Post on 29-May-2018
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
1/16
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Long, Formal ReportsLong, Formal Reports
CHAPTER TWELVE
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
2/16
12-2
OverviewOverview
The organization and content of long
reports
The components of a long reportStructural coherence in a long report
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
3/16
12-3
Organization and Content
of a Long Report
Organization and Content
of a Long ReportPrefatory componentsTitle FlyTitle PageAuthorization MessageTransmittal Message, Preface or ForewordTable of Contents & List of IllustrationsExecutive Summary
The Report ProperIntroductionReport Findings with Footnotes (Two or more
divisions)Summary Conclusion, and Recommendation
Appended PartsBibliography
Appendix
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
4/16
12-4
Letter of TransmittalLetter of TransmittalMIDWESTERN RESEARCH, INC.
1732 Midday AvenueChicago, IL 60607
Telephone: 312.481.2919
April 13, 2005
Mr. W. Norman W. Bigbee
Vice President in Charge of Sales
Allied Distributors, Inc.3131 Speedall StreetAkron, Ohio 44302
Dear Mr. Bigbee:
Here is the report on the four makes of subcompact automobiles you
asked me to compare last January 3.
To help you in deciding which of the four makes you should buy as
replacements for your fleet, I gathered what I believe to be the mostcomplete information available. Much of the operating information
comes from your own records. The remaining data are the findings of
both consumer research engineers and professional automotiveanalysts. Only my analyses of these data are subjective.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Bigbee, that my analyses will help you in
making the correct decision. I truly appreciate this assignment. And
should you need any assistance in interpreting my analyses, please
call on me.
Sincerely,
George W. Franklin
George W. Franklin
Associate Director
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
5/16
12-5
Table of ContentsTable of Contents
Part Page
B. GammaGives Best Ride............................................11
C. Gamma Is Judged Most Durable........................................11
V. RECOMMENDATION OF GAMMA.....................................12
LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS
TABLES
I. ORIGINAL COST OF FOUR BRANDS
OF SUBCOMPACT CARS IN 2005.........................................3
II. COMPARISON OF REPAIRS AND RELATED LOST
WORKING TIME FOR FOUR MAKES OF CARS FOR
TWO YEARS.........................................................................5
III. COST-PER-MILE ESTIMATE OF OPERATION...................5
IV. LIST OF STANDARD SAFETY FEATURES................... .......7
V. COMPARATIVE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTIONS,
BRAKING DISTANCES, AND CORNERING
ABILITIES..............................................................................9
VI. COMPARATIVE COMFORT AND RIDE..........................11
CHARTS
1. Estimated Total Operating Cost..............................................6
2. Comparison of Acceleration Times.........................................8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part Page
Executive Summary..................................................................................vi
I. THE FLEET REPLACEMNT PROBLEM......................................1
A. The Authorization by Vice President Bigbee............... ..............1
B. Problem of Selecting Fleet Replacements........ ............... ...........1
C. Reports and Records as Sources of Data..... .............. ................2
D. A Preview to the Presentation...................................................2
II. THE MAJOR FACTOR OF COST.................................................2
A. Initial Costs Favor Beta.............................................................3
B. Trade-in Values Show Uniformity............................................4
C. Operating Costs Are Lowest forGamma..................................4
D. Cost Composite Favors Gamma ...............................................6
III. EVALUATION OF SAFETY FEATURES....................... .............6
A. Delta Is Best Equipped with Safety Devices........ ............... ......7
B. Acceleration Adds Extra Safety to Delta........... ...................... ..8
C. Weight Distribution Is Best in Alpha and Gamma ...................9
D. Gamma Has Best Braking Quality..........................................10
IV. RIDING COMFORT AND OVERALL CONSTRUCTION........10
A. Gamma Ranks First in Handling.............................................10
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
6/16
12-6
III
Diagram of the Executive Summary
in Indirect and Direct Order
Diagram of the Executive Summary
in Indirect and Direct Order
V
I
II
III III
IV
IV
I
II
V IV
II
I
V
Executive summary
(in indirect order)
Executive summary
(in direct order)
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
7/16
12-7
Executive Summary
The recommendation of this study is that Gamma is the best buy for Allied
Distributors, Inc.
Authorized by Mr. Norman W. Bigbee, Vice President, on January 3. 2005, this
report is submitted on April 13, 2005. This study gives Allied Distributors an
insight into the problem of replacing the approximately 50 two-year-old
subcompact cars in its present sales fleet. The basis for this recommendation is
an analysis of cost, safety, and construction factors of four models of subcompact
cars (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta).
The four cars do not show much difference in ownership cost (initial cost less
trade-in allowance after two years). On a per-car basis, Beta costs least for a
two-year period--$3,216. Compared with costs for the other cars, Beta is $370
underGamma, $588 under Alpha, and $634 under Delta. For the entire sales
fleet, these differences become more significant. A purchase of 50 Betas would
save $18,500 overGamma, $29,400 over Alpha, and $31,700 over Delta.
Operation costs would favorGamma. Cost per mile for this car is $0.13970, as
compared with $0.14558 for Alpha, $0.14785 for Delta, and $0.15184 for Beta.
The totals of all costs for the 50-car fleet over the two-year period show Gamma
to be least costly at $385,094. In second place is Alpha, with a cost of $400,208.
Third is Delta with $406,560, and fourth is Beta with a cost of $417,532.
On the qualities that pertain to driving safety, Gamma is again superior to the
other cars. It has the best brakes and is tied with Alpha for the best weight
distribution. It is second in acceleration and is again tied with Alpha for the
number of standard safety devices. Alpha is second overall in this category,
having the second best brakes of the group. Beta is last because of its poor
acceleration and poor brakes.
Construction features and handling abilities place Gamma all by itself. It scores
higher than any other car in every category. Alpha and Delta are tied for second
place. Again Beta is last, having poor steering and handling qualities.
vi
Executive SummaryExecutive Summary
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
8/16
12-8
Report Text (1 or 4)Report Text (1 or 4)
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2005 REPLACEMENTS IN ALLIEDDISTRIBUTORS, INC., SALES FLEET BASED ON A COMPARISON OF
FOUR SUBCOMPACT AUTOMOBILES
I. PRELIMINARIES TO THE FLEET REPLACEMENT
PROBLEM
A. Authorization by Vice President Bigbee
This comparison of the qualities of four brands of subcompact automobiles issubmitted April 13, 2005, to W. Norman W. Bigbee, Vice President, Allied
Distributors, Inc. At a meeting in his office January 3, 2005, Mr. Bigbee orally
authorized Midwestern Research, Inc., to conduct this investigation. W. George
W. Franklin, Associate Director for Midwestern Research, served as director of
the project.
B. Problem of Selecting Fleet Replacements
The objective of this study is to determine which model of subcompact
automobile Allied Distributors, Inc., should select for replacement in its salesfleet. The firm's policy is to replace all two-year old models. It replaces
approximately 50 automobiles each year.
The replacements involve a major capital outlay, and the sales fleet expense
constitutes a major sales cost. Thus, the proper selection of a new model presentsan important problem. The model selected must be economical, dependable, and
safe. Allied is considering four subcompact automobiles as replacement
possibilities. As instructed by Mr. Bigbee, for reasons of information security, the
cars are identified in this report only as Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta.
1
2
C. Reports and Records as Sources of Data
The selection of the replacement brand is based on a comparative analysis of merits
of the four makes. Data for the comparisons were obtained from both company
records and statistical reports. Operating records of 10 representative cars of each
make provide information on operating costs. These reports are summaries compiled
by salesperson-drivers and represent actual performance of company cars under daily
selling conditions. Additional material enumerating safety features, overall driving
quality, and dependability comes from the reports of the Consumers Union of the
United States, Inc.,Automotive Industries , and Bond Publishing Company'speriodical,Road and Track. Mr. Bigbee furnished the trade-in allowance granted on
the old models. From this material extensive comparisons of the four makes are
presented.
D. A Preview of the Presentation
In the following pages of the report, the four cars are compared on the basis of three
factors: operating costs, safety, and total performance. Operating costs receive
primary attention. In this part, the individual cost items for each car are analyzed.
This analysis leads to the determination of the most economical of the four cars.
Safety features make up the second factor of comparison. In this part the analysis
centers on the presence or absence of safety features in each car and the quality of thefeatures that are present. From this analysis comes a safety ranking on the cars. The
third factor for comparison is total performance and durability. As in preceding plan,
here the analysis produces a ranking of the cars.
II. THE MAJOR FACTOR OF COST
As cost is an obvious and generally accepted requirement of any major purchase, it is
a logical first point of concern in selecting a car to buy. Here the first concern is the
original cost--that is, the fleet discount price. Of second interest in a logical thinking
process is the cash difference after trade-in allowance for the old cars. These figures
clearly indicate the cash outlay for the new fleet.
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
9/16
12-9
3
A. Initial Costs Favor Beta
From Table I it is evident that Beta has the lowest window sticker price before and
after trade-in allowances. It has a $634 margin, which must beconsidered in the light
of what features are standard on Beta in comparison with those standard on the other
cars. That is, the Beta may have fewer standard features included in its original cost
and, therefore, may not be worth as much as the Alpha, Gamma, or Delta.
Table I
ORIGINAL COST OF FOUR BRANDS
OF SUBCOMPACT CARS IN 2005
Make Windows Sticker Trade-in Value Cash Costs after
Prices for Two-Year Trade-in Allowance Old Makes*
Alpha $9,318 $4,514 $4,804
Beta $8,716 $4,500 $4,216
Gamma $9,140 $4,552 $4,588
Delta $9,700 $4,850 $4,850
*Trade-in value for Alpha and Beta are estimatesSources: Primary andRoad and Track, 2005
It is clear that where features are listed as standard they do not add to original cost, but
where listed as options they do. As will be shown later, Delta has many more standardfeatures than do the other makes. In addition to a study of standard features, a close
look at trade-in values and operating costs will also be necessary to properly evaluate
original cost.
4
Further discussion of standard features of the cars appears in the following discussions
of safety and per-mile operating costs.
B. Trade-in Values Show Uniformity
Original costs alone do not tell the complete purchase-cost story. The values of the cars
at the ends of their useful lives (trade-in values) are a vital part of cost. In this case, thehighest trade-in value is $4,850 for Delta the lowest is $4,500 for Beta (see Table I).
Only $350 separates the field.
Although fairly uniform, these figures appear to be more significant when converted to
total amounts involved in the fleet purchases. A fleet of 50 Betas would cost $160,800.The same fleet ofGammas, Alphas, and Deltas would cost $179,376, $190,222, and
$190,500, respectively. Thus, Allied's total cost of purchasing Betas would be $18,550
lower thanGammas, Alphas, and Deltas would cost $179,376, $190,222, and $190,500,
respectively. Thus, Allied's total cost of purchasing Betas would be $18,550 lower than
Gammas, $29,216 lower than Alphas, and $31,676 lower than Deltas.
C. Operating Costs Are Lowest forGamma
Gamma has the lowest maintenance cost of the four, 1.970 cents per mile. But Delta is
close behind with 2.0650 cents. Both of these cars are well below the Beta and Alpha
figures of 2.7336 and 2.7616, respectively. As shown in Table II, these costs are basedon estimates of repairs, resulting loss of working time, tire replacements, and
miscellaneous items.
It should be stressed here how greatly repair expense influences the estimates. Actually,two expenses are involved, for to the cost of repairs the expense of time lost by
salespeople must be added. Obviously, a salesperson without a car is unproductive.
Each hour lost by car repairs adds to the cost of the car's operation.
The time lost for repair is the same for each car--five hours. Thus, the importantconsideration is the number of repairs and the costs of these repairs. On this basis, the
Gamma has the lowest total cost burden at $1,086 (see Table II). Delta ranks second
with $1,038. Beta is third with $1,506, and Alpha is last with $1,520.
Report Text (2 of 4)Report Text (2 of 4)
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
10/16
12-10
Report Text (3 of 4)Report Text (3 of 4)
5
Alpha's margin is $1,034 per car and $11,742 for the fleet total. Alpha's per car
margin over Beta is $356.12, and its fleet margin is $17,806.
D. Cost Composite Favors Gamma
Gamma is the most economical of all cars when all cost figures are considered (see
Table III). Its total cost per mile is 13.970 cents, as compared with 14.558 cents for
Alpha, 14.786 cents for Delta, and 15.184 cents for Beta. These figures take on more
meaning when converted to total fleet cost over the two-year period the cars will beowned. As shown in Chart 1, a fleet of 50Gammas would cost Allied a total of
$385,094.
CHART 1
Estimated Total Operating Cost
Gamma
Alpha
Delta
Beta
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
This figure is under all other car totals. It is $15,114 below Alpha's $400,208,
$21,466 below Delta's $406,560, and $32 ,436 belowGamma's $417,532.
III. EVALUATION OF SAFETY FEATURES
Even though cost receives major emphasis in this analysis, safety of the cars is also
important How much importance safety should receive, however, is a matter for
Allied management.
0 360 400 420
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
11/16
12-11
12
C. Gamma Is Judged Most Durable
Gamma is assembled with better-than-average care. In fact, Consumer Research
engineers have found only 16 minor defects in the car. In addition, Gamma has a
better-than-average record for frequency of repairs. Delta, second in this
category, has only 20 problems. Some of these problems are judged as serious,
however.
For instance, in the test run the starter refused to d isengage after a few hundred
miles had accumulated on the car. The car's ignition timing, idle mixture, andidle speed were incorrectly set. An optically distorted windshield and inside
mirror were discovered. In spite of all these defects, Delta ranks above Alpha and
Beta on durability.
Clearly, Gamma leads in all categories of riding comfort and overall construction.
It handles best. It gives the best ride. And it has some definite construction
advantages over the other three.
V. RECOMMENDATION OF GAMMA
Normally, this simulation cannot be merely a count of rankings on the evaluations
made, for the qualities carry different weights. Cost, for example, is the major
factor in most such decisions. In this instance, however, weighting is notnecessary, for one automobile is the clear leader on all three of the bases used for
evaluation. Thus, it would lead in any arrangement of weights.
From the data presented, Gamma is the best buy when all cost are considered. The
total difference on a purchase of 50 automobiles is a significant $15,114 over the
second-place brand. Gamma has a slight edge when safety features are
considered. And it is the superior car in handling ease, ride quality, and
construction. These facts point clearly to the recommendation that Allied buy
Gammas this year.
Report Text (4 of 4)Report Text (4 of 4)
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
12/16
12-12
Diagram of the Structural Coherence
Plan of a Long, Formal Report (1 of 2)
Diagram of the Structural Coherence
Plan of a Long, Formal Report (1 of 2)The first part of the structural coherence planis the introduction preview. Here the readersare told how the report will unfold.Specifically, they are told what will becovered, in what order it will be covered, andthe reasons for this order.
Because the report is long and involved,introductions are needed at the beginnings ofthe major sections to remind the readers
where they are in the plan outlined in thepreview. These parts introduce the topics tobe discussed, point the way through thesections, and relate the topics of the sectionsto the overall plan of the report.
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
13/16
12-13
Diagram of the Structural Coherence
Plan of a Long, Formal Report (2 of 2)
Diagram of the Structural Coherence
Plan of a Long, Formal Report (2 of 2)
Conclusions and summaries for each
major report section help readers to
gather their thoughts and see the
relationships of the report topics.
Completing the plan, a final conclusion or
summary section brings the report to a
head. Here, previously drawn section
summaries and conclusions are broughttogether. From these a final conclusion
and recommendation may be drawn.
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
14/16
12-14
Coherence through backwardCoherence through backward-- and forwardand forward--lookinglooking
introductory paragraphs and sentencesintroductory paragraphs and sentences (1 of 2)(1 of 2)
Coherence through backwardCoherence through backward-- and forwardand forward--lookinglooking
introductory paragraphs and sentencesintroductory paragraphs and sentences (1 of 2)(1 of 2)
All of this evidence appears to justify our taking steps to correct
the problem. Thus, it is now appropriate to discuss these steps
in detail.
For reasons that have been shown, three of the work plans arenot acceptable to employees. As will be shown, they strongly
favor the fourth, which will now be discussed detail.
Having concluded that the machine has failed, we must
determine whether it can be altered to meet our needs. Exhaustive research has revealed that the success of a
voluntary plan is influenced by the facts involved. Thus, it is
necessary that we now examine the facts of our unique
situation.
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
15/16
12-15
Coherence through backwardCoherence through backward-- and forwardand forward--lookinglooking
introductory paragraphs and sentencesintroductory paragraphs and sentences (2 of 2)(2 of 2)
Coherence through backwardCoherence through backward-- and forwardand forward--lookinglooking
introductory paragraphs and sentencesintroductory paragraphs and sentences (2 of 2)(2 of 2)
From the preceding analysis, it appears evident that sales are
likely to decline sharply in the next quarter. Before we adjust
for this development, however, it is necessary that we
consider the outlook for the economy in the region. Such areview follows.
To this point, two facts are obvious. Sales have dropped
sharply, and the company has a new advertising agency. Now
it is necessary to determine whether these two facts have a
cause-effect relationship.
8/9/2019 Chap012 Student
16/16
12-16
The harder you work, theharder it is to surrender.--Vince Lombardi