| Student Name: | David Eales |
|
| Student PI: | T7777644 |
|
| TMA component | Marks available | Marks awarded |
| Question 1 comments | ||
| summary | 10 | 9 |
| revenue | 10 | 10 |
| product and market | 15 | 12 |
| richness and reach | 15 | 11 |
| total q1 | 50 | 42 |
| Question 2 comments | ||
| sending critique | 5 | 5 |
| critique content | 5 | 5 |
| critique tone | 5 | 5 |
| total q2 | 15 | 15 |
| Question 3 comments | ||
| sending initial proposal | 5 | 5 |
| discussion | 20 | 20 |
| total q3 | 25 | 25 |
| Presentation comments | 10 | 9 |
| Total | 100 | 91 |
Question 1
summary - a clear statement of what your organisation does, how
it will operate, who will use it & which sector of the grid it falls
into. I'm not convinced that there is such a clear-cut gap in the market nationally
- did you carry out a web search? (If so, you could have mentioned it in
support.)
How would your organisation differ from the ones described at:
http://www.activemobility.info/
or: http://www.mobilitywarehouse.com/
?
revenue - you have considered both income & expenditure sides of the equation in some detail, giving sensible attention to all relevant factors.
product & market - I'm puzzled as to why you've put the ES test in a later section, as this is the main way of evaluating 'the product & the market' - see instructions for the exercise in 4.6. Putting the two parts together, though, you've provided a good analysis. I would have thought "convenience" shoppers would also be well catered for by your service, since mobility-impaired people often experience difficulty accessing built shopping environments.
richness & reach - you've made some sound points about both
richness & reach, showing that you understand these concepts well. It
would have been useful to identify directly (some of) the 6 categories of
richness introduced in Blown to Bits (p. 25) & you might also
have looked at the alternative sense of reach: range of products (added
by the T171 authors).
Your critique was posted promptly, in time to be of use to Graham.
It contains plenty of detailed & appropriate advice, carefully highlighting
both strengths & weaknesses & referring very precisely to the proposal.
Overall, your tone is supportive & constructive, showing a good sense
of how feedback can be used. It was a nice touch to finish on a positive
note, by making an encouraging comment about the forthcoming TMA.
Question 3
You've concentrated closely on a single section of your proposal
that you improved in the light of comments received - this shows careful attention
to the detail of the "brief" you were given for Q3.
You've given a very clear explanation of the changes you made & your
reasons for making them.
You do well to quote the exact part of the critique that prompted you to
make changes, & you reference the source impeccably. Even though you've
not used up your word limit for Q3, I really don't see what more you could
have done :-)
Your high actual mark for "revenue" demonstrates the value of peer review
& I hope you found it gave you useful insights.
Your TMA is attractively presented, with appropriate images, a clear layout & plenty of useful internal navigation links. Just occasionally you use underlined headings that look like links, but aren't - this is best avoided. Writing style is clear, with the right level of formality. You make good use of quotation, with careful acknowledgement (apart from the author of the ES test).
The word limit is scrupulously respected.