Peer Assessment of Group 4
Peer Assessment of Group 4
Category |
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
Group 3 |
Group 5 |
Average |
Problem Definition and
Selection (0-15) |
13 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
13 |
Proposed Spectroscopic Solution
(0-15) |
13 |
14 |
13 |
13 |
13.25 |
Market Screening (0-10) |
7 |
6 |
8 |
9 |
7.5 |
Class Selection (0-10) |
5 |
8 |
7 |
1 |
5.25 |
DCA I: Characteristics (0-10) |
9 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
7.75 |
DCA II: Completeness (0-10) |
8 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
8.5 |
DCA III: Costs (0-10) |
6 |
7 |
9 |
8 |
7.5 |
Pros & Cons: The Verdict
(0-10) |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
Overall Impression (0-10) |
9 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
8.75 |
TOTAL |
79 |
82 |
83 |
71 |
78.75 |
Evaluation by Group 1
(A) Group 1:Dissolved in Water: Mike Lewis, Emma Treuten, and Paul Benny
(B) Group 4:Gang of Three-Sundeep Rayat, Subharata Sen, and Dannie
Phillips
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Problem Definition and Selection: (0-15) 13
*Excellent Idea
(2) Proposed Spectroscopic Solution: (0-15) 13
(3) Market Screening: (0-10) 7
(4) Class Selection: (0-10) 5
*No mention of Class Selection
(5) Part I: Characteristics. (0-10) 9
(6) Part II: Completeness of Quote. (0-10) 8
(7) Part III: Costs. (0-10) 6
*No time period listed for a valid quote
(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. (0-10) 9
(9) Overall Impression. (0-10) 9
* Very well done, definitely a possibility for research.
TOTAL 79
Evaluation by Group 2
(A) Group-2:JAW(Evaluator)
(B) Group-4: The Gang of Three(Evaluee)
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1). Problem Definition and Selection: 12
The problem definition is complete
(2). Proposed Spectroscopic Solution:14
The solution is unique
(3). Market Screening:6
The company list is complete. but the we don't know how they
screened
(4). Class Selection:8
In this section, the two instruments satisfy research
requirement.What is the disadvantage of the other three.
(5). Detailed Comparison( Part I): Characteristics:8
Some decisive characteristics have been described.
(6). Detailed Comparison( Part II): Completeness 9
All parts price are listed.
(7). Detailed Comparison(Part III): Costs 7
No valid time for quotation
(8). Pros& Cons:9
It is a careful consideration
(9). Overall Impression:9
Approve
Evaluation by Group 3
> Group 4--The Gang of Three
> (A) Group-3: Bible Study Class
> (B) Group-4: The Gang of Three
> (C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
> (1). Problem Definition and Selection: 13
> (2). Proposed Spectroscopic Solution:13
> (3). Market Screening:8
> (4). Class Selection:7
> Why did you choose these two companies' products in five
> suppliers?
> (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:9
> (9). Overall Impression:8
>
Evaluation by Group 5
A) Evaluators: Group 5, Alcohol Protecting Group
B) Evaluees: Group 4, The Gang of Three
C)1. Definition and Selection: 14
Good job of defining and making things realistic. A structure or
reaction would have been helpful
2. Solution: 13 points
An explaination of ESR and why it is good for looking at free
radicals would be nice.
3. Market Screen: 9 points
Fulfilled requirements nicely. Including short description of
the types of instruments offered by each company would be nice.
4. Class Selection: 1 point
We could not find specific information in the paper regarding high
versus low end equipment.
5. Characteristics: 7 points
Many of characteristics are mention, but the three most important
ones do not seem to highlighted.
6. Completeness: 8 points
The two instruments have different types of information provided.
One is very detailed regarding software options and the other is detailed
about the actual equipment.
7. Costs: 8 points
Including where the price quotes came from and how long they are
good for would be useful.
8. Pros/Cons: 9 points
Your thoughts going into picking the Bruker are clearly stated and
rational.
9 Overall: 9 points
Considering the instrument you picked was unfamiliar to us, you
did a good job explaining why you chose what you did. With our limited
knowledge of this topic, we would support your decision.