Write a solicited or unsolicited Formal Recommendation Report, to your specified recipient within your topic’s context.

Assignment Question

This paper already has 7 pages, 1745 words. It just need to be completed.

OVERVIEW Write a solicited or unsolicited Formal Recommendation Report, to your specified recipient within your topic’s context, with the following purposes: 1. document your applied engineering problem or opportunity project 2. communicate pertinent aspects of your project to your audience 3. establish an engineering problem using engineering terms 4. provide transparency of method for analysis, research, evaluation, and solution 5. account for and provide research and materials necessary for readers to independently validate your reasoning 6. contribute to the body of literature and knowledge in your engineering field

LENGTH The body portion of your report must run at least 5 full pages of verbal text, single spaced, with 12-point Times New Roman font for body content, default margins. Length excludes graphics and white space. Most of the detailed, technical, cited content will be in the Results/Findings section. Reports not meeting the content minimums will be greatly reduced in quality and therefore grade. The rough draft for peer reviews should have at least 4 full pages of text; graphic(s) incorporated, referenced, labeled, titled, and cited; all headings in place and each section at least partially completed; at least half of references list correctly formatted and citations in place. The Self-Assessment Rubric should also be pasted and filled out (see syllabus and Standards module).

RESEARCH use at least 10 substantive, published sources of at least 3 different types including at least 5 scholarly journal articles. A substantive source is one with depth of content, e.g., books, journal articles, government reports, industry specifications and standards, or professional reports. Top-quality reports will exceed this minimum research requirement. Newspaper articles, PowerPoints, encyclopedic entries, and website product/service specs all fail to meet this criterion for one of your 10 minimum quality sources. You may use those items, but they will not count toward the 10. Use of exactly ten substantive sources is at the standard of “meets.” I will not accept any reports lacking ample documented (cited) research in the Results/Findings section. Save a PDF and hyperlink for every source and be ready to provide it with your draft submissions.

REPORT SECTIONS Items in bold are required. Items capitalized are required verbatim. letter of transmittal title page executive summary (optional) Abstract – informative (vs. descriptive), summarizing the report including final recommendations Table of Contents Glossary — with footnote reference to glossary at the first appearance of a glossary term in report body: bold the term* with footnote at bottom of same page, once: *This and all bolded terms are defined in the Glossary. list of illustrations, list of symbols (optional) Introduction Purpose Literature Review (optional) Background Motivation Scope Research Methods with chronological subheadings as verb phrases featuring actions in present tense, similar to Proposal Tasks, with emphasis on transparency of critical thinking—your method of ensuring asking and answering (through research-based evidence) all relevant questions. Results with subheadings aligning with and expanding upon the Research Methods subheadings. The subheadings should be noun phrases to show, rhetorically, the shift from methodology of research to the results—the content—of that research. Example: Research Methods subhead 1: Acquire a basic understanding of tablet use by clinical staff at ABC Hospital Results subhead 1: Tablet use by clinical staff at ABC Hospital – no verb and no “Task” The Research Methods and Results subheads do not need to match fully. Include third-tier headings as needed. For some help beyond the textbook, consider including the following typical engineering or technical report content within the Results: • problem definition: Establishes the engineering problem in engineering terms • design description: Explains the potential design(s) selected to solve the problem (or address the opportunity). May be compared to alternatives. Described at a high (organizational or ethical), system, and component level as needed. • design evaluation: Assesses how well the design fulfills the requirements. Document any testing that can be fulfilled. Conclusions (a plural noun): Describes what you have concluded based on analyzing your Results, not a rhetorical essay “conclusion.” Recommendations: What you recommend your audience does based on your analysis of the Conclusions. Should be succinct yet detailed, concrete, and specific—a clear course of action. at least one informative graphic created by you and incorporated correctly into the body: You may include additional visuals. Follow the requirements for selection, design, introduction, label/title, and interpretation. appendices (optional) IEEE References list page