GENERAL COMMENTS FOR TEAM FROM WITHIN[edit source]

Changes

• in the energy inputs have inputs account for change in rate $$$ increase at 750 kWh
• Factor in taxes - have taxes tab
• need HVAC wattage -or some factor --> as it is a HUGE percentage of usage
• % energy breakdown of utilities after utility input-->using these approximations here
• legitamit works cited
• readibility for the average person

• • axis titles on graphs (polish them up in general)
  • rate breakdown
  • polish assumptions page

--references --hyperlinks --(make sure every assumption or value going into or out of your page/tab is sound!) --EQUATIONS ON CELLS --General readibilitity

AND[edit source]

• resize comment windows - explain the complicated ones
• resize instruction textboxes so it all fits - exec summary
• link all vlues to assumptions so it is clear where everything came from
• spelling and grammar errors
• units for energy input and consumption

=colour scheme[edit source]

yellow - user input, blue - inputs that have assumptions but are changeable if you are a more advanced reader, grey - outputs or static inputs,

red - blurbs, orange - NOTICES,

green - CO2 calculations

SPLIT[edit source]

Landon -energy input and utilities input

Graeme - utilities projected savings

Bryn

Jerome

Chris

what's left -- intro, system cost, exec summary for energy and utilities, assumptions, and {CO2 calculator and energy breakdown} - consider this as one as it is just aesthetics.

--L.Gardner 20:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there. I realize you were not able to upload your document right away, so these things may have already been changed, but here is what I noticed. Note: I have been working off of the version that Dr. Pearce uploaded at 23:49.

• Resize comment windows... More user friendly so that when someone scrolls over a comment they can see the whole thing.
• Many of the instruction text boxes have the same problem. Just expand them so that all text is visible. Some cells also need resizing (i.e. Utilitiy bill input page, corporate section).
• On your Utility exec summary page, check the writing.. it doesn't always line up. Also, when changing the type of monitoring system (ie. Powerwatch to Electric Detective), text overlaps in your executive summary. This is theoretically the section for whoever is making the decisions, so it should be perfect.
• Which studies did the value of 8.2% come from? Maybe include in your assumptions.
• Otherwise looks really good. The colour coding makes it easy to distinguish between sections for the most part and overall it looks fairly comprehensive.
• All calculations I tried updated well.

- CB

Comments on ECM[edit source]

• Many grammar and spelling errors, especially on “assumptions” page
• Energy breakdown page is unfinished
• Check that cells and comments with a lot of text are formatted to the proper size so all of the text is visible
• Units for Energy Input Page B11 and energy consumptions (on the same tab)
• It would be really nice if you linked your assumptions and references to the cell they apply to. For example, where did you get the information about how much energy a certain type of light or monitor uses?
• Why does it say “error” in P27 Utilities Input Page. Also an error in P41

Energy Input Page

• How did you calculate energy consumption?
• Are the phones cell phones or landline phones?
• Are hours of operation per day? You should note that.
• It is unclear what the kw value in the top right corner is.

The spreadsheet you’ve made is very thorough and it is clear you put a lot of work into it. Your ecm basically repeats back to the company their energy use that they’ve inputted, tells the company how much it will cost them to implement the monitoring system, and estimates savings based on a percentage that the user feels might be right. It is useful as far as being able to change the possible % savings and see the results, but it is all hypothetical. It is also useful if you use the energy input page just to calculate energy use without access to the electricity bill. In my opinion I think an ecm spreadsheet is not really appropriate or valuable for energy monitoring since it can’t give any revolutionary information. Raising awareness about energy consumption is good and effective, and studies can show quantitative results for their effectiveness, but it’s tough to estimate savings when you aren’t actually saving energy directly.

--Krystal 05:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

More Comments on ECM[edit source]

Introduction tab[edit source]

• the second red blurb needs to be reworded
  • there are multiple examples of extra spaces in the paragraph form
  • " In conclusion, 'Live Energy Monitoring' has shown to reduce consumption by 8.2%. That's 8.2% less costevery month."<--This is poor gramar, has spelling mistakes, and isn't even a conclusion to what you've said earlier in the blurb.
• the yellow blurb needs rewording
  • "We strongly recommend using your past years utilities bill as the Energy Input Calculator is very accurate and may not represent your current situation."<--you mean that it is very inaccurate, not accurate?
  • "In this excel file you have 2 options, to estimate your energy consumption using our Energy input page OR using your actual utilities bill to make predictions on the effect 'Live Energy Monitoring' will have on your financial position and environmental impact."<--This sentence ran on so long that it made me out of breath just reading it in my head

Energy Input tab[edit source]

• My first reaction was to be overwhelmed. As a user, I want something easy to deal with. That said, after looking at it for a little while, it makes sense. It seems very thorough and well done.

Utilities Input tab[edit source]

• color scheme needs work. Dark purple with black text is bad
• The pink blurb has some real grammar problems. It also has some good information.

CO2 calcs tab[edit source]

• looks unfinished and unpolished

Energy Breakdown Tab[edit source]

• Everything else was done in color, then no color? Gives the impression that you didn't both finishing this tab off.

Utilities Exec Summary[edit source]

• graphs don't look polished
• calculations seem to work out properly.

Overall[edit source]

• work on grammar, and layout, to make it appear more professional.
• need legit bibliography/references
• make it more userfriendly and approachable.
  • It's actually a very simple tool: Predicted energy goes down by a predicted percent.
  • It's very intimidating. There is SO SO much going on. So many tabs, so many colors, so many numbers. You get lost! I want the barebones version.
• calculations seem to work out properly.

--Plaxton.s 07:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further Comments on ECM[edit source]

Inputs[edit source]

• Spell check / grammar check the ‘note’ in the red box. Some spelling / punctuation mistakes were noticed
• Reword first sentence of second paragraph: “We recommend referencing your utility bill, as the sensitivity of the Energy use calculator may yield inaccurate results.
• The two graphs at the bottom of the page should be titled and/or captioned to describe what it is they are showing. At first glance, a user may have trouble determining what those graphs actually show you.

General Comments[edit source]

• Having too many tabs on the spreadsheet gives off an impression of clutter.
• With comments enabled, much of the spreadsheet’s important areas are covered up.
• Many grammatical errors are present. Read over paragraphs to double check your wording.

Assumptions Page[edit source]

Assumptions

• Grammar should be consistent throughout. Some bullets are complete sentences, while others are fragments (ie. 4th bullet, “that after year 1, etc…”). If this tool is to be utilized by a professional company, grammar and presentation are important.
• In addition, there are a few grammatical mistakes with regards to sentence structure and word choice (ie. Assuming with live energy monitoring, the percent reductions can be used 8.2% from UND and not exceeded with natural growth of Ontario energy demand).
• It may be beneficial to have numbers organized in a table rather than in sentences. This would help to make the data look less cluttered and easier to find.
• Certain acronyms should be defined first, such as DOE, UND, and OPA. Although many people would already know what these stand for, it would be best to play it safe and define each one just in case the person using the spreadsheet did not know what they were.

Energy Input Page[edit source]

• The comment boxes that have been inputted on the right side of the spreadsheet are blocking a large portion of the graphs in that area. Consider relocating the comment boxes so they are not blocking any other information.
• The small table at the top of the page displaying “Expected Energy Reduction” and “Percent Remaining” should have uniform formatting throughout. Some cells aren’t properly boxed in/coloured.
• The input charts on the left side of the spreadsheet should have more indication of units, especially where the user inputs power usage. A user may have trouble knowing what unit of power you are asking for. For example. You can change “Energy Consumption of a Single Monitor” to “Energy Consumption of a Single Monitor in kW”
• Change the font of chart headings to make them easier to see. For example, the column labels in beige in the left side tables can be bolded and underlined to make them easier to see.
• Again, the grey tables on the right side of the spreadsheet should have units. Instead of simply stating wattage, you should indicate that the number is in fact in Watts. This is not an imperative change, but it would definitely make the tables clearer.
• There appears to be a mathematical syntax error in the graph on the right side of the spreadsheet labeled “Commercial Hourly Rates Calculator / month – Greater than 50kW/mth”
• In the same graph, there is one cell that is too narrow and text is spilling into neighbouring cells. Consider making the graph wider to accommodate the text.
• Above the aforementioned graph, there is a table with “kW’ in orange and a number in yellow. What is this box for? kW of what? Please specify that graph further.

Utilities Input Page[edit source]

• Dividing inputs into three pages helps to keep separate categories organized as such.
• Minor grammatical and wording errors throughout (ie. Total Utility Usage should read Total Power used by utilities, or something similar).
• Instructions for filling in the input page are clear and concise.
• Some cells are not big enough to display all the text contained within them. Presentation is important, as this spreadsheet will be utilized by a professional company.
• A few cells appear to be notes entered by the group, but have not been cleared or deleted. For example, cell P27 reads “ERROR”. This could be confusing to those using the spreadsheet.

System Cost[edit source]

• This tab is clear and to the point.

E Input Executive Summary[edit source]

• The description in dark red at the top of the spreadsheet contains the sentence “It is expensive, damaging to the environment and often ignored as a necessity”. The electricity itself is not expensive nor is it damaging to the environment. You should indicate that you are talking about electricity generation and not electricity itself.
• In the next sentence of the same note, you should consider rewording the following sentence: “' is to monetize, demonstrate the environmental impact and amount of energy consumed by the company” into “' is to monetize AND demonstrate the environmental impact and amount of energy consumed by the company”
• There are too many gaps in the explanation at the top of the page: “If your organization expects a…” Consider formatting to eliminate some of the white space in that paragraph.
• The grey table located at the centre-right of the spreadsheet should be edited. The heading “Payback” should be changed to “Payback Period (yrs)” to make that number clearer. As of now, it just looks like a random decimal number.
• You should consider labelling the graphs at the bottom of the spreadsheet. While their function is clear upon reading the legend, it would be much easier on the user if you simply labelled them to identify what those graphs are showing you.

Utilities Executive Summary[edit source]

• Minor grammatical errors are present throughout.
• The table is clear and to the point, as are both graphs.
• Spacing between some of the words makes the spreadsheet less aesthetically pleasing. Although this does not affect the data presented whatsoever, it would be easier to make a good impression on the company if information was presented in a neater and more organized manner.

--Benjamin Wang 09:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC) & Steffan_Miliucci 11:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even More Comments[edit source]

Overall[edit source]

Overall it is evident that a lot of work and time went into this ECM, unfortunately it looks like the compiling and editing was rushed, this is quite evident. Also the large number of tabs is somewhat overwhelming to somebody who is unfamiliar with this ECM. As difficult as it is, a more simple and basic approach might be better received by somebody considering implementing this technology.

Also, almost every page looks far too large to print off if anyone wished to do so - I would recommend reorganizing your tabs to allow for this!

Intro[edit source]

The intro gives a good overall idea of what is going on with the ECM. well laid out, but could have a cleaner look.

Energy Input[edit source]

• this is very impressive, however as detailed as this is the option of using the energy bill is a very good idea as it is clearly much more representative.
• you expect the user to input an expected energy reduction?!? this is very misleading and the reduction could vary hugely depending on where this is implemented.
• again-focus on the layout and design of the page - it is very busy

Utilities Input[edit source]

• again a very impressive page, and it is quite intuitive, however it is still poorly organized, and comes across as being rushed.
• asking the user to input expected saving %, or asking them to rely on your estimate of 8.2% is still scaring me a little

System Cost[edit source]

• seems like an accurate estimate of cost, and the page is clean and easy to read - well done

Utilities Exec Summary[edit source]

• well laid out and easy to understand
• is this assuming an 8% reduction without any implementation of other technologies?? many companies now are already quite aware of the benefits of ensuring that monitors, lights, computers, etc. are turned off when not in use.

E input Exec Summary[edit source]

• different text size from previous tab, not a big problem just slightly unprofessional looking

Utilities Projected Savings[edit source]

• your best tab yet. very clear and easy to follow.

Estimated Projected Savings[edit source]

• also very good. it would be nice to see you trying to account for future installation of low electricity technology and accounting for any extra savings this would bring about over the years.

Assumptions[edit source]

• good to see that you mention your assumptions, this should be the last page though.
• YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT THE 8.2% APPLIES TO COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS IS A HUGE ASSUMPTION THAT SHOULD BE MENTIONED ON YOUR INTRO PAGE!!

CO2 Calcs[edit source]

• what about other forms of waste, like nuclear waste or waste heat generated and released into lakes and rivers by hydro/gas plants/etc.
• page looks very unfinished compared to previous pages

Energy Breakdown[edit source]

• unfinished look to page, also much too large to print out
• very useful information but lack of writing or descriptions make it almost completely useless to anybody. need to give some direction with this information.

--Mike Saunders 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]