Project Proposal Rhetorical Analysis

xxxxxxxxx
English
xxxxxxx

For this rhetorical analysis I have done research on two electronics engineering documents commonly referred to as project proposals. The first project proposal that was reviewed was for Security Guard Monitoring Systems by Group Engineering Solutions (GES). The second proposal is a business-oriented document for Multi-Robot Manipulation and Maintenance for Fault-Tolerant Systems by Shanghai International Conference Center (SICC). The purpose of this rhetorical analysis is to identify various similarities and differences within the specified texts using Anne Beaufort’s (a linguist in the field of writing) five-knowledge domains: genre, subject matter, rhetoric, writing process, and discourse community. The attention
of this rhetorical analysis will be mainly focused on the intended audience, context of the documents, writing structure and format, and each author’s appeal to Anne Beaufort’s rhetorical knowledge domain.
The Shanghai proposal was written by an electronics engineer for viewers within several different qualifications and statuses. Apparently this proposal’s targeted audiences are people at the Shanghai Conference Center. The primary audience would consist of employees that are in the workplace genre of mechatronics and automation (MA), such as financers, operators, and managers. The second audience consists of those that may work in smaller sections of the field, such as maintenance workers, auditors, and supervisors. There are also audiences besides the primary and secondary audiences. Other potential audiences might include legislatures, product testers, and other smaller services within the field of engineering. This is evident through the description of the projects maintenance procedures. Someone has to test the machine and meetings must be held to discuss them.
Unlike the Shanghai proposal the Group Solutions Engineer (GES) proposal has various audiences that don’t spread out to the same extent that Shanghai’s do. The project proposal by GES does not meet the expectations of business companies instead, their proposal meet expectations for good academics. This claim was easily identified at the beginning of text. They clearly stated that “Dr. Miguel Figueroa and Dr. Nayda G. Santiago” was receiving the proposal. Additional support to this claim was found through extended research on the two professors. The two professors are both neurologist which seemingly has nothing to do with engineering. This makes it apparent that the professors were teaching at a college or university during the proposal of this project. This also explains why they were the targeted audience (primary audience) for the proposal. The secondary audiences for the GES proposal are other university graduate students. Similar to Shanghai, the GES proposal also has a third audience except, these audiences consist of spectators and scouts. In other words, these viewers are graduate students from another university or managers out for potential employees.
Moreover, Shanghai’s proposal contains several rhetorical aspects in is context.
Shanghai’s proposal was obviously written in response to a company’s request for improved multi-robot systems. This demand was recognized because of the frequently used term referring to problems, errors, and system malfunctions. More specifically, they used the term “failure” more consistently than others throughout the paper (from I INTRODUCTION to VI CONCLUSION). For instance, in part “a” of section five (V Multi- Robot Maintenance policy) the writer of this Shanghai proposal says “In this period…the failure rate of the robot is also increased.” Another aspect contained within the Shanghai proposal is on how they express time as an issue. The term “failure” also implies that there is a time limit for this project proposal. It is relevant to assume that this project proposal was in the process of being developed during the time that the multi-robot machines were failing to operate accordingly. One can also tell that demand for the proposal was growing by reading the maintenance policy section. They take previous robot failures into considerations and develop loop holes to overcome it. Although the company that the proposal was written for isn’t mentioned in the document, it is easy to see that this proposal was written in response to some company’s
policy.
Unlike Shanghai’s proposal, the GES proposal does express who the proposal was written in response to. GES proposal was written in response to the request of the University of Puerto Rico (title page). Another contextual aspect in which differs from Shanghai’s proposal is the time constraint that is also posed on their proposal. GES makes it easier to recognize that they are working in a timely manner. They clearly state “A work breakdown structure has been created in which all members…work in two variables: time and personnel” (section 1.3). This evidence arises from the fact that the group of graduate students working on this proposal are attempting to fulfill the requirements for the project. This evidence is also apparent because of diagrams and charts used to show how much the project proposal has progressed (section 2.6). In addition to sections 2.6, section 2.7 gives explicit detail, also using diagrams and charts, on the “work breakdown structure.” This section displays the tasks assigned to each genre of the project such as, oral presentation, software prototype, web application, and final report. The work is divided evenly amongst the group to ensure that they have successfully completed the requirements relative to the audiences’ values which will, later on, be discussed in further detail.
In addition to the contexts (frameworks) of the proposals, there are several similarities in both GES and Shanghai’s writing structures and formats.
The first similarity located in the proposals is often used in writing books such as literature, political science, and algebra. Both proposals use a wide range of bold letters, titles, and numbers. They also use titled numbers or subheadings, bullets, and roman numerals. Even though these writing style are incorporated in both project proposals, GES uses titled numbers, subheadings, and bullets (even checks) more frequently than Shanghai’s proposal. Shanghai’s proposal repeatedly uses roman numerals, and subheadings with starting letters (for example; B. Robot Failure). Both seem to be an effective approach to formatting project proposals. Moreover, abbreviations are also used quite frequently throughout the proposals. Like GES, Shanghai makes an effort to use abbreviations to make it less difficult for readers to comprehend. However, their attempt in doing so has obvious flaws that can potentially puzzle the reader and shorten the number of intended audiences. For example, “Weibull distribution depicts the decreasing-failure-rate (DFR)…period of the bathtub curve” (section B: Robot Failure). The proposal tells what each letter in the acronym stands for, but it does not define the abbreviation as a whole whereas, GES proposal doesn’t give an explicit description of each term, but defines it completely. Another method of
writing noticed within the proposals is the inclusion of references at the end. These references often consists of others documents that helped produce the current one. It is apparent that references are commonly used in any form of written documents regardless of its field or genre.
Adding to the structure and formatting, both proposals present several rhetorical features relative to Anne Beaufort’s rhetorical knowledge domain (ethos, logos, and pathos).The GES proposal puts most of its efforts into establishing its credibility (ethos). In the personal biography section of their proposal they give explicit detail about their background experiences in their field of study such as, software and hardware engineering. The proposal also provides charts and graphs of estimated costs which show that they are the best team to be chosen for the project. It also shows that they are prepared for real life situations. Shanghai’s proposal does not focus the entirety of its text on ethos, because most of its audiences are professionals within their company. There is no evidence to prove their experience in the field however; the credibility that is provided in the document consists of only charts and drawings that show that they will likely have effective productivity. These graphs and charts also help the company see the approach taken to improve the systems.
Moreover, both proposals take consideration in establishing logos. The charts and graphs each proposal uses to establish credibility is also used to establish logic. These charts and graphs are used to support their claim that they meet all the required policies for the completion of the project. Pathos is also used widely in Shanghai and GES proposals. As mentioned earlier both proposals are relevant to the audiences common values (end of page 3). These values are expense, time, proficiency, and development. The charts and graphs used to support the ethos and logos in each proposal are also used to support this claim. They provide a description of estimated cost, efficiency and productivity, and give a timely description of the projects progression. The wide-ranging of appeal to these values allows for each proposal to be very persuasive while passing on factual statistics.
Most project proposals are done similar to Shanghai’s and Group Engineering Solutions (GES) proposals. These two documents contain several similarities and differences in their rhetorical features. Although both texts may differ in their proposal method, they both have the same goal. They were meant to convince the reader that they were the most fit group or company for the completion of the project proposal. After completing this rhetorical analysis I realize the significance in writing in the specific genre. Each project proposal reflects positively according to the necessity of the request.