A Reaction to Fs
Reaction to the feasibility study “Establishment of Mandemor Manufacturing Enterprise: Manufacturer of Mandemor Ice Cream in Batangas City” by De Chavez, Myca M., Maranan, Lernie B. and Moreno, Meghan D.
After the discussion and self study about chapter I of the Feasibility Study we come up to a reaction. We compared an actual feasibility study to the format we were given.
The proponents have not introduced the study in an appealing way. Though they followed the proper discussion of their product which was from general to specific, the sentences they used were not coherent making it hard for the readers to understand it fully. Furthermore, they already tackled information about the main ingredients of the product in the introduction part which should be included in the background of the study. The introduction was so short and covered less than one and a half page.
The information about the main ingredients of the product has been omitted in the background of the study since it already mentioned in the introduction making this part too short covering only one page. The rationale of the study was satisfactorily stated in the last paragraph of this part.
The general objective and one specific objective per aspect of the study which include market, technical, management, financial and socio-economic were properly declared.
The proponents provided the conceptual and operational definition of all the important terms used in the study. All terms were alphabetically arranged. All conceptual definition came from books and not from the internet.
The discussion of the scope and limitation was done per aspect of the study. The proponents were not able to present comprehensive information of the scope just like under the marketing aspect, they forgot to mention the exact number of respondents and retailers they
After the discussion and self study about chapter I of the Feasibility Study we come up to a reaction. We compared an actual feasibility study to the format we were given.
The proponents have not introduced the study in an appealing way. Though they followed the proper discussion of their product which was from general to specific, the sentences they used were not coherent making it hard for the readers to understand it fully. Furthermore, they already tackled information about the main ingredients of the product in the introduction part which should be included in the background of the study. The introduction was so short and covered less than one and a half page.
The information about the main ingredients of the product has been omitted in the background of the study since it already mentioned in the introduction making this part too short covering only one page. The rationale of the study was satisfactorily stated in the last paragraph of this part.
The general objective and one specific objective per aspect of the study which include market, technical, management, financial and socio-economic were properly declared.
The proponents provided the conceptual and operational definition of all the important terms used in the study. All terms were alphabetically arranged. All conceptual definition came from books and not from the internet.
The discussion of the scope and limitation was done per aspect of the study. The proponents were not able to present comprehensive information of the scope just like under the marketing aspect, they forgot to mention the exact number of respondents and retailers they