pr23 - Example Group A September 1, 2009 The first report...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Example Group A September 1, 2009 The first report our group reviewed was Cougar Communication Solutions’ (CSS) work on Washington State University’s Education Abroad Program. CSS, by incorporating enormous amounts of information, created a vast source of information that can provide multiple paths to pursue. Unfortunately, this much general data can also hide key points under mountains of secondary or irrelevant data. A good example is CSS’s inclusion of multiple large appendices. While it is good to include these reports, relevance must be considered. Quantitatively, CSS’s report would benefit from a more structured layout of vital statistics. Arranging data in a systematic order would allow the numbers of the report to flow smoothly, much like the qualitative aspects. Specifically, CSS’s report can be improved in a number of different ways. In terms of focus groups, CSS did not utilize a random sample in recruiting participants. This introduces a level of bias that can mask the true thoughts and feelings of the focus group subjects. In regards to conclusions about the collected data, CSS should hone the insights derived from their various methods. For example, instead of presenting verbatim quotes from the focus groups, it would have been better to identify key themes that ran across all subjects. Conversely, CSS’s proposed strategies and tactics would benefit from a more hierarchical approach. For example, their campaign objectives could be broken down into a step-by-step process, where a firm would not advance from one step to the next without the completion of every facet of the previous step. On the other hand, CSS did have a few strong points within their report. Starting off, their executive summary was well put together and accurate. Along with their executive summary, CSS presented a succinct SWOT analysis that allowed for a quick overview of the current situation. CSS’s survey results were also presented in a readable, non-intimidating manner. It was also a smart move to acknowledge their research limitations, in order to counter possible criticism of the proposed implementations. The second project we looked at was the project on the Media Outlet Group. There were two purposes for their research. The project tested for the level of satisfaction with the communication system and for job satisfaction of the North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center. Focus groups and surveys were used. Their research project used five other research companies, totaling to 39 researchers. We felt that while it was important to collect a large amount of data, the project involved too many researchers. There were discrepancies throughout the research project regarding how many employees responded to the survey. In the background information, the project indicated that 246 responded to the survey, while the sample size said 276 responded. With 435 total employees, this is almost a 50% response rate. The fact that their research findings contain multiple errors
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

pr23 - Example Group A September 1, 2009 The first report...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online