PROJECT #5

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Final

Overview of the Analytical Report

This report requires conducting research, collecting viable source material, reporting gathered information, and compiling it into a visually-enhanced report with the expected front matter and end matter (Technical Communication, 271-274).

Description of Assignment

Select an event somehow related to a field of study that is of interest to you as your starting point of investigation for this report.  The topic you select is thus to be an industry-related event involving possible ethical communication infractions.  You will examine the event to determine whether ethical communication was compromised, and if so, what caused communication omissions or failures.  For example, did someone withhold information about potentially harmful or lethal effects? Was testing insufficient or too short in duration? Were recommendations not followed and safety warnings ignored?

Possible Events to Investigate for the Analytical Report

• The recent Hurricane Katrina disaster (Examine the feasibility of the warning systems, the contributing causes of the disaster, a comparison of this disaster to similar natural disasters such as a specific mining accident, earthquake, or hurricane.),
• Recall of a specific prescription drug,
• Recall of food item,
• The I-280 crane collapse,
• Workplace safety and management oversight of employee activity prior to the Jeep plant shooting,
• Government testing of hydrogen bombs in Nevada in the 1950s,
• International investigations into prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay,
• The West Virginia mining disaster,
• The London Tube bombings,
• West Toledo floods of 2006,
• The Military operation that captured and killed Osama Bin Laden, 
• Davis-Besse.

Analysis

The “Long Report” section of Chapter 12 describes the types of situations that typically lead to this kind of investigation and reporting.  Three types of analytical reports are discussed in this chapter (268-269): “causal analysis” (Why does X happen?), “comparative analysis” (Is X or Y better for our needs?), and “feasibility analysis” (Is this a good idea?).  Your report shoulddevelop from one of these three approaches.  The general outline of what such a report contains appears on page 269-271.  A model report (Figure 12.9) appears on pages 276-281); consult Appendix A for information on grammar usage and Appendix B for information on documenting sources.

Guidelines for the Three Optional Analyses

These three approaches reflect different purposes, require different data to be collected, and result in different structures for organizing information in the report.  For example, “causal” investigates why the event happened, isolating immediate and ultimate factors.  “Comparative analysis” contrasts similar events to determine what differs in the factors or circumstances leading to the event and its outcome.  “Feasibility” examines whether a proposed course of action is realistic or desirable, often contrasting several optional courses of action to argue in favor of one or another.  No matter which type of analysis is chosen, the analytical report contains common features that lead to a set of conclusions and recommendations that grow logically out of the data.

• A “Causal Analysis” using Davis-Besse might investigate the causes of the corrosion that had built up without detection.  Such investigations look beyond the superficial and obvious answers in an attempt to determine how the situation came to happen, with the intent being to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.  NRC and First Energy Corporation have prepared reports, as have other groups.  Reading through these several reports, you will – as informed engineers and managers – identify the most likely causes, and from the causes, recommend a specific course of action.  Your recommendation must consider what these several groups have suggested, strengths and flaws in their different approaches. Finally, your recommendation must put forth an intelligent approach that goes beyond merely restating what others have said.

• A “Comparative Analysis” using Davis-Besse could contrast alternative plans for correcting the problem associated with corrosion in reactor heads, alternative energy sources, or alternative oversight responsibilities.  You would then discuss the benefits of each plan, after establishing categories by which to compare them (such as “financial,” “long-term,” “short-term,” “public support,” etc…).  Or, you might contrast Davis-Besse with nuclear power plants of a similar vintage to determine what structural or operating problems have occurred at others.  A third possibility might be to compare nuclear power plants built at the same time as Davis-Besse with newer plants to determine what design or operations’ changes have been made and why.  These are only some of the possible types of comparisons you could investigate and report.

• A “Feasibility Analysis” using Davis-Besse would examine proposed courses of action to build solid explanations as to why one particular course of action should have been taken, or should be taken.  For example, you might “justify” why Davis-Besse personnel were unable to detect the problem earlier, though the NRC identified several “missed opportunities.”  Or, you might want to justify why First Energy’s decision to replace the impaired reactor head with the never-operated head from Midland, Michigan, was the correct decision.  You might want to justify why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended a new replacement head.  You might want to justify – citing Davis-Besse information – the continued use of older nuclear power plants, especially in light of the expiration of forty-year operating license.

Research (“Data Collection”)

Information (“secondary sources”) for this report must come from relevant, reliable, current sources (reports prepared by companies, academics, government agencies, and private organizations).  In keeping with research guidelines, anticipate biases and be able to account for them.  Thus, read informed opinions of different experts in the field who publish in professional journals, as well as comments and responses of community leaders published in national and international news sources.  You may want to locate information printed in newsletters of organizations, public agencies, or community action groups.  You must also collect information from one first hand ‘primary source’ by interviewing someone, distributing a survey, conducting a mini poll, or via an email posting.  These two types of information – primary and secondary – will need to be summarized, paraphrased, quoted, analyzed, and interpreted within your report.  Locate relevant information from a minimum of 8 different and reputablesecondary sources, including professional journals, dissertation abstracts, conference proceedings, online databases, international news sources, or textbooks.  

BASIC FORMAT FOR REPORTS:

(completed report should be approx. 15 pages)

1. a cover or title page
2. a letter of transmittal 
3. a descriptive abstract/an executive summary
4. a table of contents
5. the body
6. conclusions (including recommendations)
7. graphs, charts, illustrations
8. an appendix, appropriately labeled, containing

• survey or interview questions
• an evaluative summary
• a copy of a thank you letter addressed to one of your primary sources

*Refer to “A Quick Guide to Documentation,” pages 311-338, for MLA and APA formatting information. Additionally, you will also want to consult Little, Brown Compact Handbook (or a similar reference guide).

• The components that comprise the front and end matter are relatively short and uncomplicated. But I will adjust the length requirement of the body of the report to 4-5 pages. If you refer to the sample report in the text (Concise Guide to Technical Communication), that I indicate in the assignment sheet, you will note that the front and end matter sections contain things like: cover/title page, table of contents, summary, letter of transmittal (introduction). Each of these is usually less than a page, and includes ‘informational’ items. So — the actual analysis portion of the report (the body of the report) is now shortened to 4-5 pages. I hope this helps.
• Also, I’ll adjust the source requirements to — 3 secondary sources, and NO primary sources.