#GEA 2 Writing Assignment 2
Parts 2.3 Business Memorandum and 2.4 Peer Reviews
You can complete this assignment after reading Chapters 3 and 4 in your textbook and Writing Assignment 2.1 reading. The problem involves selecting a major vendor through comparative analysis
- Part 2.3: Write, revise and edit your memorandum (due March 26)
- Part 2.4: Peer reviews (due March 31)
Part 2.5, the revised paper submittal for grading is on another assignment and will be due April 4
Submitting and completing peer reviews:
You have each been assigned to a group of 5 people (Group 1 has only 4). Submit your assignment to the discussion board that has been set up for you. Submissions posted to any other location will not be visible and will not get credit. If you have not used discussion boards in the past please select the circled question mark on your main canvas menu and select “Search the Canvas Guides” where you can search for resources on using discussion boards.
To complete reviews, reply to the posted work of each of your group members. Feedback MUST be actionable, that is something specific that they can continue to do, do more of, change or add to their work. For example “your analysis was good” or “your analysis was weak” does not provide feedback they can work with; Use “How to write a business memorandum” as a resource to determine specifically what makes the document strong, what may be missing that needs to be added or when a part of the document is not formatted correctly or achieving what it should. Specific feedback may look like:
- Including the provided data in text form is long and difficult to read, consider using a table instead.
- The second sentence of your analysis does not read clearly to me, consider rewording it.
- You omitted the recommendation in the summary, it should be included there.
Writing Assignment 2.3: Business Memorandum
Problem description: You oversee a manufacturing facility that produces an automotive part (steel shaft for the gearbox). The acceptable dimension of the shaft is 2.5Â±0.05 inches in diameter with the most desirable product being exactly 2.5 inches. Two vendors are trying to sell their equipment for the shaft-machining task to your company, Automotive Parts Corporation. You have been asked to assess the equipment from each vendor, and to make a recommendation on which one to make the purchase from, supported by a justification for your decision.
You asked both vendors to supply data on the machining accuracy of their equipment for the given task. Both vendors machined 100 shafts, collected data, plotted histograms, fitted the histograms with normal distributions and supplied you with their findings
Let X= diameter in inches of the gearbox shaft
Ace Machines: X has a normal distribution with mean 2.48 and variance 0.001
Best Machinery: X has a normal distribution with mean 2.51 and variance 0.002
When you are completing your memorandum be sure to address the following:
- Recommend a vendor using the given information, develop and discuss your approach (give all details including quantitative justification). Your response to this question must be directed to the audience described below.
- Examine the scenario as described and discuss what additional information would be helpful to make this recommendation a stronger selection, and why that information would be useful. Be careful not to negate your recommendation as you explain this.
- Include your calculations as a titled addendum on its own page at the end of your document.
Audience: You are creating this document for the companyâ€™s Chief Operating Officer, Lin Gerard, and copying the Chief Financial Officer, Aileen Kitts. Documents involved in major financial decisions like this may also be distributed by the addressees to other executives and the corporate board members.
Document: Complete this assignment as a memorandum. Follow the guidance for reading. Utilize clear, professional language, including setting your Word preferences to check for a more professional writing approach. Examples of professional language constraints would include:provided in your
- Utilize plain language. (Links to an external site.)
- Develop the document around a direct, coherent message (thesis (Links to an external site.)) and clear analysis (Links to an external site.) to support it.
- Do not use contractions, slang or colloquialisms, clichÃ©s (Links to an external site.), abbreviations, or text message shortcuts.
DUE: March 26, 2019
Writing Assignment 2.4: Peer Reviews
In the week following the first part of the assignment complete the following peer review (Links to an external site.) of the other members of your assigned Canvas group. You must include feedback in the reviews that will enable the writers to improve their final submittal. As a minimum, address the following after considering the approach and justification of your peersâ€™ work:
- Did your classmate use the appropriate header for their memorandum? Is the information in it correct? If not, specify what is incorrect. Is the subject line clear and concise? If not, offer an idea of what needs to be stated differently.
- Are there parts of their approaches and justifications that are unclear to you? Specify what part(s) of their memorandum, and why it is unclear. What changes would help to make it clearer?
- What aspects of their responses were particularly helpful in making their memorandum clear?
- Did your peers utilize a professional writing style as outlined in the assignment? Provide examples of how they did or did not meet this requirement.
- Did their use of visuals in their document help make their ideas more clear?
At the end of your review, offer an honest assessment of how your peers completed their assignments. Utilizing the exact language below, indicate whether they:
- Met minimum writing requirements
- Exceeded minimum writing requirements
- Did not meet minimum writing requirements
DUE: March 31
GRADING RUBRIC – 10 points total (assignments 2.3 and 2.4 will be graded together)
Memorandum header is included & formatted per reading – 1 point
Executive Summary is included – 1 point
Memorandum is divided into sections with titles – 1 point
A minimum of one graphic is included – 1 point
A conclusion is included – 1 point
Reviews are completed – 1 point
Reviews include actionable feedback – 2 points
The specific required evaluative language is included at the end of each review – 2 points