|
Jason Jung -
September 25, 2018 |
This report does an excellent job to isolate the important contributions of this occupational worker. This isn't a simple task because of the range and variety of different occupations technologists and technicians appear to work.
Coupled with this challenge is the fact that technology professionals don't necessarily identify themselves using the occupation classification codes as they identify themselves by the job they are doing such as "I'm a construction project manager, rather than saying "I'm a technologist or a technician". This seems to be fundamentally different than when you ask and engineer or doctor what they do where the response is actually "engineer" or "doctor".
As a technologist myself, I understand the report completely and appreciate it. If read in conjunction with regionalized labour market demand information, you'll get a true picture of the vast need for more technologists and technicians.
The workforce is aging and the choices for youth are expansive. Determining ways to sustain the applied science and engineering technology workforce is a key area of focus, and if it isn't, it should be.
Thanks for the report, really excellent cross-sectional view of a variety of industries key to Canada's domestic and global economic success. |
|
|
|
Sheena Snook -
June 28, 2016 |
| Good. |
|
|
|
R. Panesar -
May 31, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Logan Fan -
April 15, 2016 |
Research: 1/5
Format/Presentation: 1/5
Usability Rating: 2/5
Credibility/Professionalism: 1/5
-2016 Report toasts 2011 data on Executive Summary as a summary point. The economy and GDP contribution in the past 5 years has changed significantly. One would expect Conference Board of Canada to have more updated sources of data than Wikipedia. Analysis of 5 year old data is more acceptable as a History class paper. Executive summary data reference should be within the last 1-2 years, to be relevant to all stakeholders, as opposed to 5 years.
-Non-formative writing such as "Thanks in part to.." in Executive Summary indicates bias in research and analysis, not something a report should give an indication of. For an industry sector report, executive summary writing styles are more influential when they are concise, refer to up to date data, and professional/un-biased, as opposed to language often used in main-stream online blog articles.
Branding/Format
+Good cover page visual.
-Cover page crudely assembled, considering the blue dot for a period at end of title sentence gives away an impression of inconsistent standard, as it mimics a smaller version of the Conference Board of Canada's logo on top left, in front of the same title sentence. Branding is exceptionally important to any organization's projected professionalism.
-90% of the pages of the report that are non-cover pages or section pages utilize only 2/3 area of a page. Due to wide-margin format, the blank spaces on most pages appear to be nearly 40%. Anyone would rather print out 40% less of 88 pages if the report is compiled efficiently and use the spaces on each page efficiently.
Lack of standard: Some charts/graphs runs across the page, while others stay to 60% of page margins.
Title of report is excessively detailed, as is exposed by the introduction in page ii: "This report provides an economic portrait of Canada’s engineering and applied science technicians and technologists and quantifies their contribution to the Canadian economy." Simple alternative for report's title off the top of my head: "Employment Sector Report: Engineering Technicians." Detailed occupations, such as technologists or job titles, need to be kept inside the report and out of the report title.
Introduction to different occupations and concepts could benefit from the usage of tables, lists and bullets, as opposed to introducing 10+ occupations or titles in a lengthy paragraph.
Contribution by occupation summary at beginning of report could benefit from a graphical chart, such as the one displayed on page 11 (Chart 3), which should have been labeled Figure 3, in a professional report.
Credibility/ Professionalism
The claim of the drop in investment in non-residential structures in 2015 correspond only to areas outside of major metropolitan areas such as Toronto, where the Weston family alone has exponentially increased investment in land acquisitions with plans to build and renovate multi-purpose retail/residential/commercial buildings. There is not a drop in investment in this area. There is a **predicted** drop in investment in this area, due to data from new housing permits, vacant residential, vacant commercial and vacant retail space increases. This is further shadowed by large construction projects soon to finish in the coming year that will produce more vacant spaces. The investment has yet dropped as stated blandly in the report on page iv. This indicates poor research, understanding, or mis-interpretation (poor credibility of overall report).
As opposed to starting sentences with personally identifiable "bright spots" when describing positive outlooks, using formal headings such as Pro/Con lists could lend clear and effective presentation of the good and bad news in construction sector.
With "outlook for the manufacturing sector is unimpressive. Still, it is not all doom and gloom..", a professional employment sector report would present solid data, reasoning logic without the hyping writing style of media blogs. Stakeholders benefit more from straightforward and unbiased data to make decisions, as opposed to sensationalism.
There is a mention of the Canadian economy moving toward a knowledge economy. However, there is no definition of what a knowledge economy entails, or differs, than the current economy. These mentions paint the report as more sensational than practical.
Presentation
Chapter 2 could simply be named Definitions. Chapter 2,3,4,5 & 6 titles are simply recycled products from the title of the report. Chapter 5 could simply be labeled Future Trends. Overview is more fitting for executive summary, introduction, sub chapter headings, as opposed to chapter 5. Lack of organization and knowledge management depth is evident here. This loses credibility for the report.
Unprofessional representation: Chart 2 page 10, for example, is titled Drivers of Employment Growth, yet the graph depicts the outcome growth, without any representation of the Drivers, which can be done by overlay photo shopping event labels onto the graph.
Some charts are very well made and of very different qualities than others. Example: Chart 5. One wonders if there were multiple contributors to this report, which is published only under one author. It also raises question about the actual effort dedicated to the research and analysis, and whether this was a last minute job.
Language/Credibility/Professionalism
Unprofessional language: paragraphs that starts with words such as "Still..." (page 12), gives impression of arguing without pretext. This kind of language or method of information presentation does not belong in any professional report.
Unprofessional introductions: NAICS, IOIC, and CSNA, were introduced together in methodologies section without expanding the acronyms or simple table presenting key differences between the three.
% Chart does not add up to 100%. Example: Chart 6 in Chapter 4 percent GDP contribution, adds up to 98%, including the other industries category. Chart 37, Chapter 6, percent technologists by industry, adds up to 101%. Any competent executive business analyst professional would at this time skip to the end of the 88 pages, skim a few words, and politely close the report. |
Conference Board of Canada - Thank you for your feedback. We are always interested in hearing from our readers. The data used in this analysis are based on the industrial structure of the Canadian economy, as produced by Statistics Canada. At the time that the research was concluded, data were available only to 2011.
All our reports are based on the Conference Board style, in terms of visuals, formatting, and language. Your comments will be shared with our publishing team.
Again, thank you for your suggestions and comments. Should you have any more concerns, please feel free to contact us at contactcboc@conferenceboard.ca
|
|
|
Dan Draghici -
April 15, 2016 |
| Very useful. |
|
|
|
Maeva Charles -
April 15, 2016 |
|
|
|