Peer Assessment of Group 2
Peer Assessment of Group 2
Category |
Group 1 |
Group 3 |
Group 4 |
Group 5 |
Average |
Problem Definition and
Selection (0-15) |
13 |
12 |
11 |
13 |
12.25 |
Proposed Spectroscopic Solution
(0-15) |
14 |
12 |
15 |
12 |
13.25 |
Market Screening (0-10) |
8 |
8 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
Class Selection (0-10) |
5 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
DCA I: Characteristics (0-10) |
9 |
8 |
8.5 |
10 |
8.875 |
DCA II: Completeness (0-10) |
7 |
7 |
8 |
5 |
6.75 |
DCA III: Costs (0-10) |
6 |
7 |
7.5 |
5 |
6.375 |
Pros & Cons: The Verdict
(0-10) |
7 |
9 |
9.5 |
7 |
8.125 |
Overall Impression (0-10) |
9 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
8 |
TOTAL |
78 |
79 |
85 |
76 |
79.5 |
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
submission.
TOTAL 78
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.
(7) Costs:7.5
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
C)
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.