Peer Review for Parsa: Proposal for Determining the Feasibility of Introducing Daily Specials to Increase Customer Volume During Dry Season

To: Parsa Seyed Zehtab 

From: Brian Wong

 

Peer Review: Parsa’s Formal Research Proposal: Proposal for Determining the Feasibility of Introducing Daily Specials to Increase Customer Volume During Dry Season

 

First Impressions: 

Overall, the proposal was executed well. The content was clear, easily understood, and proposed an interesting solution to the problem. There are a few grammatical errors consistent throughout the proposal and as a reader, I was left with a few key questions that, if addressed, would strengthen the proposal. Please see below for comments and suggestions.

 

Organization:

• Overall a well-organized proposal, the usage of bolded subheadings allows for increased visual clarity 
• Each section performed its intended task and has sufficient information
• Overall, very well done on this section

Expression:

• The tone and expression used in the proposal is mostly professional and clear. 
• At times, different phrasing of sentences could yield increased clarity. 
  • For example, in the Statement of Problem section: “…  The major implications of this problem are two: first, servers and bartenders experience a decrease in compensation, as their main source of income is customer tips. Second, decreased customer volume leads to decreased profits for the company as whole. 
    • This can be rephrased as “There are two major implications of this problem: ….”
  • Another example in the Qualifications section: “… My almost three years of experience have given me …”
    • Instead of almost three years, an alternate way of writing this could be, “My years of experience …” or  “With nearly three years of experience”.

Content:

• The content of this proposal meets all the criteria for the assignment, however, it is in this section where I was left with a few questions:
  • Heading
  • Subject line 
  • Introduction section
  • Intended audience section
  • Statement of problem section
  • Clear proposed solution
    • While the idea of the proposed solution is clear, the details are missing.
      • For example, what is the intended price of the daily specials? It is mentioned in the Proposed Solution section that, “it offers customers a way to save money while still dining out”.
        • This implies the specials are served at a reduced price.
      • While a specific price is not necessary at this point, further details would provide more clarity and strength towards the proposal
    • Statements are made without source or reference:
      • For example, in this section, “… Many lower mainland restaurants, such as Earls and Tap & Barrel, have daily specials that increase their customer volume, especially during the dry season”.
        • Is there a reference for this information? It is unclear regarding the validity of this statement. A citation or reference to a credible source would strengthen this claim.
  • A scope section is included
    • Overall, the scope section is executed well. However, there are a few questions regarding a few of the lines of inquiry:
      • For questions four and seven in the lines of inquiry, these questions seem to challenge the validity of the proposed solution.
        
        • Question 4: “How important are daily specials in choosing a restaurant to dine at?”
          • The proposal is formed with the idea that daily specials are important enough to increase customer volume during dry seasons. As such, this question seems unnecessary as if daily specials are not important, then the current proposal would not be relevant.
             
        • Question 7: “Will the introduction of daily specials during dry season increase the probability of customers dining at Cactus Club Cafe?”
          • The proposal is based on the idea that daily specials will increase customer volume and thus, the number of customers dining at Cactus Club Cafe. This question challenges the validity of the proposal and thus is highly recommended to change. An alternative could be “What is the change in customer volume after implementing the daily specials?
              
  • A method section is included using both primary and secondary sources
  • Qualification section
  • Conclusion section that summarizes the proposal well

Methods:

• Primary and secondary sources are utilized
• Consultation with the head manager and head chef at Cactus Club Cafe Park Royal is a great asset to the proposal
• Surveys to residents of the lower mainland seem vague, a suggestion is that the survey could be conducted at Cactus Club Cafe Park Royal or with residents of North Vancouver

Grammar and Typos:

• • There are a few grammatical errors present throughout the document. A few examples of grammatical errors are listed below but it is not a complete or exhaustive list. It is highly recommended to check the whole document for grammatical errors:

• Introduction: “Cactus club cafe is a Canadian-owend chain “

• • • • Cactus Club Cafe should be capitalized, as done in other occurrences in the proposal
      • Typo with “Canadian-owned”

• Introduction: “Furthermore, it will asses”

• • • • Typo for “assess”

• Statement of Problem:  “…for the company as whole.”

• Typo for “as a whole”

Concluding Comments: 

Overall, the proposal was a delight to read. It was well-written and the idea is quite interesting. With a few minor edits, clarification, and supporting documents, I believe the proposal would improve immensely: 

• Fixing typos and grammatical errors
• Elaboration of details regarding the daily special for clarification 
• Supporting articles or documents regarding the proposed idea (particularly regarding the mentioned Earls and Tap & Barrel)
• Revision on certain scope questions to strengthen the proposal
• A more specific audience for the survey

Please reach out if there are any questions regarding the comments and I look forward to the results of the research. 

 

Link to Proposal Under Review