Information Technology Projects
Example Progress Reports
Professor Arthur Goldberg
CS Department


NYAM Spring 2003 p. 2: list of topics is good
pp. 3, 4: good concise summary
pp. 5, 6:  clear summary of goals, I'd put together on 1 page for unification
p. 7: too terse, need more specificity
pp 9 to 12: good
p. 19: good
p. 20: don't bother with this slide
all: Complex background and oversized page numbers are quite distracting;
pp. 14: OK diagram, but too many goofy drawings for my taste
pp. 15: good diagrams, but the diamonds and weird search pictures add no content
p. 16: good
p. 17: OK, but figure could be blown up and perhaps simplified for easier readability, also put 'jogs' in crossing lines
p. 18: ugh, nobody can read or understand this; summarize it with only the key tables and fields in each table

NYAM Fall 2003 (Note that this report was created late in the semester and therefore has more information and detail.)
pp. 1-3: excellent summaries of current situation; focused, organized, but probably far too much detail; short phrases would be better than full sentences; on p. 2 excellent use of 'active voice', could employ even more parallel construction for emphasis
pp. 4 - 6: Excellent comprehensive enumeration of requirements, although perhaps more detailed than necessary; note that left and right columns are often unnecessarily redundant--this should be done more like p. 8.
p. 7: good
p. 8, 9: excellent
p. 10 - 13:  excellent summary of extensive information; the 'moons' scoring is a McKinsey consulting standard.
p. 14: good
p. 15: fine
overall: fine, except black on dark blue creates invisible text, such as the page numbers and the footnotes on p. 11 and 13
p. 12:  I like to see columns of figures right aligned in a fixed width font.  this aligns the 'place values' and improves readability--this is a 'pet peeve'

IBI Spring 2003
p. 2: fine
p. 4: good information
p. 5 - 6: screen shots are useful, concrete, evidence of what the system does
p. 7: fine; i like the catchy tagline "Reports about reports"
pp. 9, 10: fine
p. 11 - 16: right level of detail; will need oral explanation, but that is OK--we don't want the audience to learn everything by reading the presentation.
p. 19: fine
p. 20: unnecessary
all: striped background is distracting; and uses too many pdf resources
p. 11: good simple graphic
p. 18: unclear what this graphic means, but it might be OK with the oral explanation

Stern Spring 2002
3: good outline
4 - 7: OK summary of RDMSes, but everyone might know this; ask the audience if they need the summary, and if nobody (or almost nobody) does, then skip it
8 - 14: excellent summary of project: client, problems & goals
15 - 21:  excellent summary of functional requirements

all: some people might think the background distracts, but I like it; also, I like the color of the page heading matching the left margin
9, 19: nice simple readable diagrams
25: small point; slide needs bigger text