Write Tech Report: Engineering Analysis & App Design for Automation

  • Thread starter Thread starter rootX
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The report will focus on the architecture and design of an application to automate workflows at Company X, transitioning from manual processes to a digital solution. It will include an overview of design choices, such as database options and programming languages, highlighting their pros and cons. Key considerations will be the selection of .NET over Java for its membership framework and the choice between a flat-file database and MySQL for performance. The conclusion will summarize the recommendations, justifying the preferred technologies based on functionality and efficiency. This structured approach will ensure clarity and coherence in presenting the engineering analysis.
rootX
Messages
478
Reaction score
4
I need to write a work term report that must contain engineering analysis. I am not required to do any quantitative analysis.
The report should have front matter, body, and recommendation conclusion etc.

I am going to write about application architecture/design for automating "x" company work flows which are currently done manually. (So, with the application all the customers and employees will work with that application for getting things done)

I don't know how I can make a less than one page recommendation when I am talking about so many things
- which database to pick
- how application would function
- why pick .NET over java
- why use .net memebership framework for maintaining user credentials etc.

(I have no clue what I am talking about. I have done this at work but I have never written design report before. I only wrote report once which was solving temperature problems at "Y" company. It was only one problem and I had one specific solution for it but for this one.. I am much more like describing things and making some recommendations in some sections)

You can see that I am making so many recommendations that it is hard to be specific in conclusion/recommendations ...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Start by specifying what the application is supposed to do. ("This document describes the architecture and design of an application to automate work flows at Company X. The Company X workflow consists of ... ").

The body should describe the possible design choices and some of their pros and cons. ("The standard approach for implementing this application is to have the user interact with a graphical frontend that interfaces with a backend database. The database could be implemented as a flat-file database or using MySQL. The flat-file is simpler, but MySQL is faster ... The front end can be implemented with either .NET or Java. One significant advantage of .NET is the .NET membership framework for maintaining user credentials...").

Now that you have described the possible design choices, you can make a recommendation and justify it. ("I recommend that we implement the front end in .NET and the database with MySQL. The .NET membership framework and the speed of MySQL were deciding factors in making this recommendation.")
 
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
Back
Top