Chap012 Student

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


2/16

12-2

OverviewOverview

The organization and content of long

reports

The components of a long reportStructural coherence in a long report


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


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


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


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)


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


8/16

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.


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)


10/16

12-10


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


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.



12/16

12-12

Diagram of the Structural Coherence

Plan of a Long, Formal Report (1 of 2)


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.


13/16

12-13





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.


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)



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.


15/16

12-15





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.


16/16

12-16

The harder you work, theharder it is to surrender.--Vince Lombardi

Chap012 Student

Documents

Transcript of Chap012 Student

Object Oriented Analyis & Design Training Agendagsme.sharif.edu/~sepehri/chap012.pdf · SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN METHODS System Design Approaches • Model-Driven – Modern structured

Chap012 7e Edited

Chap012 - Selling

Chap012 gmg

Chap012 cb

Advanced Financial Accounting 7e (Baker Lembre King).Chap012

Ls-chap012 Calc Beta

Chap012 Cost of Capital

Chapter 12 Chapter 12: Chemical Bondingmtweb.mtsu.edu/nchong/PSCI1030-CHAP012-Chemical... · Chemical Bonding • This chapter focuses on chemical bonding and its role in compound

Ppt Chap012

Chap012 Segment Reporting and Decentralization Part 2

MGMT449 chap012

Chap012 Edited

BOIS TRAITES SELS - robojardin.be · 9 x 9 CHAP005 1,75 € 9 x 9 CHAP012 1,65 € 12 x 12 ...

Principle and Practice of Management MGT Ippt chap012

Chap012 - Aggregate Planning

Chap012 final match_editing

Chap012 MIS

OB Chap012

BKM 10e Chap012 SM Final