You are an engineer at Omni-Tech, a firm that manufactures and markets small electronic devices, primarily related to the sports and leisure industries. You are the leader of a project team that is working on a solution to a problem with the Omni-Tech 1000, a wireless heart-rate monitor for bicyclists. This device, which consists of a monitor attached to the riderâ€™s chest and a computer attached to the handlebar, enables riders to monitor their heart rates to ensure they are getting the desired level of aerobic workout. The problem with the Omni-Tech 1000 is that the signal fails unexpectedly, causing the computer to reset and thereby provide inaccurate information. Some devices fail only occasionally; others fail every two or three minutes, although never in a predictable pattern.
You are called to a meeting with Kevin Jonakin, the Director of Research and Development at Omni-Tech. Kevin oversees five or six project teams at any given time, each consisting of three or four engineers. Your project team has submitted to Kevin a draft of its project report, which analyzes the problem and recommends a solution. You donâ€™t like the look on Kevinâ€™s face.
â€œThanks for letting me have a look at the draft. I think youâ€™ve identified the problem and come up with a good fix,â€ Kevin says. â€œBut hereâ€™s the problem: this report has to go up to Caroline for her approval, and she reads everything. If she sees something she doesnâ€™t like or doesnâ€™t understand, sheâ€™ll kick it back to me.â€
You are vaguely worried. â€œWhatâ€™s wrong with the report? We put a lot of time into it.â€
â€œYes, I know you did,â€ Kevin says, â€œand, as I said, I think you did good engineering, but the report is awfully hard to read.â€
â€œI donâ€™t know what you mean,â€ you reply. â€œWe spell-checked it, and even ran it through the grammar-checker. We fixed everything that was wrong with it.â€
â€œLet me explain what Iâ€™m talking about,â€ Kevin says. â€œLetâ€™s take a look at the introduction.â€ He hands you a copy of the introduction (Document 3.1). â€œYouâ€™re right, there are no spelling errors or grammar mistakes. But itâ€™s hard to follow. First, Iâ€™d like you to work on the writing. You need to break the intro into paragraphs and make sure each one has a clear topic sentence. And the writing is often choppy and sometimes awkward. But the most important thing to remember is that readers need to understand the context of what youâ€™re writing about.â€
â€œI assumed everyone signed off on the project,â€ you say.
â€œYes,â€ Kevin replies. â€œI did, and Caroline did. But you need to remember that Caroline spends most of every day reading and writing and talking about new products and new versions of existing products. Weâ€™ve probably got thirty different projects at various stages of development. She simply doesnâ€™t remember what you guys are doing.â€
â€œSo you want me to go back and make sure I explain the context better.â€
â€œYes, thatâ€™s right, and try to make sure it is written as well as possible.
Document 3.1 Introduction After Spell-Check and Grammar-Check
This report is a description of the methods and results of the Omni-Tech 1000 wireless heart-rate monitor study and a presentation of our recommendation to the Omni-Tech Executive team. The members of this project are three Omni-Tech engineers: John Horsney, Tim Maloney, and Amanda Brownstein. The Omni-Tech 1000 consists of a belt worn around the chest of a cyclist, which transmits a wireless heart rate signal to a computer/receiver on the handlebars. This currently uses DSRC. DSRC is also known by the name Wi-Fi 802.11b. John Horsney was approached by the Sales and Marketing leads of Omni-Tech sometime in early April in regard to a technical problem with this. The wireless signal between the chest belt and the receiver goes out during use, with the resulting effect that inaccurate data for the user is presented. The sales team is of the impression that this is a persistent problem with this specific model. Out of a total of 1620 monitors sold at $140 each, Omni-Tech have had to refund or replace 980 units, which is a loss of $13,720, not to mention the damage to Omni-Techâ€™s credibility and reputation for quality. After four days spent examining and testing the model, it was determined that simply correcting the problem with the device would not be feasible. We decided to consider alternative wireless technologies and establish a set of criteria for a new wireless system. Two key criteria were the requirement that the new wireless system fit into the existing housing and to maintain our current cost. Our research included online resources, interviews, field research, and product testing. The conclusion of our test was reached on April 24, 2014 and determined that using Bluetooth 4.0 Wi-Fi is Omni-Techâ€™s optimal option for correction of the problem with this product. During our field testing using Bluetooth no wireless failures were observed. As an additional feature, Bluetooth will allow multiple devices to be connected, which would permit a team leader to receive someoneâ€™s data on an additional device. In addition, Bluetooth is $2 less than our current Wi-Fi system. This upgrade will correct the productâ€™s failures, provide additional features, and restore Omni-Techâ€™s reputation for quality and high performance. The following sections of this report will include the details of our methodology, the results, our conclusions, and our recommendations for the ETW-2000.
Once youâ€™ve familiarized yourself with the case background and document, complete the assignment below. Your instructor will tell you how he or she would like you to submit your work.
- 1. Write a memo to the two other team members, describing your meeting with Kevin. Explain the two major categories of revisions to the introduction that Kevin is requesting: changes to the content and changes to the format. Provide specific examples of these two categories of revisions. In explaining the requested revisions to the content, invent any necessary details
Reflecting on Your Work
Once youâ€™ve completed your assignment, write a reflection about your work using the prompt below.
1 OF 1
How did you go about revising the introduction? Which category of revisions did you focus on first? Why? Did you move back and forth between the two categories, or did you focus on one at a time? What was the most challenging aspect of revising the document? In the text box below, write a one- or two-paragraph reflection about your revision experience.
More Important to Less Important
Object List :
Please use the following items in your organizational scenario:
A pair of shoes
A coffee mug
An ink pen
A stuffed animal