Peer Assessment of Group 2
Peer Assessment of Group 2
|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 1
(A) Group 1:Dissolved in Water: Mike Lewis, Emma Treuten, and Paul Benny
(B) Group 2: JAW-WenJiang, Asitha Abeywardane and Jianzheng Shi
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Problem Definition and Selection: (0-15) 13
(2) Proposed Spectroscopic Solution: (0-15) 14
*Very well articulated *Sound reasoning
(3) Market Screening: (0-10) 8
(4) Class Selection: (0-10) 5
*No mention of Class section
(5) Part I: Characteristics. (0-10) 9
(6) Part II: Completeness of Quote. (0-10) 7
(7) Part III: Costs. (0-10) 6
*No time period listed for a valid quote
(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. (0-10) 7
(9) Overall Impression. (0-10) 9
*Great web page design. This method only needs some minor changes for
Evaluation by Group 3
> Group 2--- JAW
> (A) Group-3: Bible Study Class
> (B) Group-2: JAW
> (C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
> (1). Problem Definition and Selection: 12
> (2). Proposed Spectroscopic Solution: 12
> We were convinced that your choice was reasonable.
> (3). Market Screening:8
> (4). Class Selection: 8
> (5). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part I Characteristics 8
> (6). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part II Completeness 7
> (7). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part III Costs 7
> (8). Pros& Cons:9
> (9). Overall Impression: 8
Evaluation by Group 4
(B) Group 2:Jaw
(C)(1) Problem definition and selection:11
Not very specific in addressing the goal.Implied propsal
not adequately reflected in the procedure.
(2) Proposed spectroscopic solution:15
Fluorescence spectroscopy seems to be the best choice to
analyse the type of material.
(3) Market survey:10
Five major companies were contacted.
(4) Class selection:8
One of us was not convinced of the need for as much
sophiscation in instrument.
(5) Detailed comparison of alternatives:Characteristics:8.5
The comparison has been made but not perfect.
(6) Completeness of quotes:8
No need to mention of shipping ,set up costs ie site
need to be specifically prepared in other words what
conditions are required.
Quotes not clear presentation confusing.
(8) Pros and cons:9.5
Based on information supplied comparison was adequate
and decision well supported.
(9) Overal impression:8
Would probably approve with only some clarification of a
few points:(ie How much data is likely to be generated?
How useful is synchronous scanning?Is sophisticated
computerization really necessary?).
total points 85
Evaluation by Group 5
A) Evaluators: Group 5,Alcohol Protecting Group
B) Evaluees: Group 2 JAW
1. Definition and selection: 13 points
More elaboration needed regarding the realistic company situation for need
this instrument. Analyzing for metabolites is a realistic situation.
2. Solution: 12 points
Argument on why to use Fluorescence Spect. is OK but perhaps GC-MS would
have been worth considering.
3. Market Screening: 10 points
Fulfilled the necessary search and we especially like the short
description that went with each company's instrument.
4. Class Selection: 7 points
There was not clear separation between the classes of instruments that
they were looking to purchase.
5. Characteristics: 10 points
The extra table with more information regarding the qualities of each
instrument was helpful. They clearly stated and compared the three most
important characteristics of the instruments.
6. Completeness: 5 points
The quote price is difficult to read in paragraph form. Hard to tell what
price goes with what instrument. Why didn't you a table here, it looked
good elsewhere and helped to clarify.
7. Costs: 5 points
Same argument as above, plus no information on cells and that type of
supply are included.
8. Pros and Cons: 7 points
The conclusion in general could be better stated. The decision to buy the
LS-50 seem rational.
9. Overall: 7 points
The first part of the discussion was very good. The price quotes and
final decision just need a little more clarification. A suggestion would
be to set up the price quote as a chart. It would make your whole final
argument easier to follow.