/2019 Rand f Reports

1/6

Recommendation and Feasibility Reports

There is a loosely defined category of reports that is very important in technical

writing. These reports are variously called feasibility reports, recommendation

reports, evaluation reports, assessment reports, and who knows what else. They alldo roughly the same thingprovide carefully studied opinions and, sometimes,

recommendations. There are some subtle differences among some these types, but

there are absolutely no universally agreed-upon names for them:

Feasibility report: This type studies a situation (for example, a problem oropportunity) and a plan for doing something about it and then determines whether

that plan is "feasible"which means determining whether it technologically possible

and whether it is practical (in terms of current technology, economics, social needs,

and so on). The feasibility report answers the question "Should we implement Plan

X?" by stating "yes," "no," but more often "maybe." Not only does it give a

recommendation, it also provides the data and the reasoning behind that

recommendation.

Recommendation report: This type starts from a stated need, a selection of choices,or both and then recommends one, some, or none. For example, a company might

be looking at grammar-checking software and want a recommendation on which

product is the best. As the report writer on this project, you could study the market

for this type of application and recommend one particular product, a couple of

products (differing perhaps in their strengths and their weaknesses), or none (maybenone of them are any good). The recommendation report answers the question

"Which option should we choose?" (or in some cases "Which are the best options?)

by recommending Product B, or maybe both Products B and C, or none of the

products.

Evaluation report: This type provides an opinion or judgment rather than a yes-no-maybe answer or a recommendation. It provides a studied opinion on the value or

worth of something. For example, for over a year the city of Austin had free bus

transportation in an attempt to increase ridership and reduce automobile traffic. Did

it work? Was it worthwhile?These are questions an evaluation report would attempt

to answer. This type of report compares a thing to a set of requirements (or criteria)

and determines how well it meets those requirements. (And of course there may be

a recommendationcontinue the project, scrap it, change it, or other possibilities.)

As you can see, these distinctions are rather fine; and they overlap. In real-world

writing, these types often combineyou might see elements of the recommendation


2/6

report combine with the feasibility report, for example. Of course, the writers of

these reports don't care which type they are writingand well they shouldn't!

They're trying to get a job done.

Sample 1: Laptop Computers

Overview of the report. In this recommendation report, the writer compares several models of laptop against

specific requirements and then recommends one.

Introduction. Right away in the first two sentences this writer states the purpose of this report. For the remainder of

the first paragraph of the introduction, he provides some technical background, discussing MMX technology and the

advantages it provides. The second paragraph provides an overview of the contents of the reportspecifically, the

main points by which the laptop computers will be compared.

Options to be considered. In this section, the writer explains how he narrowed the field to the four laptopcomputers he plans to compare. In a longer report, he could provide more detail, specifically as to how their

performance and value made them stand out. In any case, readers need to know how you narrowed the field of

options down to the ones you actually compare.

Second-level headings. Notice that this report has five second-level headingsfor the options section, comparisons

section, the conclusions section, the recommendation section, and the literature-cited section. These headings are

like the roman numerals in a traditional outline. (First-level headings are not used because they are just too elaborate

for a relatively short report like this one.)

Third-level headings. In this report, third-level headings are used forfeatures,performance, and cost. Think of

these third-level headings as the capital-letter items in a traditional outline.

Bulleted lists with labels. Notice that the features and performance sections are divided into subsections which arediscussed in bulleted-list items. Notice how the specific feature or performance item is italicized: this acts as an

informal fourth-level heading and is a good technique for labelling important bulleted or numbered lists.

Source citations. The bracketed numbers occurring throughout the report indicate the source of borrowed

information, at each point where it is borrowed. Go to the end of the report to see what source 1 is. This is just one

style of source documentation. You may be familiar with another style, the MLA, which use the author's name and

page number in parentheses.

Comparison sections. The comparison sections (those focusing on memory, weight battery, applications, processor,

and cost) compare all four of the options one single point of comparison at a time. Thus, the cost section compares

the four laptop computers strictly in terms of cost. This is called thepoint-by-pointapproach, which is usually more

effective that the whole-to-whole approach. The other approach, the whole-to-whole, would discuss each laptop in a

paragraph of its own, which would make it difficult to state the comparisons in any organized way.

Individual conclusions. Each comparison section ends with a conclusion as to the best choice in terms of that one

point of comparison. As a writer, you may find these conclusions to be so obvious that they needn't be stated. But

remember that some readers are skimming; you the writer have to do all the work for themwhich includes

drawing the proper conclusions from your comparisons and stating them directly (and typically at the end of each

comparison section).


3/6

Summary table. This report is another example of how seemingly repetitive technical reports can be. The summary

section repeats the conclusions drawn in the comparison sections. Now, this summary table repeats the key

comparative information but in table form rather than textual form. Write reports to ensure that readers see the

important informationwhether they are reading closely or just skimming. Some readers might do no more than

read the recommendations and glance at the summary table. Other might question one of the conclusions and read

just that related comparison section. As a writer, you have to design the report for all readersfrom the most hurried

to the most deliberate.

Conclusions. This report includes a a numbered list of the key conclusions drawn in the preceding comparison

sections. Theseprimary conclusions are based on the individual points of comparison: for example, one of the

options was best in terms of memory. Secondary conclusions are those that address conflicting primary conclusions.

Notice that one option is the best in terms of performance but also the most expensive. A secondary conclusion

explains which option is preferred and why. Conclusions sections must end with afinal conclusion which states

which option is the overall best choice (but notice it is not the recommendedchoice).

Recommendation section. It's important to create a separate recommendation section in which you state your

recommendation. After all, some readers might want nothing more than to see the recommendationyou have to

make it easy for them to find.

Information sources. At the end of the report, we have the list of information sources. This report uses the numbersystem in which the sources are numbered, and these numbers are used along with page references in the body of the

report to indicate the source of borrowed information.

That completes the comments for this example.

Comparison of Laptop Computers

The purpose of this comparison is to help prospective laptop purchasers in their decision. In today's

mobile climate, the average person can make good use of a reliable portable computer; this report is

designed to help in that search. Of the many perspective computers, only several brands have beenselected for this comparison. Those that have been selected are Pentium computers that boast the new

MMX technology. MMX technology lends itself to portable computers because of the added internal

processor cache, graphics acceleration, and lower power usage. The first two features add to the speed

of the machine and the last to the travelling lifetime.

This report will compare laptop computers on the basis of the following: (1) features,

(2) performance in hardware tests, and (3) price.

Options for Laptop Computers

Of the many laptops available, some equipped with MMX, only four specific computers were chosen.

These computers are equipped with MMX processors and stood out among other MMX computers for

their performance as well as their value. Those chosen for this comparison are the Compaq Presario

1080, the Dell Latitude LM M166ST, the Gateway 2000 Solo 2200 166MMX, and the Micron Transport

XPE P166. These computers all have Pentium 166 processors with a variety of other features that will be

discussed in the following.


4/6

Points of Comparison

The industry of computers is an ever growing and continually more competitive market. Many computer

manufactures are emerging with well made, reliable systems that make a valid argument for

themselves. Several of these computers are discussed below.

Features. Many different features are available on today's computer, but only the

standard, essential features will be discussed here. These features are grouped into

subheadings below for ease of use.

Memory: Each computer has a processor speed of 166 MHz. The Compaq has the least amountof standard memory with 16 MB, with a maximum of 48 MB. Both the Dell and Gateway

computers come with 40 MB installed with their maximums being 72 and 80 MB respectively.

The Micron had the most standard memory at 48 MB, having a maximum at 80 MB also. The

Micron machine rates best in this area [1:144-145].

Weight: For laptop computers, travel weight, that is the weight of all of the required equipmentand carrying case, is very important. The Compaq and Dell come in with the lowest travel weight

at 8.5 pounds. The Gateway came in right behind them with 8.6 pounds travelling. Of the four

computers, the Micron was the heaviest, weighting in at 9.1 pounds. The Dell and Compaq are

the best in the weight department [1:144-145].

Battery: Another key factor for laptop computers is the length of time they can operate awayfrom an outlet. The Dell computer had the longest rated battery life with a rating of 4 to 5

hours. Compaq's computer had a rating of 3 hours while Gateway and Micron's laptops were

rated with 2.5 and 2.25 hours, respectively. Dell's computer has the best rating for battery life

[1:144-145].

Storage: All computers rely on their storage unit to operate for the use of programs and storinginformation. The Presario had the smallest standard hard drive at 1.4 GB. Both the Dell and the

Gateway computers had 2.1 GB hard drives. Micron rates at the top for this category for its 3 GBhard drive [1:144-145].

Overall, the Latitude from Dell gets the best rating for this section. It's light weight

and long battery life aid in portability, and while its hard drive and memory are

average for this group, they are more than sufficient for good performance.

Performance. The various machines were put through their paces to determine

their comparative performance. The several different tests are listed below as well as

the various computers' performances. The numbers don't mean much on their own

and are best used in comparison.

Windows applications: The various computers were tested and scored on the execution time ofeight top-selling Windows applications. The Compaq had the lowest score with a 29.4. The final

three scored fairly closely together with the Dell coming in at 36.6, the Gateway having a score

of 37.5, ad the Micron having a score of 39.5 [1:140-141]. The Micron ranks at the top of this

category.


5/6

Processor: These tests were run by exercising the processor and memory with test that mirrorthe processor usage of many Window programs. The Latitude has the lowest rating at 322. Next

in order for performance was the Presario at 328. The final two machines are fairly the same in

this test with the Gateway testing at 331 and the Micron at 332 [1:140-141]. The Micron comes

in at the top of this category also.

Battery: Battery life was tested by performing a combination of down time and heavy activity forthe extent of the battery lifetime. The Micron and Gateway computers ranked at the bottom

with 2 minutes 20 seconds and 2 minutes 19 seconds, respectively. Dell's Latitude was next with

a battery life of 2 minutes 30 seconds. Finally, the Compaq was rated at 2 minutes 32 seconds

[1:140-141]. The Compaq was at the top in this category.

In this battery of tests, the Micron appears to be the leader. Although the battery life

is lower than two of the machines, the difference is not enough to negate the

Transport's superior performance in the other tests.

Cost. The computers were priced by the manufacturers suggested price, but the

prices grow considerably when adding options. The Compaq Presario sells for $4,299

for the average mail order price. The Latitude priced at $3,999 direct. Gateway's

system can be purchased for $4,724 direct. Finally, and most expensively, the

Micron sells for $5,199 direct.

Table 1. Laptop Computer Comparison

Compaq Presario Dell Latitude Gateway 2000 Solo Micron Transport

Cost $4,299 $3,999 $4,724 $5,199

Features

Memory (std./max) 16MB/48MB 40MB/72MB 40MB/80MB 48MB/80MB

Weight (lbs.) 8.5 8.5 8.6 9.1

Battery (hrs.) 3 4-5 2.5 2.25

Storage (GB) 1.4 2.1 2.1 3

Performance:(number is rank compared with the other computers, 1 is best)


6/6

Windows Apps. 4 3 2 1

Processor 3 4 2 1

Battery Life 1 2 3 4

Conclusions

Table 1 illustrates the preceding comparison of features, performance, and cost. From this information,

the following conclusions can be stated:

1. The Dell is best in the features in terms of portability and average for the other areas.2. The Micron Transport covers the other aspects with high end hardware, but is somewhat heavy

and the battery life is short.

3. The Transport leads in most of the performance areas and is not far from the front in the area oftested battery life.

4. The Gateway computer performs very well behind the Micron machine.5. The Micron computer is the most expensive with the Gateway computer being reasonably

priced behind it.

6. Although the Micron and Dell laptop computers provide slightly better performance in certainareas, these advantages are not worth their higher price tags.

7. The Gateway laptop provides essentially the same features and performance as the Micron butat a lower price.

8. The Gateway laptop computer is the best choice based on the preceding conclusions.Recommendation

Based on these comparisons, I would recommend the Gateway computer. It performed well in all of the

tests and had good standard features for the price. Also, it was priced lower than the Micron laptop.

Literature Cited

1. "MMX on the Fly." Computer Shopper(July 1997), 138-145.

Reference:

http://www.io.com/~hcexres/textbook/feas.html

rand f reports

Documents