FORMAT SPECIFICATIONS FOR YOUR ANALYTICAL REPORT

 

1. For your title page, follow the format of the sample title page on page 4 of this handout. Make sure your title page is complete and precise: it should tell readers what they can expect to find in the report and rule out what they can expect not to find.
2. For your table of contents, follow the format of the sample table of contents on page 5 of this handout.
3. Your abstract (a summary of your report) should not exceed two pages. The word “ABSTRACT” should appear as a centerhead at the top of the page on which the abstract begins. The abstract must include the following:
(a) A paragraph presenting your statement of purpose; a condensed version of the “problem” subsection that appears in the introductory section of your report; a sentence listing your alternative solutions; and a sentence listing your criteria. (You can assemble this paragraph by cutting and pasting appropriate information from the “Introduction” section of your report.)
(b) A series of paragraphs, each of which condenses one of the Roman-numeralled sections in the body of your report. (You will have as many paragraphs as you have criteria; each paragraph will concentrate on one criterion. If one of your criteria is cost, you will include a paragraph summarizing the cost figures for all of the alternative solutions; if another of your criteria is anticipated effectiveness, you will include a paragraph summarizing the information about the anticipated effectiveness of your alternative solutions; etc.)
(c) A short paragraph summarizing the “Conclusions” section of your report. (It will be sufficient if, in this paragraph, you merely state which alternative solution emerged as the best in terms of each criterion; that is, which alternative was best in terms of criterion A, which was best in terms of criterion B, etc.)
(d) A very short paragraph stating the recommendation presented in the “Recommendations” section of your report. (You can assemble this paragraph by merely cutting and pasting the first sentence or two of your “Recommendations” section.)
4. For your introductory section, follow the format of the sample analytical report included on pages 5-7 of this handout. Use centerheads and sideheads properly and consistently. Centerheads and sideheads will always be formatted in full caps. Always double-space after centerheads and sideheads.
Your introduction must include the following:
(a) A clear and concise purpose subsection, consisting of a sentence that begins with the phrasing “The purpose of this report is to . . . ,” followed by a sentence listing your alternative solutions.
(b) A clear, concise, detailed, and thorough problem subsection explaining the nature of the problem, its scope, its seriousness, etc. The problem statement can be identical to the background statement included in the topic proposal you wrote earlier in the semester.
(c) A clear, concise, and thorough scope subsection, in which you introduce the criteria by which you will evaluate the alternatives and introduce the organizational pattern of the report by previewing the sections that will follow in the body of the report. (This third part of the scope statement is similar to the thesis statement of an academic essay because it introduces the major subdivisions of the report.) Make sure to end the final part of the scope statement with the sentence “Conclusions and a recommendation follow.”
(d) A clear, concise, and thorough background subsection (only if relevant to your topic), in which you provide your readers (intelligent nonspecialists) with any definitions of technical terms or any background information essential to your readers’ understanding of the report and any clarifictions of what your alternative solutions will entail.
5.The body of your report will resemble that of the sample report included in this handout. Each Roman-numeralled section will concern itself with one of your criteria. Begin each section with an introductory paragraph in which you explain exactly what your criterion means, and then, in the subsections that follow, discuss each of your alternatives in terms of that criterion. That is, if one of your criteria is cost, you will provide the cost figures for each of the alternative solutions. Each Roman-numeralled section must begin on a fresh page. Use a centerhead to introduce each section; use sideheads to introduce the subsections discussing the alternative solutions. Double-space after each centerhead and sidehead. Each section must conclude with a summary no longer than one paragraph. Introduce the summary with the word “SUMMARY” positioned as a sidehead. Each summary subsection must state which alternative solution has emerged as the best on the basis of the criterion applied in the section, and the summary must also rank the remaining alternative solutions from second-best on downward.
6. Introduce the conclusions section (which will begin on a fresh page) with a centerhead. (As usual, double-space after the centerheads; see the format of the “conclusions” section in the sample report.) Your “Conclusions” section will summarize the main points about each of the alternative solutions and draw out the logical implications of the data. Present the conclusions as a series of numbered paragraphs, one for each alternative solution. Structure each paragraph in the following manner: if your criteria are cost, ease of implementation, opinions of managers, and opinions of co-workers, include at least one sentence for each criterion. Each sentence will summarize the most important information about the alternative solution in terms of that criterion. You will thus have at least one sentence about the cost, at least one sentence about the ease of implementation, etc. End each paragraph by explaining why the alternative solution is a good, fair, or poor solution. If your criteria are cost, time required to implement solution, opinions of managers, and anticipated effectiveness, a “Conclusions” paragraph would look like this:
1. Purchasing and installing two security cameras and monitors has the second-lowest cost of the four alternatives, at $1,500. Installation would require no more than half a day, making it the least time-consumptive alternative. Only one of the four managers thought that the use of security cameras was the best solution to the problem. The use of security cameras has been found to be only moderately effective. Therefore, this alternative is, overall, only a fair solution.
7. Introduce the recommendation section, which will appear on a fresh page, with a centerhead. (Again, double-space after the centerhead.) Your “Recommendation” section will advocate that the reader take a particular course of action—namely, adopting the alternative solution that, on the basis of your analysis of the data in the body of your report, has emerged as the most promising and effective of the alternative solutions. Use phrasing such as “It is recommended that . . .” or “I recommend that . . . .” Follow the statement of recommendation with one or more sentences summarizing why the recommended solution is superior to the other alternative solutions that have been discussed in the report.
If, in addition to declaring your recommendation, you also want to recommend how the recommendation should be implemented, include this information in a statement beginning with the phrasing “It is also recommended that . . .” or “I also recommend that . . . .” This will be considered a secondary recommendation. The secondary recommendation is not the second-best alternative solution.
The solution you are recommending must be one—and only one—of the solutions listed in the introductory section and discussed throughout the report. You cannot recommend a combination of any of the alternative solutions under consideration in the report.
If you are presenting both a primary and a secondary recommendation, present them within a pair of numbered paragraphs.
8. For your works-cited page, follow the standard MLA format you used in the annotated bibliography in your progress report. The works-cited page will not be annotated. You must include at least seven credible, authoritative, reliable sources—and all seven sources must be cited in the body of the report. Double-space within and between bibliographical entries.
9. An appendix is optional. If your research sources include a questionnaire you designed or a survey you conducted, the appendix must include a copy of the questionnaire or the list of the questions you asked when you conducted your survey. The appendix can also include any supplementary information that will enrich your readers’ understanding of the body of your report. The pages in the appendix, however, do not count toward the nine-page minimum length required for the analytical report.
TWO COMMON BUT VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS TO AVOID IN THE ROMAN-NUMERALLED BODY SECTIONS OF YOUR ANALYTICAL REPORT
1. If you are using questionnaires or surveys as a research source for a criterion such as “Opinions of Co-Workers” or “Opinions of Pitt-Greensburg Students,” make sure that you report which percentage of the respondents were in favor of each alternative solution. A common problem is to state a percentage (such as “13 percent”) in one subsection and a generalization (such as “many respondents” or “most respondents”) in one or more other subsections. Questionnaire or survey results will be useful in determining respondents’ views of which alternative solution is best only if exact percentages are presented for each alternative solution. Always spell out the word “percent” in your report; do not use the percent symbol (%). (Another way to present results of questionnaires or surveys—if you don’t want to calculate percentages— is to state the number of respondents [such as 6 out of 19] that favored each solution.)
2. If you are including multiple interview sources (let’s say, for example, that you have interviewed five managers: A, B, C, D, and E) to apply the criterion “Opinions of Managers,” you must include the opinions of all five managers in each of the subsections. You can’t assess the suitability of one alternative solution by taking into consideration the opinions of only A, B, and C and then assess the suitability of another alternative solution by taking into consideration the opinions of only D and E. The reader needs to know what each of the five interviewees had to say about each alternative solution and how many of the interviewees were in favor of each alternative solution.

NOTE: The abstract, the conclusions section, and the recommendation section must not introduce any data not presented in the body of the report.

ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR FORMAT

1. Follow this pattern for pagination: your table of contents will begin on page i; your abstract will begin on page iii (or on page iv if your table of contents is three pages long). The introduction will begin on page 1, and Arabic numerals will be used for the remainder of the report.
2. Each major section in the body of the report (i.e., the introduction, each section discussing a criterion, the conclusions, and the recommendations) must begin on a fresh page.
3. Sections 4 through 7 (the informational and analytical core of your report, consisting of the sections listed parenthetically in the sentence immediately above) must together amount to the equivalent of at least nine pages of continuous double-spaced text. Only those portions of pages presenting text will count toward the minimum-length requirement; blank spaces will not count. Reports falling short of the minimum-length requirement will receive a substantial grade penalty. The title page, the table of contents, the abstract, the works-cited page, and the optional appendix do not count toward the minimum-length requirement.
4. The required documentation system is the MLA in-text parenthetical-citation system (as discussed in class and in the accompanying handout). A report lacking documentation will receive a grade of F. A report in which the documentation is incomplete or faulty will receive a substantial grade penalty.
5. Handle paraphrasing and direct quotations responsibly. Plagiarism will result in a grade of zero.
6. The text of your report will be double-spaced.
7. Your phrasing must be clear, direct, precise, concise, and unambiguous.
8. The paragraphs in the body of the report must have explicit topic sentences, unity, and coherence.
9. Proofread attentively to eliminate errors in sentence structure, punctuation, grammar, spelling, and mechanics—as well as typographical errors. Such errors, as always, will lower your grade.
SAMPLE TITLE PAGE
ANALYTICAL REPORT:

CHOOSING A SITE FOR A SPORTS COMPLEX

IN METROPOLITAN CHICAGO
Prepared for

Mr. Kenneth H. Sawyer, President

Roop Engineering Company
By

Robert W. Johannson

Chief Engineer
December 7, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

SECTION I: TRAFFIC ACCESSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SOLDIER FIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

NEAR WEST SIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

SOUTH LOOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

SECTION II: PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

SOLDIER FIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

NEAR WEST SIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

SOUTH LOOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..11

RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

WORKS CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1: PROPOSED SITES AND EXPRESSWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

TABLE 1: COST BREAKDOWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

[As you can see, your criteria will provide the titles of the Roman-numeralled body sections. Each body section will have a subsection devoted to each of your alternative solutions.] SAMPLE ANALYTICAL REPORT (ABSTRACT NOT INCLUDED)
The following sample analytical report is considerably shorter than yours will be—primarily because the writer limited himself to only two criteria. The sample report has been single-spaced to preserve paper. Remember that your report will use double-spacing throughout. The sample report can be found on pages 199-210 of Pauley, Steven E. Technical Report Writing Today. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973. Print.

INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to determine which of three city locations would be the most practical and economical site for a sport complex. The alternatives are Soldier Field, the Near West Side, and the South Loop.
PROBLEM
City planners and engineers have investigated and found that the present facilities, Soldier Field, Wrigley Field, and Comiskey Park, will be inadequate to handle the future needs of Chicago. The cost of renovating the old stadiums has been ruled out because of the high cost of remodeling and the greater ability of a new site to handle the recreational needs of the entire city. Location of the complex has been narrowed down to the three proposed sites.
SCOPE
Evaluation of the three sites is according to traffic accessibility and pre-construction costs. Concerning traffic, new cross-town expressways are presently being proposed, and they could affect the choice of a stadium site. However, to inject an uncertain variable into this study would only reduce the reliability of the findings. Therefore, traffic recommendations are based on the existing expressway system.
Section I examines traffic accessibility to the proposed sites, and considers possible expressway modifications. Section II presents costs for purchasing the sites, razing the present buildings, and improving traffic accessibility. Conclusions and recommendations follow.

SECTION I: TRAFFIC ACCESSIBILITY
An important factor to be considered for this sport complex is how easy it will be for automobiles to enter and leave the area. The seating capacity of the proposed stadium is projected at approximately 60,000. Unless the surrounding roads are adequate, an immense traffic jam will occur when a capacity crowd enters and leaves the area.
SOLDIER FIELD
The Soldier Field site would create a traffic problem because Lake Shore Drive is the only four-lane access road in the area (see Figure 1). Although some traffic would enter from directly west of the stadium, the bulk of traffic would use the north-south route, Lake Shore Drive. The northbound lanes would carry the heaviest load because many people would be trying to enter the Eisenhower Expressway, which would give them fast access to the far west suburbs of the city. In the past, major traffic jams have resulted from cars leaving the Soldier Field area after a sporting event, and the new sport complex would result in even greater tie-ups. Road improvements in the immediate area would only slightly alleviate the back-up of traffic. Another factor to consider is the possibility of additional traffic on Lake Shore Drive resulting from events at McCormick Place.
For these reasons, the Soldier Field site appears to be a poor choice for traffic accessibility. The flow of traffic is limited to three directions because Lake Michigan is on the east.
NEAR WEST SIDE
The second proposed site, on the Near West Side, has the advantage, and disadvantage, of the Eisenhower and Dan Ryan junction at its southeast corner. With the location of the main parking lot at the junction of these two expressways, access to and from the stadium, from all directions, would appear to be very good. However, this intersection is already very busy during the evening rush hours, and additional stadium traffic during this time would cause extensive delays.
SOUTH LOOP
[The central location of the South Loop site and its proximity to three major highways make it an attractive possibility, though some highway modifications would be necessary to prevent congestion.] The South Loop site is near the center of the city, and most people coming from the east and west parts of the city would use the Eisenhower Expressway, which has an exit north of the proposed stadium. People coming from the north and south ends of the city would use either the Dan Ryan Expressway or Lake Shore Drive. From there they would get on the Eisenhower and exit where it passes the stadium’s north end. State Street, which runs north and south, and Roosevelt Road, which runs east and west, cross at the southeast edge of the stadium site. These two streets would handle some of the local traffic but most of it would bottleneck at the Eisenhower exit at the north end of the stadium. A modification of this exit and convenient access to a north-stadium parking lot would ease the problem considerably. A south-stadium parking lot would be convenient for cars arriving via Roosevelt Road and State Street.
SUMMARY
Each of the three sites has a different type of traffic problem. Based on a careful projection of traffic patterns, the South Loop site has better potential than the other two. One of the most important concerns of the city is to avoid traffic tie-ups, and the South Loop, after modification of roads leading from the Eisenhower Expressway, would cause least congestion. The second-best alternative is the Near West Side; the Soldier Field site is in last place.

SECTION II: PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Before considering the cost of land at each site, it must be mentioned that the shape of each tract is different, a fact which will affect the design and cost of the complex. For example, the Soldier Field site is triangular in shape, and the design of a structure there could not be identical to designs for the other two sites. Although design and construction costs are beyond the scope of this report, the land tracts themselves will become a factor as construction of the complex is further studied. SOLDIER FIELD
During this study, Soldier Field was examined by Roop Engineers, and the results of previous studies were confirmed: the stadium is in extremely poor condition, and restoration would not only be almost as costly as a new complex but would cause serious limitations in the complex’s design and potential.
The cost for razing Soldier Field would be $1,800,000, and the land is valued at $1 million.
An additional pre-construction consideration for Soldier Field is ecology. Park land would have to be used to provide additional parking space. A very strong campaign is now underway to preserve the lake front, and if this site is chosen there is no way to accurately predict what effect the campaign would have in terms of delays and ultimate costs.
NEAR WEST SIDE
The proposed site at the Near West Side is valued at $1 million and removal of old structures would cost approximately $1 million.
SOUTH LOOP
The South Loop site, because it is much nearer to the center of Chicago, is valued at $1,500,000. Razing of the many old buildings on this site would cost approximately $1,300,000.
SUMMARY
Total costs for land, destruction of old structures, and improvement of traffic facilities at the respective sites are presented in Table 1 below. On a dollars-and-cents basis, the Near West Side site is $1,300,000 cheaper than Soldier Field, and $2,300,000 cheaper than the South Loop.

TABLE 1: COST BREAKDOWN
Near West Side South Loop Soldier Field
Removal of Old Structures $1,000,000 $1,300,000 $1,800,000
Land $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000
Improvement of Traffic Facilities $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000
TOTAL COSTS $3,500,000 $5,800,000 $4,800,000

CONCLUSIONS
The final decision on a Chicago sport complex will inevitably sacrifice either money or traffic convenience:
1. Total expenses of the Soldier Field site are $4,800,000, but its single large access road, Lake Shore Drive, severely limits possibilities for satisfactory traffic flow.
2. The Near West Side site has the lowest total price, $3,500,000, and is adjacent to the Eisenhower and Dan Ryan junction, but those expressways are already saturated with traffic, particularly during evening rush hours.
3. The South Loop site is centrally located and has the best potential for traffic accessibility. Because of its location, however, improvement of traffic facilities will cost $3 million, making its total price approximately $5,800,000.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is recommended that the South Loop site be chosen for Chicago’s new sport complex. Its price tag exceeds those for Soldier Field and the Near West Side, but its central location allows comparatively easy access from four directions, making it worth the money for Chicagoans.
2. It is also recommended that the exit from the Eisenhower Expressway at the north end of the complex be modified to avoid a bottleneck of traffic from State Street and Roosevelt Road.
TO HAVE YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE, PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US NOW