On Deck:

• Welcome Back!
• Final Team Meeting Before Plan is Due...
• Meetings Respond to General and Specific Feedback
• Finish (or plan how to finish) your written plan with revision and peer review processes. 

Due Wednesday or Friday?  

• Your Plan/Project 3 A for formal review

General Feedback to Integrate in your Meeting: 

Step 3, the initial plans for research should follow Markell's stipulations that:

1. Like "Workplace Research", your 3rd part of your plan should reveal how you will ask/answer some "practical questions" about:
1. how will you refine your understanding of the (organizational or departmental) problem?  
1. PLAN PRIMARY RESEARCH:  Are you asking questions, and/or doing primary research to figure out what the problem is?  Does this involve figuring out what priority problems are involved for real people, with real roles and responsibilities?  
2. PLAN SECONDARY RESEARCH:  
2. how will you develop your initial sense of your audience?   Assuming you have a decent sense of audience in step one and two, how does your research develop this? 
2. Like "Student Research" at a "Research One University" (there are only 107 in the country), your 3rd part of your plan should reveal how your team decided on:
1. quite a few smart research questions
2. suitable research techniques for each question, including:
1. several types of primary research, as well as some initial understanding of how you will design primary research methods like observations, or questionnaires, or surveys...
2. several types of research media (books, journals, other reports, blogs, websites) as well as some initial understanding that this presents a suitable diversity of research to begin
3. several techniques for searching for this media, including what search terms you will plug into where (databases, websites, trade publications, encyclopedias)
4. a team understanding for how this research will be organized, delivered to the team, and documented in A.P.A.

Step 4, 

1. Plan to make your team 'accountability ideas' into a team charter, which you all sign and then submit to Dr J.
2. Include more important dates and deliverables.  Here are some of each to help you with a more thorough schedule:
1. Week 10:  Next Class: March 26
1. Include time for:
1. In-Class Research Period Thursday (with "Secondary Research Scavenger Hunt" and Tips for Designing your Primary Research Tools)
2. Finding and Reviewing  Relevant Examples of Feasibility Studies, Proposals, and/or Empirical Research Reports 
2. Week 11 Tues/Thurs
1. Include time for Writing that:
1. Summarizes Research, Synthesizes Research, Draws Initial Conclusions,
2. Refining Research Questions or Adding new Research Questions
3. Refining Project Goals
4. Writing a Strong Draft of your Methods 
3. Week 12 Tues/Thurs
1. Include time for Writing:
1. Results Sections
2. Including Persuasive Graphics and Visualizations 
3. Completing key sections, starting collaborative revisions (face-to-face, divided, or layered) 
4. Week 13 Tues/Thurs
1. Include time for:
1. Writing a World Class Executive Summary 
2. Extensive Revisions
3. and Using the appropriate "Writer's Guide for Revising" in team-meetings
5. Week 14 Tuesday (April 21st): Final Projects Due 

Specific Team Feedback (light) Based on your Minutes and Drafts:

W1:

HSSE

• I think the purpose is very clearly articulated so far, JUST REMEMBER that including several options is very apt for a feasibility study.  
• Your audience for the report is clear.  Well done.  You can still set up an analysis of the goals and roles of several of these decision makers in your audience.  Claudio has started doing this, and this needs to be VERY clear to your team, so that everyone can conceptualize your goals going forward...
• Overall, the minutes look great, and so does the basic plan so far.  I have some questions about part three of your plan, most of which relate to the 'general feedback' prompts above, so you can get to work.  But...
• Do focus on thinking about suitable research techniques and media to support your questions so far.  E.G. Make sure to diversify the 'books' on app development so that the team can be supported by different levels of understanding.
• Make sure the research into different schools' approaches to solving the problem is done/reviewed early and by everyone
• Make sure the surveys are designed and then reviewed by the group
• Connect this problem to 'retention' at WSU with an article 

SEED WAYNE

• I think the purpose is still too generally clearly articulated so far.  Quickly move from the general to the specific goals for the project in the fist and second sections.  Right now the generalized purpose is causing some cascading problems in the plan.  Is your plan to test the feasibility of connecting a current project to a sustainable food system?  What system or systems?  How are you "connecting"?  
• Or, are you testing the feasibility of a new experimental garden that can integrate or "connect" more easily or productively?   Would this include an instruction set, or any technical definitions that support your goals?  
•   Is your audience for the report clear?  Well, I love the chart!!  It details who we are likely or potentially presenting this to.  What is/are their role(s) or objectives?  Who should you analyze further as part of your research?
•  I do, also, have some further questions about part three of your plan:
•  Do focus on thinking about suitable research techniques and media to support your questions so far?

PARKING METER PROBLEMS:

• I think the purpose is clearly articulated so far, and TESTING three options are very apt for a feasibility study.  Is your audience for the report clear?  Who are we potentially presenting this to?  What is/are their role(s)?
• Overall, the minutes look great, and so does the basic plan so far.  I have some questions about part three of your plan:
• Reading reviews is a great idea, but can you claim to be finding unbiased research on this app?  
• Do you focus enough research on the issue of 'integration' of this solution with current plans or initiatives in the relevant organization? 
• Most of the rest of my questions relate to the 'general feedback' prompts above, so you can get to work.  Do focus on thinking about suitable research techniques and media to support your questions so far. 

GOLD TEAM

• I think the purpose is still too generally clearly articulated so far in the draft itself, but the idea of testing the feasibility of these three changes is very apt, and exciting.  In your writing, even in the plan, quickly move from the general to the specific goals for the project in the fist and second sections.  Right now the generalized purpose is causing some cascading problems in the plan.  
•  Your audience for the report seems pretty clearly focused.   Is there anyone else besides John George?  Who are the WSU readers?  What is/are their role(s) or objectives?  Who should you analyze further as part of your research?
• Regarding part three, I really like the idea of subscribing, but it was hard to assess your strategy otherwise.  Make sure your plan at least works to "split up" some tasks and questions so that you can get feedback on your plan.  You noted that this was key to your meeting today, and it is.  The above 'general feedback' on step three then very much applies to your group.

3D LAB

• I think the purpose is clearly articulated so far.  
•  Your audience for the report seems pretty clearly focused, but who exactly are you writing to?  The plan is not that 'reader centered' in the first section/introduction.  At times it sounds like your audience is "WSU" -- and this should be replaced with a strong sense of audience, including real people, with roles in an organization.
• Regarding part three,it was hard to assess your research strategy.  Make sure your plan at least works to "split up" some 10 or more research tasks and questions so that you can get feedback on your plan. This is key to your meeting today and thus the above 'general feedback' on step three then very much applies to your group.

W2:

LITERACY LEARNING COMMUNITY INITIATIVE:

• The focus in your recent minutes seems a little overly focused on context.  This makes sense at this early phase, but it is causing problems in your plan in two ways: (1) there is not enough focused planning on research a manageable problem (small enough to potentially solve) and (2) it is fragmenting your research into widely different areas that will be hard to bring together productively.  Thus, your current "individual parts" section should be scrapped, and your research goals should be refocused after the following adjustments are made:
• The current plan is still very broad, and not 'reader centered' in the first section/introduction.  At times it sounds like your audience is "Michigan" or "DPS" -- both of these are fantasy audiences.  At other times it sounds like it is written to the English Department and Education Department and Administrators.  This is more like it.  
• Tighten up the first two sections significantly, stating much more clearly that you're exploring the feasibility of a learning community or extended tutoring partnerships for current WSU literacy initiatives.  The alternatives section should offer three (or four) ways that this might work for now.  We will refine this again later, and that is more suitable and productive...
• The primary research should be very focus on looking into how the current literacy initiatives work, as well as who's involved, and what they do
• The secondary research should be into 'literacy', 'literacy programs', 'tutoring programs', and 'community based literacy' or 'service learning'  -- not so focused on Detroit's deficits. 

Homeless Shelter Service Learning or Re-Design:

• Research goals should be refocused after the following adjustments are made:
• The current plan is still very broad, and not that 'reader centered' in the first section/introduction.  At times it sounds like your audience is "WSU" or "THE SHELTER" -- both of these should be replaced with a strong sense of audience, including real people, with roles in an organization.
• Tighten up the first two sections significantly, stating much more clearly that you're exploring the feasibility of improving the service partnerships for current WSU initiatives.  The alternatives section should offer three (or four) ways that this might work for now.  We will refine this again later, and that is more suitable and productive...
• One key alternative, might be seeing whether or not the mission (or other nearby organizations) would be interested in WINNING THE SERVICES OF TECHNICAL WRITERS, WHAT THOSE SERVICES WOULD/COULD BE (what kind of research, analysis, and writing would be done), AND WHETHER OR NOT A CLASS LIKE THIS COULD WORK FOR THEM AS A CLIENT. This is the kind of work I'm involved in now anyway. 
• The primary research should be very focus on looking into how the current service initiatives between universities and homeless shelters work, as well as who's involved, and what they do.
• The secondary research should be into homeless shelter partnerships with universities and colleges, as well as 'service learning'
• If you're focusing on the Detroit Rescue Mission, include reading the annual reports as an immediate secondary research goal.  What services/programs do they offer?  How can WSU initiative support these?  Does this refine your topic?

INVENTEV INTERNSHIP

• I think it's pretty focused in terms of your purpose.  
• You do need a better sense of audience, right down to a few potential people who would hypothetically read or use your report at WSU or this company.  You are not writing simply to WSU.  You might use these real people as potential targets of research question resources too.
• I like the focus on trying to find comparable studies, as we'll make this an emphasis this week.
• Note that the "alternatives section" should offer three (or four) ways that this partnership might work for now.  We will refine this again later, and that is more suitable and productive than being too focused or too broad in a plan...
• One key alternative to include might be seeing whether or not the organization would be interested in WINNING THE SERVICES OF TECHNICAL WRITERS, WHAT THOSE SERVICES WOULD/COULD BE (what kind of research, analysis, and writing would be done), AND WHETHER OR NOT A CLASS LIKE THIS COULD WORK FOR THEM AS A CLIENT. This is the kind of work I'm involved in now anyway. 

ARAMARK

• Your purpose seems clear, just watch the occasional tone of the 'expose' or 'investigative journalism' 
• I got some very cryptic meeting minutes, so it's hard for me to comment.  I do see that you have a nice range of initial readings.  Moreover, you're focus on the empirical research report grounds the project well so far.  
• You are already getting disorganized though, and part three will need emphasis today.  For instance, categorize your research goals, and types.  Then come up with an organizational method (better than liking in comment boxes).  
• Note that there is already a petition on facebook to remove Aramark, and talk to these people
•  Note the prisoner lawsuit (don't get caught up in this, or include it in your study unless you find a very good reason)

STUDYROOM FEASIBILITY

• I think the purpose is very clearly articulated so far, and the three options are very apt for a feasibility study.  Is your audience for the report clear?  Who are we potentially presenting this to?  What is/are their role(s)?
• Overall, the minutes look great, and so does the basic plan so far.  I have some questions about part three of your plan:
• Can you find unbiased research on this app?  Would you consider user-testing the app?  You probably already have. Perhaps someone already ran user-tests?
• Most of the rest of my questions relate to the 'general feedback' prompts above, so you can get to work.  Do, however, focus on thinking about suitable research techniques and media to support your questions so far. 

W3:

SEED Website:

• Include research into "website narratives" and/or include this term in your criteria for judging the site, and/or questions about the site's goals

• If it is not feasible to observe a meeting, this is okay.  

• Not sure the student questionnaire is valuable unless rethought... or more specifically useful to help solve a specific problem with the organization's website.
• The 'contextual' matters are expansive, so (1) you won't want to put this all on Matt, and (2) you'll need to find quite a bit of research, then REFINE your specific goals for this hear.  Also, everyone should have good understanding of the context (!!) before some or much primary research is done...
• What "library tab" are you working with exactly?  How or with what search terms or goals?  Why? 
• Otherwise, looking good!  Just be sure to take the above 'general feedback' seriously in your meeting today, as some of this applies to, or extends, what I just mentioned in this specific feedback.

SWITCH IT OFF CAMPAIGN 

• I think the purpose HAS BEEN NARROWED SIGNIFICANTLY and is ready to be very clearly articulated in the first two parts of your plan.  I'd like to know right away today what you're planning: (1) a feasibility study for a new funding model for the sustainability office or (2) a feasibility study for progressively funding a particular (and particularly manageable but interesting) campus project.  In either case, coming up with two or three options would be very apt for a feasibility study.  I would approve either projects.  The prior (1) would require not only figuring out good funding opportunities, but analyzing application forms and even application winners if possible (genre analysis). The latter (2) would be a pretty standard feasibility study grounded in especially progressive/feasible funding models.
• Is your audience for the report clear?  In addition to the sustainability office, who might we be potentially presenting this to?  What is/are their role(s)?
• Overall, the minutes look great, and so does the basic plan so far.  I have some questions about part three of your plan and most of the rest of my questions relate to the 'general feedback' prompts above, so you can get to work.  Do, however, focus on thinking about broadening your suitable research techniques and media to support your questions so far.  Also, focus your surveys less on 'students' to get ideas, and more on finding interviewing an expert on funding mechanisms like grants or awards, especially for ecological innovations or sustainable initiatives. 

VR

• I think the plan is pretty focused in terms of your purpose, and it is pretty clearly articulated in the first two parts of your plan.  Move from general to specific in these sections, noting finally that you're planning: a feasibility study of several alternatives for bringing a VR technology to WSU (and to which departments?) ranging from simple (like a trial system), to a partnership with 3d labs, to something like a fully flexible lab.  One thing that will really need to be evident in your plan (step one, two and three) will be that you're figuring out who would want and benefit from the technology at WSU, and why, ...and planning more research into this.  Therefore...
• You do need a better sense of audience, right down to a few potential people who would hypothetically read or use your report at WSU or this company.  You are not writing simply to the 'board' of governors.  You might use these real people as potential targets of research question resources too.
• The context section is a good draft, and feel free to quote something from "Mike's article" -- which will also come in handy on Thursday this week. 
• I like the focus on trying to find comparable partnerships and institutions/universities.  Make sure you have several research questions geared around this... 

GOLFERS 

• I think the purpose is clear to you as a group, and you are ready to more assertively/clearly articulate this in the first two parts of your plan.  As a stakeholder in your plan (say I was funding your proposal writing for four weeks in a small-business accelerator) I would like to know (1)  right away what, generally, the product is like, in some detail, and then (2) today what you're planning in terms of your proposal writing: a proposal that is (as Ben said) both a sales pitch, and something that is persuasive because it seems to answer the problems (economic, customer satisfaction, technological, ...) of two different golf courses.  It may turn out in a week or two, that the amount of research and writing required to do one proposal might be sufficient, but lets keep the public/private goal for now.  I would approve either project.
• Is your audience for the report clear?  I'm not convinced by the current draft.
• Overall, the minutes look great, and so does the basic plan so far.  I have some questions about part three of your plan and most of the rest of my questions relate to the 'general feedback' prompts above, so you can get to work.  Do, however, focus on thinking about broadening your suitable research techniques and media to support your questions so far.  Here are some keys:
• Some of your secondary research will have to include the existing (primary) data from Connor's team.  Connor will need to review this, and provide it for a first read to the team A.S.A.P.  
• Don't forget that you might do additional primary research into comparable golf-courses (surveying problems, needs...) and then use this to draw any other needed conclusions about your target courses.
• Connor is right that research into comparable apps is also key 
• Then, you will want to find comparable proposals that pitch a technology to a golf course -- I would say at least three models would be great, but this might be hard to find.  You might end up with two or three well-written proposals focused on apps (as there are tonnes of examples here)

BRIDGE TEAM

• I think the plan is pretty focused in terms of your purpose, and you are ready to more assertively/clearly articulate this in the first two parts of your plan.   Move from general to specific in these sections, noting generally what the problem is, then finally that you're planning: a feasibility study of several alternatives for a bridge.   
• I do think you need a better sense of audience, right down to a few potential people who would hypothetically read or use your report at WSU or any relevant partnered company.   You might use these real people as potential targets of research question resources too.
• It's hard to tell what is going on with part three at the moment, so you'll have to focus diligently on the 'general feedback' (above) for this section today.  Although:
• I like the focus on trying to find comparable projects at comparable large commuter institutions/universities.  Make sure you have several research questions geared around this... 
• I think that you're secondary research will require making friends with a few comparable feasibility studies, and some Trade Journals in design and civil eng.
• Get to work on part three and solicit more feedback during your meeting today...