Peer Review of Formal Report Proposal – Increasing Communication Between Employees at Siegle Properties

To: Amy Yung, Peanut Team Teammate

From: Cheryl Chao, Peanut Team Teammate

Date: October 16, 2019

Subject: Peer Review of Formal Report Proposal – Increasing Communication Between Employees at Siegle Properties

Hi Amy, your proposal on increasing communication between employees at Siegle Properties was clear and concise. The topic was also very interesting. Here are some suggestions to consider.  

Initial Impression: This proposal is concise and has good explanations in each paragraph so that readers would be able to catch important information while not being confused on technical terms. 

Overall Document Lay-out and Design: The document is clearly organized with subheadings that mark out each important section. The font and text size was also well chosen. 

Introduction: The background information was very clear. It was great that the different departments’ duties were mentioned as there may be readers that are unfamiliar with residential management companies. The sentence “due to a lack of training and job description, they are often confused of what needs to be done and how to do things correctly” was a good connecting sentence to the next paragraph.

Statement of Problem: The problem was further explained in connection to the previous paragraph. The importance of this issue was also explained which is great because it shows the urgency to create a solution to such problem. 

Proposed Solutions: The solution as directly stated followed by great explanations of why this solution was proposed. It was helpful to include the potential impacts of your solution and how each concern that was previously mentioned had been addressed. There were a few solutions mentioned so consider changing solution to its plural form. Potential improvements would be:

• Did the solution intend to have one mentor or a mentor per new hire?
• How does increasing the confidence of new hires solve the issue of being confused when doing tasks?

Scope: Most of the questions were well constructed and will help with collecting data to access the need for your proposed solution. However, the first question does not have a clear connection to the stated problem of employees being confused. This question could be adjusted and directed towards employees and asking whether they believe they understand their job requirements. Furthermore, it would be useful to consider whether employers would be able to handle increased workload as the solution is centred towards having employers as mentors. 

Methods: The two types of data collection methods seem straightforward and very plausible. Again, consider the possibility for increased workload for employers. Furthermore, consider asking fact questions to assess how confused employees are. An example would be asking employees to rate their confidence on doing tasks individually. 

My qualifications: The qualifications are very strong and should ensure success in creating an effective solution to the current problem.

Conclusion: The conclusion was great and highlights the problem and solutions to be addressed. 

Grammar: There is one grammatical error to be noted:

• Introduction: The second last sentence “…they are often confused of what…”. This should be “confused on what”

Concluding Comments: Overall, this was a great proposal. A few areas to improve on:

• Changing “solution” to “solutions” 
• Clarify how employee’s being confused and their confidence on tasks are related or to focus on one of the problems. 
• Consider interview questions from employers’ perspective

Link to Amy’s Formal Report Proposal: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2019wa/2019/10/11/formal-report-proposal-increasing-communication-between-employees-at-siegle-properties/