Peer Review of Proposals Headings for analysis

1) Introduction:
The introduction provided good background information.
It would be helpful to your reader to clearly state what your
problem is.
Adobe PS that says there is a problem with the system but
what is the problem describe what this problem is.
2) Problem:
The problem was never clearly stated.
3) Objectives:
These are clearly stated and relate to the problem
4) Solution:
The solution is clearly stated.
The solution didnt assure me that you were going to be able
to go about implementing this solution.
Your solution adds an added cost of hiring someone or taking
up someones time to fix the bug. This should be stated.
5) Method:
You dont persuade the reader that your solution will work.
Talk in detail about how youre going to debug the program.
Are you going to do a recall on Adobe computers or youre
going to put instruction on how to fix this problem on the web
or are you going to only make sure new Adobe computers
dont have this problem or are you hiring a IT guy to fix the
problem either over the phone or house to house and is fixing
the problem for consumers going to be costly?
6) Resources:
You have one resource tell us that they have come up with
nonworking solutions but are their working ones?
7) Schedule
Might be helpful to give customers a time frame that this will
be fixed
8) Qualifications
I am not persuaded that you are qualify to fix this solution
but I think if you describe how youre going to debug the
computer this will solve the issue.
9) Management
N/A
10) Costs
Time cost and how much its going to cost the costumer to
have if fixed need to be added.
11) Conclusion
Not added

12)

Reasoning
This is clearly states by saying that you have run into this
problem and so have others. Maybe add a site where others
have said they have this problem.
13) Prose
You clearly state when this problem occers
14) Graphics
N/A
15) Page Design
Good layout easy to follow
16) Ethics
N/A