Abstract: This was an extension of our business ethics memo which helped us establish the basics of writing a memo. In this lab reports memo we compared two lab reports and focused mainly on their format along with sentence structure and clarity of their papers. Analyzing their focus on their research and the data they used. If it was ethical or not. By comparing both papers we also got a side by side representation of how different each lab report can be. Specifically both my lab reports being compared had to do with establishing something new. One was directly in making a facility for compiler testing and the other was making a software engineering lab for college students so they can understand their subject better with physical hands on classes.

To: Michael Capola 

From: Chowdhury Sarwar 

Date: March 9th, 2020 

Subject: Evaluation of two lab reports 

---

This business memo consists of the analysis of two lab reports regarding their language and structure used throughout the whole report. The two labs being compared are; “Software Engineering Lab – an Essential Component of a Software Engineering Curriculum” performed by Mira Balaban and Arnon Sturm, “A Machine Description Facility for Compiler Testing” carried by Hanan Samet. The first lab is focused on trying to establish a software engineering (SE) lab course that focuses on instructive software engineering practices not just theory based rather provide hands-on experience. The second lab focuses on establishing a computer for compiler testing. 

The issue regarding these lab reports are the intensive information mentioned throughout the lab reports. They have a lot of side information which I believe in not completely necessary. They could mention a few other studies regarding the same topic and rather keep it general and carry on with their own experiment to teach the audience what they found in their result and how it impacts their research. Both labs elaborate on past researches into much depth making the report really lengthy and feel clumsy. 

Being asking to evaluate the lab reports based on their style of writing and the format they followed, both lab reports are descriptive and ignoring the part about the history from “Software Engineering Lab – an Essential Component of a Software Engineering Curriculum” and the intensive examples from “A Machine Description Facility for Compiler Testing” the reports do really good job in getting to the point. If the context before were kept simpler, the reports would’ve been much easier to understand. In specific, both labs had good introductions that was successful in giving me a idea of what the lab is about along with the key words I should keep in mind while going through the report. These were done really well by both labs. Furthermore, they both briefly describe the experimental designs and what the function of the lab is. The lab about the facility for compiler testing had clear diagrams and figures to guide the readers and simplify what was being explained in the writing. This gives the reader a quick second to brainstorm of their understanding thus fur making the lab very effective. Even though the software engineering lab didn’t have this they made up for those diagrams with tables and data organized properly to give the reader clear understanding of where the lab is headed. Both labs once again very similar in their style. Maintaining a consistency about being clear about the information mentioned throughout the reports. Finally adding onto the overall paper both labs ended strong with their discussion and conclusions with what they believe should be understood by the reader after analyzing the whole paper. They list what their conclusion was and the real-life application of them. Following that through with all the acknowledgements and references used throughout the whole paper.  

Evaluating this paper closely gives me a clear understanding of how difficult lab standards are, they have to be specific enough to give the reader clear ideas but not too specific to get the readers confused and lost half-way through the paper. Keeping in mind that these papers were meant for scholars, after reading these thoroughly I feel like they have established their credibility properly and keeping their results as true as they can they maintained proper ethical standards. The report covers a specific topic with a clear set of goals at the end, this makes both reports outstanding and really good. 

In conclusion, regarding my subject of networking and security finding lab reports to compare was harder since there isn’t much experimentation in this field. It consists more of hands-on job with information learned throughout college courses and real-life experience. Experiments or research happen more in science subjects but as computer networking and security lab reports barely exist. Nevertheless, both reports did an excellent job explaining their research and what the goals they have in performing the lab. They analyzed previous existing data and compared them to theirs. Acknowledged everything they used and also listed the references making sure everyone gets the credits they deserve. Both labs are good examples of how reports should be written, and anyone can follow them to write a proper report for their own research.  

Attached with this memo are the reports which were evaluated. 

Thank you for your time and reading through this, 

Chowdhury Sarwar.