Name: Xiaohu Zheng

Role: Topic Supervisor

Contribution: Xiaohu contributed to this memo by devising the role plan, topic, and work schedule.

Name: Michael Cortez

Role: Research Director

Contribution: Michael contributed to this memo by conducting research on the topic, typing the memo, and citing the sources.

Name: Nur Mohammad Mazumder

Role: Submission Manager

Contribution: Nur contributed to this memo by reviewing and revising the memo and ensuring that the memo clearly aligned with the instructions given.

Group Self-Assessment:

Xiaohu: Our first draft have a subject line and as well as a clear statement of purpose. We have a summary of the problem we are exploring, but I am thinking to add a little bit more if everyone in my team thinks it is too short. We definitely need to add a heading for each segment of discussions, rather than just take about it in a long paragraph. We need to add a MTA citation page for our sources. I recommend that we should work on the solution/recommendation a little bit more, and change the reader to New Yorkers, or even MTA, professor sounds a bad target to me regard to this memo.

Nur: Reflecting on our first draft, we included all the necessary components of a memo and tried to format it around the example on in the textbook. However, I think we could have improved on a lot of things such as the discussion and recommendation. The discussion can be formatted differently. For example, the target audience should be the MTA and in the discussion section, we try to convince them why the budget should be reallocated toward the improvement and implementation of new signals, rather than trying to modernize the subway. Also, we could have included some advantages of implementing and improving such signals. In the recommendation, we did well, however, we could have been more specific in our solution.

Michael: I agree with both Xiaohu and Nur, that the target audience obviously should not be Professor, but definitely towards the MTA. That would be the first change. The second change would be to strengthen the description because some points may have been too vague. The third change would be to name the heading differently, and once again make them more specific. Everything else seems good, however, the citation might be off since I could not cite the scholarly source properly the first time.