Peer Assessment of Group 1
Peer Assessment of Group 1
|Problem Definition and
|Proposed Spectroscopic Solution
|Market Screening (0-10)
|Class Selection (0-10)
|DCA I: Characteristics (0-10)
|DCA II: Completeness (0-10)
|DCA III: Costs (0-10)
|Pros & Cons: The Verdict
|Overall Impression (0-10)
Evaluation by Group 2
> (A)Group II JAW(evaluators)
> (B)Group I Dissolve in water
> (1) problem definition and selection : 13
> (2) Proposed spectroscopic solution : 13
> (3) Market screening : 9
> (4) Class selection : 8
> (5) Detailed Comparision of Alternative. part I: 8
> (6) Detailed comparision of Alternative. part II: 8
> (7) Detailed comparision of Alternative. part III: 9
> (8) Pros and Cons: The verdict.: 8
> (9) Overall Impresion.: 9
Evaluation by Group 3
> Group 1--- Dissolve In Water
> (A) Group-3: Bible Study Class
> (B) Group-1: Dissolved In Water
> (C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
> (1). Problem Definition and Selection: 13
> It seem the project is very exciting!!! Fight against
> (2). Proposed Spectroscopic Solution:10
> Why do you not choose GC-IR? In fact, we think that GC-IR is
> another choice. It is not time-consuming, moreover, GC is used for
> (3). Market Screening:8
> (4). Class Selection: 8
> (5). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part I Characteristics 7
> (6). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part II Completeness: 9
> (7). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part III Costs: 9
> (8). Pros & Cons:8
> (9). Overall Impression: 9
Evaluation by Group 4
B)Group 1:Dissolved in water
C)(1) Problem definition and selection:11.5
Problem is not too well defined ,need to be a bit more
(2) Proposed spectroscopic solution:10
Concentrated only on GC-MS no other spectroscopic methods
were compared with.
(3) Market screening:10
All the major companies in the market were contacted.
(4) Class selection:9
Very elucidative and clear distinctions were made
(5) Detailed comparison of alternatives:Characteristics:7
Three most decisive characteristics not properly discussed.
(6) Completeness of quotes:8.5
The comparison range is vivid and detailed.
The cost for items of JEOL JMS-GC mate was all under one
heading it could have been splitted to give the cost for
(8) Pros and cons:8.5
The main decision was price oriented however a point well
illustrated is that JEOL JMS-GC mate of JEOL uses
Hewlett-Packard 6890 GC for the GC component.
(9) Overall impression:8.5
Although the project lacked proper motive the background is
very realistic and convincing.
Evaluation by Group 5
A) Evaluators: Group 5, Alcohol Protecting Group
B) Evaluees: Group 1, Dissolved In H2O
C)1.Definition and Selection: 14 points
Problem was defined well. The need to analyze/characterize
illegal drugs is realistic and the ideas regarding this are well thought
out. The example to two drugs that might be tested for was a good idea.
2. Solution: 14 points
Clear thoughts are expressed when stating why GCMS would be an
appropriate method for drug sample analysis.
3. Market Screen: 9 points
The 5 Company requirement was met, with links included. The only
thing that may have been nice, was a short description of the type of
instrument each company offered. IE State which company only had self
assembled, top of the line instruments.
4. Class Selection: 8 points
It is clear that top of the line is not what is being considered,
but a break down of the middle-of-the-road bench top devices would have
5. Characteristics: 6 points
The three most important characteristics were not clearly and
concisely defined. Several things were mentioned (ionization
capabilities, automated injection, etc), but it was difficult to pinpoint
3 characteristics of highest importance.
6. Completeness: 6 Points
The quote is good, except for the dashes (-) shown in the chart.
Do they mean these things are not available or do they mean you did not
have individualized prices for these items?
7. Costs: 9 points
The origin of quote and period of validity information was good.
Prices for the GC columns would have been good.
8. Pros and Cons: 9 points
The final decision to purchase the less glamorous GC was reached
in a fairly clear, rational way.
9. Overall: 8 points
Good Job. Minor revisions recommended: More detail on GC columns
available and highlight the 3 most important aspects the group was
considering. The layout of the HTML was well done.