Justification Report Phase II

Running head: SHORT TITLE OF YOUR PAPER 0

Justification Report

Jane Doe

ENG 315 – Professional Communications

Professor Brandy Isaacs

January 19, 2017

Transmittal letter

Presents report to reader and summarizes main points or analysis (p. 206)

Executive Summary 4

(i.e. Abstract, Overview, or Précis) (1 page)

-Summarizes the essential elements in an entire report

-Presents the report in miniature: the introduction, body, and summary as well as conclusions and recommendations (p. 207)

REMOVE THIS PAGE FROM YOUR REPORT and ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS

Superstructure for Justification Report with Explanation

Preliminary Parts—in order

Title page (page 1)

-APA format

Transmittal Letter (page 2)

-Presents report to reader and summarizes main points or analysis (p. 206)

Table of Contents (page 3)

Executive Summary (i.e. Abstract, Overview, or Précis) (page 4)

-Summarizes the essential elements in the entire report

-Presents the report in miniature: the introduction, body, and summary as well as conclusions and recommendations (p. 207)

Report Text—the actual report will begin on this page, page 5

References: The references page begins on a separate page following the report.

Parenthetical citations in other sections of your report will lead readers to the References listed here, just as they do in a more traditional research report.

Title of Report

Introduction (taken from p. 208 in book); the introduction does not get a header.

Problem Statement

Begin with Problem Statement

-Orients reader to the topic and problem being investigated

-Why is the topic important? Explain how report will help reader solve the problem.

Terminology

Next, define any terminology needed by readers to understand the report

Overview of Alternatives

Then, preview the Major Sections of the Report (write this section LAST):

• Alternative A (Describe the courses of action or possible solutions that were investigated. Which were rejected and why?)

• Alternative B (Describe the courses of action or possible solutions that were investigated. Which were rejected and why?)

Criteria

Criterion 1 [name it] Describe the five criteria by which the alternatives were judged.

Criterion 2

Criterion 3

Criterion 4

Criterion 5

Research Methods

Describe general methods that were used to research needed information to determine the best recommended alternative.

Evaluation of Alternatives

Criterion 1, [name it]

Alternative A

1. narrate findings from research article 1 here

2. narrate findings from research article 2 here

Alternative B

1. narrate findings from research article 1 here

2. narrate findings from research article 2 here

Criterion 2, [name it]

Alternative A

1. narrate findings from research article 1 here

2. narrate findings from research article 2 here

Alternative B

1. narrate findings from research article 1 here

2. narrate findings from research article 2 here

Use the information you found in your research to evaluate the alternatives, based on the criteria you have described, following the pattern above. Take each criterion in order and discuss it in relationship to the alternatives.

This section evaluates each alternative (i.e. possible solution) by each criterion presented in turn (i.e. each standard you are using to determine how well each possible solution might work)

Include relevant facts and evidence from your research (1 primary source; 3 secondary sources). Research should be used to support each evaluative statement. This section should read like a narrative.

Findings and Analysis

Briefly summarize in narrative form the major discoveries that emerged from the Evaluation of Alternatives section. Include a visual, such as the one below.

This section assesses, overall, what you discovered in your research, and it breaks down the feasibility of each alternative course of action you just discussed in the last section in a briefer form, for readers who do not have time to read the narrated, longer Evaluation of Alternatives section. “Feasibility” just means possibility – in this case, you are considering the possibility of adopting the alternatives based on the criteria by which they are measured. See Figures 3 and 3 below:

Figure 1: Alternatives Analyzed by Criteria

Figure 2: Alternatives in Figure 1 Broken Down Further by Feasibility

The chart in Figure 3, based on the results in Figure 2, indicates that Machine B has overall HIGHER feasibility (i.e. it makes more sense to adopt based on the results) than Machine B (with three HIGH feasibility criteria and two Moderate feasibility criteria). By contrast, Machine A only has 2 HIGH feasibility criteria, two Low feasibility criteria, and one Moderate criterion.

Charts like these can help readers grasp the long narrative of data in the Evaluation of Alternatives section quickly and simply. They also help to justify your recommendation to come, and show readers at a glance how you arrived at that recommendation.

Recommendation

Write a one to three sentence recommendation of the alternatives you suggest based on your analysis of the data in the previous section.

-If several alternatives are highly feasible as recommendations, you might rank them and explain why or how each receives its ranking based on the criteria you feel your reader will privilege most. You might also recommend the top two alternatives and explain why you recommend them over the others

-Suggest specific steps that readers can take to act on each of your recommendation(s)

References

This is your precise APA style References page; see tab 7 in your Maimon, Peritz and Yancy handbook. It begins on a separate page following the report.

Parenthetical citations in other sections of your report will lead readers to the References listed here, just as they do in a more traditional research report

Outline of Justification Report following the preliminary pages:

1. Introduction

2. Problem Statement

3. Terminology

4. Overview of Alternatives

   1. Alternative A

   2. Alternative B

5. Criteria

   1. Criterion 1

   2. Criterion 2

   3. Criterion 3

   4. Criterion 4

   5. Criterion 5

6. Research Methods

7. Evaluation of Alternatives, in order

   1. Criterion 1, [name it]

      1. Alternative A

         1. narrate findings from research article 1 here

      2. Alternative B

         1. narrate findings from research article 2 here

   2. Criterion 2, [name it]

      1. Alternative A

         1. narrate findings from research article 1 here

      2. Alternative B

         1. narrate findings from research article 2 here

8. Findings and Analysis, including chart/s

9. Recommendations

10. References (begin on a separate page)