Jumps Out Regarding the Privatization

¶ … jumps out regarding the privatization report is how many to most of the pages are quite empty on the bottom third and it's perhaps a bit distracting depending on who is reading the paper. The paper has a good abstract as well as an introduction. The person who wrote the report clearly possesses a solid vocabulary but this level of writing would perhaps be "above the head" of a more casual reader. As such, the intended audience of this report would matter a lot in terms of whether it is perhaps a little to high-level for some readers. More scholarly readers will know what "permutations" are and what "praxis" means but an average reader would probably not.

The report is well-cited and the amount of sources are quite high which lends credence to the assertions and claims made within the report. The report flows quite well from idea to idea. If there is one kvetch that the author of this response can offer is that there is perhaps a bit too much jumping from source to source. Some of the sources are cited for as few as a single sentence and it would perhaps be better to flesh out a few less different sources with a more robust cross-section of each to perhaps suggest that the author of this response is not cherry-picking sentences out of the reports being looked at. Another option would be to do the fleshing out for all of the existing sources. This would make the report much longer but it would hold more credibility. One other thing that may throw some off is that some of the sources cited are quite old and there is a range of dates cited in the sources that are fairly wide, with some of the sources coming from the 1990's while some others are as recent as the last few years or so. Perhaps it would be better to focus, if possible, on works in the last five years or less.

Knowledge of Outsourcing Review

The arc and flow of this work is a little haphazard. There is a clear and defined abstract at the genesis of the paper but there is then an abrupt shift into the apparent introduction and the rest of the paper. There is use of sub-headings under APA style but there is no major headings in the early part of the paper except for the abstract section. There is also an "insert model 1 about here" on page 11, so this report seems in many ways to be incomplete of the finishing touches at the very least. The citation style seems to be a mishmash between Harvard and APA, although the citations themselves are quite thorough and pervasive throughout the work so at least that part of scholarly work is covered.

The vernacular and verbiage used in the report is very down-to-earth and would be easily readable by any competent reader so that is a definite plus. The formatting absences mentioned before aside, the overall flow of the report is fairly decent although some of the paragraphs are a bit longer than they probably should be. The aforementioned missing table one is cited in the report but is not present where it apparently should be in the body but it is included in the appendix, so this is quite obviously an unfinished product even if the author of this report is not keenly aware of it.

Another downside of this report is a bit of an overreliance on quoted material. Material from other sources should be cited but quoting entire paragraphs, which happens on the top of page 24, should generally never happening and this author took up about a fifth of the aforementioned page with that page 24 quote.

Public Management Review

This report also has some flow/formatting issues. There is a clear title at the top of the first page and then the apparent abstract (it is not labeled as such) starts on the bottom of that same page and spills onto the second. The abstract is in single space and then there is the introduction directly below the abstract and there is an abrupt shift to double-spaced format. The disjointed citation and formatting continues with the introduction taking up the entire first page except for the very top and bottom with the only citation to be found coming at the bottom with three citations slammed together. Unless those three sources all said the same exact thing as it pertains to what is in that first paragraph, that is not remotely close to being scholarly citation. it's not plagiarism but it's not neat, either. The apparent title to the section that starts on page 3 appears at the bottom of page 2…another paper that was clearly not complete as it should have been before submitting for review.

Things do not get much better on the next page with there being clear mistakes in capitalization and punctuation on the third page alone, such as the word "for" on the sixth line of the third page. There is no clear citation period happening with some citations being APA-ish while others are like APA b ut miss the comma. The words and sentences used are not overly complex but it's fairly obvious the person who wrote this did not speak it out loud and do a final review because there are some glaring flow and word choice issues early and often.

Level 5 Leadership Review

There are some heading/format issues with this work but it gets off to a great start in the beginning with the word choice and flow being pretty good. One major exception to this is the use of questions throughout the body which should really not be occurring except in a quote fashion and that is not how they are used. The middle paragraph on the fourth page is a good example of this.

There is a use of quotes for buzz words and phrases but the use of the quotes is not overbearing or done to excess so that is a definite touch. When jargon or lingo is used from an article or from an industry, it is identified as such. The suggestions for future research near the end of the report is also a good touch and seems to be missing from a lot of reports. The suggestions made are actually quite good in the eyes of the person doing this response.