Chap012-L&F - Parts of Reports

Long, Formal ReportsParts of the report

Long, Formal ReportsParts of the report

CHAPTER TWELVE

OverviewOverview

The organization & content of long reports

The components of a long report Structural coherence in a long report

Organization and Content Organization and Content

Prefatory components

Title FlyTitle PageAuthorization Message

Transmittal Message, Preface or Foreword

Table of Contents & List of Illustrations

Executive Summary


The Report Proper Introduction Report Findings with Footnotes

(Two or more divisions) Summary Conclusion, & Recommendation


Appended PartsBibliographyAppendix

Letter of Transmittal

Letter of Transmittal

MIDWESTERN RESEARCH, INC.1732 Midday Avenue

Chicago, IL 60607Telephone: 312.481.2919

April 13, 2005

Mr. W. Norman W. BigbeeVice President in Charge of SalesAllied 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 most complete 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 automotive analysts. 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. FranklinAssociate Director

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsPart Page

B. Gamma Gives 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 BRANDSOF SUBCOMPACT CARS IN 2005.........................................3

II. COMPARISON OF REPAIRS AND RELATED LOSTWORKING 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 CORNERINGABILITIES.............................................................................….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 for Gamma..................................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

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 IIIIV

IV

I

II

V IV

III

V

Executive summary(in indirect order)

Executive summary(in direct order)

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 under Gamma, $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 over Gamma, $29,400 over Alpha, and $31,700 over Delta.

Operation costs would favor Gamma. 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

Report Text (1 or 4)


RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2005 REPLACEMENTS IN ALLIED DISTRIBUTORS, 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 is submitted 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 sales fleet. 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 presents an 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's periodical, 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 the features 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.

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 and Road 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 standard features 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.

Report Text (2 of 4)


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, the highest 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 of Gammas, 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, 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 for Gamma

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 based on 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 important consideration 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 (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 be owned. As shown in Chart 1, a fleet of 50 Gammas would cost Allied a total of $385,094.

CHART 1Estimated 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 below Gamma'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

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 disengage after a few hundred miles had accumulated on the car. The car's ignition timing, idle mixture, and idle 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 not necessary, 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.



Diagram of the Structural Coherence Plan of a Long, Formal Report (1 of 2)


The first part of the structural coherence plan is the introduction preview. Here the readers are told how the report will unfold. Specifically, they are told what will be covered, in what order it will be covered, and the reasons for this order.

Because the report is long and involved, introductions are needed at the beginnings of the major sections to remind the readers where they are in the plan outlined in the preview. These parts introduce the topics to be discussed, point the way through the sections, and relate the topics of the sections to the overall plan of the report.



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 brought together. From these a final conclusion and recommendation may be drawn.

Extra examples follow. Extra examples follow.

CoherenceCoherence through backward- and forward- through backward- and forward-

looking introductory paragraphs and sentenceslooking introductory paragraphs and sentences (1 of (1 of 2)2)

CoherenceCoherence through backward- and forward- through backward- and forward-

looking introductory paragraphs and sentenceslooking introductory paragraphs and sentences (1 of (1 of 2)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 are not 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.

CoherenceCoherence through backward- and forward-looking through backward- and forward-looking introductory paragraphs and sentencesintroductory paragraphs and sentences (2 of 2)(2 of 2)

CoherenceCoherence through backward- and forward-looking through backward- and forward-looking 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 a review 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.

“The harder you work, the harder it is to surrender.”

--Vince Lombardi

Chap012-L&F - Parts of Reports

Documents

Transcript of Chap012-L&F - Parts of Reports