Download Progress Memo - Engineering Communications | ENGRC 3500 and more Papers Engineering in PDF only on Docsity!
P ROGRESS M EMO
This memo is an exercise in writing about project management for a managerial audience. The memo should be quite brief, typically 500 to 1000 words.
1 Goals & audience
Write the memo to me, and answer the following questions:
1 What is your research problem? Describe the problem succinctly, keeping in mind that I’ve read the research problem memo. 2 How would you assess your progress? What tasks have you completed since you wrote your research problem memo? What tasks do you have left to do? 3 What are the genre (research article or research review), audience, and purpose of your final as- signment? Identify the journal for which you are writing, and one or two target articles from that journal. Discuss the audiences that read that journal, and discuss the purpose that your article would serve for that audience, using the target article(s) to substantiate your analysis.
To prepare to write the progress memo, you must do three things. First, you must make progress. If your research problem is drawn entirely from reading the engineering literature, you should have all or most of the research completed before you write the progress memo.
Second, you must condense technical information to the minimum. Unlike the research problem memo, this memo's goals do not include giving me all of the technical explanations needed to understand your project. Save those for the final assignment. For this progress memo, focus on describing how you're managing the project, "black-boxing" the technical details.
Finally, you must make the 180-degree turn that happens in the center of this course. That 180-degree turn is from thinking of engrc 3500 students (and me) as your audience to developing and applying your own analysis of a more field-specific and expert audience. Many students fail to navigate this turn suc- cessfully. Students who don’t make the turn often produce research reviews that read like technical reports written for other engrc 3500 students. In other words, they apply what they’ve learned during the first half of the course, but don’t develop the tools necessary to complete the second half of the course.
2 Progress memo structure & elements
Your progress memo should be a synopsis of your progress, typically no more than 500 to 1000 words (two or three pages). If you find that the memo substantially exceeds 1000 words, please consult me.
You may re-use material from your research problem memo. However, you should assume that your audience has read that memo and can refer back to it for technical explanations. You should not in- clude a description of your literature search.
Include the following elements:
an introductory paragraph that describes your research problem and assesses your progress; a description of your progress on tasks since the research problem memo, which might be two or three paragraphs long (or might be a long paragraph that includes a list within the paragraph); a description of the final assignment, which might be two or three paragraphs long; and a list of any sources that you cite in the memo.
In your introductory paragraph, briefly describe your research problem, “black-boxing” as appropriate and keeping in mind that the reader can consult your research problem memo. Assess your progress. The assessment should be more than a synopsis of tasks completed and tasks remaining; judge the quality of your progress (e.g., you are on track; slightly behind but have a plan for catching up; ran into some problems but have solved them).
You can organize your description of tasks in one of two ways. The first way is to organize your descrip- tion of tasks into work completed and work remaining. If a task is in process, list it under both work completed and work remaining. Under work completed, discuss only the work that has been completed since you wrote the research problem memo. When I read the work completed section, I should find new tasks completed, not the old tasks you’d completed before you wrote the research problem memo. The second way is to organize by task, and to discuss work completed (since the research prob- lem memo) and work remaining within each task.
For your research tasks, divide your research into subcategories. For instance, if you were researching sustainable water systems, the research subcategories might be defining sustainability; methods of wa- ter treatment; designing a water treatment system; and so forth. Your sources might include three re- search papers that discuss methods of water treatment, one or two of which might also discuss design; four or five research papers that present designs, some of which also discuss methods and perhaps de- fine sustainability; and so forth. You might be finished with some tasks (e.g., defining sustainability and researching methods of treating water) but still be in the middle of others (e.g., analyzing de- signs).
In your description of the final assignment, discuss your assignment’s audience, your purpose, and ge- nre (research article or research review). Identify the journal or magazine in which it might appear and tell me the audience and purpose of the journal. To help you identify the journal’s audience and pur- pose, consult the journal’s own description and read a number of articles from the journal. (If you can’t find this in the journal, please meet with me to locate the journal’s description of its audience and purpose. Discuss how your final assignment’s content and structure will address an audience and fulfill a purpose suitable for this journal.
sulted in making less progress than I had anticipated in my earlier research problem memo, I have scheduled the remaining work in a way that will ensure completion”). 2 In the discussion of work completed, the student rehashes work that he or she did for the re- search problem memo. (The discussion of work completed should include only that work done after the research problem memo; in other words, the progress memo should show progress.) 3 In the discussion of work remaining, the student lists the same items that appeared as research agenda in the research problem memo. 4 The research to date would enable the student to write a purely informative article, but not to write an article that would offer a particular perspective or “add value” to the information. 5 The planned content of the final assignment is appropriate for a limited-expertise audience such as myself and students in other engineering fields (i.e., the engrc 3500 audience), but not appropriate for the audience of the target journal. 6 There’s a mismatch of some kind between the planned article and the target article(s) or tar- get journal. 7 No target articles are attached to the e-mail message by which the progress memo is sent. (Of- ten, students realize the error and send me a second e-mail that has the articles attached, but not the progress memo. I want a single e-mail message to which both the progress memo and the target article or articles are attached. In real life, project managers often have similar ex- pectations about how work should be organized.) 8 A target article is attached, but it’s an URL or html document, even though a .pdf of the ar- ticle is available.
5 Criteria for evaluating the progress memo
Scores in each criterion often act as “limiting factors” (a low score on any criterion or sub-criterion may lower the score of the work as a whole).
1 Document delivery & design
Do all drafts of the memo follow the delivery specs given in the syllabus?
Is the memo designed effectively? Does the memo follow the design conventions described in the Guide to designing documents? Does the design emphasize the information hierarchy of the memo?
2 Introductory paragraph
Does the introduction briefly explain the research problem? Is progress assessed, rather than simply described? Is the paragraph clearly organized, typically moving from old to new information? Are sentences throughout clear, concise, and specific?
3 Progress on tasks & description of progress on tasks
Is the description of progress organized clearly? Are organizational techniques used as needed (e.g., headings, lists, transitions, previews, and reviews)?
Does the progress memo discuss only the work completed since writing the research problem memo?
Does the memo indicate good progress on tasks? “Good progress” requires (a) completing or al- most completing the research for research review articles (or the equivalent for original research articles), and (b) in the course of that research, developing an argument about the research prob- lem that is similar to those offered by published articles.
Are sentences concise, specific, and clear? Are terms used consistently? Do the sentences flow from old to new information? Are the sentences organized to avoid long noun strings before verbs? Are passive voice and nominalizations used judiciously? Do sentences show strong syntactic con- trol?
Are sources cited as needed, using an appropriate style?
