Strengths of ECM[edit source]

  • Very well organized – color coordination complements the display well
  • Excellent references – well organized and clear
  • Executive summary is very concise and clear
  • Summary of Costs section in Projected Savings is well organized and progresses logically

Suggestions to improve your ECM[edit source]

  • Your format currently is not printer-friendly. Consider altering the page orientations or moving sections to make the printed format as clear as the file format.
  • Consider adding hyperlinks from your document to your assumptions, references, and equations to make the file easier to understand
  • Add a title to the graph in your "Introduction" and “Executive Summary” pages
  • Make your Try It Out section more apparent and suggest implementation rather than just "experimenting" with the ECM
  • Introduce your example on the "Introduction" page. No reference is given to what input was used to generate the output shown.
  • "Input" explanation is not very clear - for example, will current number of servers change in later years with implementation of server virtualization, and what are "servers added"?
  • Your baseline capital cost should be negative – the cash flow graph in the "Introduction" and "Executive Summary", for example, is misleading
  • You do not have your equations anywhere – it is difficult to understand the progression in the “Projected Savings” section. Any calculations that have an assumed value should also be referenced
  • Calculations in “Projected Savings” (esp. first three sections) are very difficult to follow and verify – this should be clearer


ECM Review (I believe the review from the file should be on this page so I've moved it over) --P.Diakow 02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall Really interesting concept, and huge savings!! That’s amazing. Really good idea how when the user scrolls down the screen, the title remains at the top of the screen. Most of the edits seem to be in the formatting and flow. It is kind of hard to follow the flow in some places such as the assumptions table. (unsure of where all the numbers were used because there are no hyperlinks.) One concern is with the inputs. If you start of with 8 servers, then you add 1 in the baseline year, shouldnt every year have an added server?? For year 1 they would then have 9 servers? I might jsut not completely understand what is going on, some maybe in the assumptions there should be a brief explanation of this.

Great ECM. Well organized and east to read. A couple polishing things and it will be top notch.--Sean 04:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting It may look better to get rid of all of the cell lines (for example click on a vacant cell ctrl+A then fill with white). This just gives a better overall look. Maybe highlight the titles in a different colour, as well as important numbers/concepts or whatever you want to be caught by the eye (projected saving and assumptions have the right idea, more interesting to look at). If you were to print it out (print preview), parts of the text are cut off and moved to a new page. Also maybe put a header for when the sheets are printed. Need hyperlinks between assumptions, calculations and inputs.

Specific Sections

Introduction Save on the introduction tab then post it so when the file is opened, the user is on the introduction tab. Maybe have a hyper link that joins this page to the input page. So instead you could say, click here to input your values and see your savings, and have the click here hyperlinked to the input tab. The intro plot, and tables maybe should have some indication that it is an example of savings, also give the parameters in which this example was calculated. Maybe it is possible to break the opening paragraph up a bit. Have a section for limitations, and one for benefits (kind of like your appropedia page)

 *  Check spelling in the paragraph, the words disclaimer and deficiencies are misspelled
 *  The page should be printable so that hard copies are available, re-format so that edges are not cut off
 *  White out squares that are not being used, this will look better --P.Diakow 00:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The intro has a lot of info in it. Maybe breaking it into bullet points would make it easier to read. The information displayed on the "Introduction" page is the same in the executive summary. It might be nice if you built an example and gave the user example inputs and outputs for a rerence as they use the rest of the ECM.--Sean 04:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Inputs Why are the blue numbers optional? Maybe include a brief explanation or a hyperlink to the assumptions which explains this.

 *  Try changing the blue or yellow cells, they are very harsh colors, try something softer
 *  Give an example of how big the average server is so that it's more clear what a typical surface area is
 *  Explain what "Number of servers added (Provisioned)" means
 *  Make it printable, try simply rotating it to a horizontal page
 *  White out cells not being used --P.Diakow 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I found the inputs to be a little unclear, some more explanation of the required inputs would be good.

  • What is the difference between the current number of servers and the number of servers added? is the number of servers the amount you start with each year and the number added it the amount of servers you are to your cluster? if so should the number of servers for the following year be (# of servers) + (# servers added)?
  • I know you talk about the consolidation ratio briefly but a more in-depth explanation of the ratio and it effects could improve the ECm greatly.--Sean 04:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Exec Summary The fonts are noticeably different and it is kind of distracting. Payback- what are the units?

 *  Include a limitations paragraph at the bottom to explain why the displayed savings may not always apply
 *  In the baseline year for emissions reduction it might be better delete the NA and put zero or simply a dash
 *  Possibly change the font of the cash flow graph, it's a bit hard to read
 *  Possibly change the color of IRR and payback, red seems bad
 *  Make it printable, try simply rotating it to a horizontal page
 *  White out cells not being used --P.Diakow 01:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The review of the exec summary is brilliant! not having to work words in between cells it great, I really like that. There doesn't ever seem to be a negative net cash flow. You stated that in the first year it would cost X amount of dollars but the graph doesn't represent that.--Sean 04:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Projected Savings Need formulas incase the user cannot follow the calculations. Maybe an explanation of why there is only 5 years of calculations (is this the life of a server?). Explanations of some of the calculations such as, Virtual Server License Annual Subscription Cost. What is this? There are a bunch of unfilled cells in the tables? In the environmental effect section and the energy& resource consumption. Include hyperlinks to the assumptions of the constants used for calculations.

 *  Check spelling personnel and virtualization are misspelled 
 *  It does not explain how to get the number of servers after virtualization
 *  Summary of costs has no equations
 *  Net present value is not the right equation, an interest rate was not taken into account, the value will be less
 *  Explain net cash flow with discounting and maybe use a equation somewhere to help those that do not know what it is
 *  The environmental effect section was missing values --P.Diakow 01:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The cell by cell pop up explanations are great, nice touch. An explanation of some of the cost would be good, stuff like license cost.--Sean 04:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Assumptions/References The links to the internet sites don’t work. Maybe number the assumptions or something it is kind of a confusing table. There is too much empty space, should shrink down the table to avoid all the unused room.

 *  Use actual references rather than a companies virtualization calculator, or if you are using the site explain how to use it and what assumptions you used when doing calculations.  This site could be helpful to businesses however reference it as a external application, and explain that it is a business site which may be biased.
 *  Possibly explain how the cost of power was determined since the reference page did not contain the value you are using anywhere.
 *  Explain the hours of operation calculation
 *  Does it actually have a yearly license cost?
 *  Where did you get the risk free rate of return from? no reference
 *  The CO2 reference seemed a bit odd, the site did not seem professional or official, try finding another source...
 *  Make it printable, try simply rotating it to a horizontal page
 *  White out cells not being used --P.Diakow 01:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I may have sounded harsh however overall the ECM is in good shape, changes just need to be made so that it is business ready. --P.Diakow 01:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work!

The ECM page is clear concise and explains your topic very well, however I would suggest talking about the ECM a little more. Explain what it is, and what it does. If someone was to stumble upon your web page they might not understand what is being offered. If a full explanation of what the purpose of the page is given, and the purpose of the attached file is given then it will be more clear. --P.Diakow 02:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall Suggestions[edit source]

--5dt15 02:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone were to use an ECM for a company it would be very useful to print the document in a report. Some of the figures and tables would be cut awkwardly if the current excel file were printed. Perhaps changing some formatting would allow each page to print cleanly.

A few spelling mistakes in the explanations on the Introduction and Executive Summary.

More hyperlinking would be nice to help navigate the pages and find information instantly.

Title charts and explain what they represent.

Unused, background cells can be whited out to give a more professional, stand-alone feel to the file.

Introduction[edit source]

The example is very nice since it shows off right away that this can save huge amount of money. However there is no explanation of the company's size, number of servers etc. Perhaps a little intro with some static inputs would make it easier to follow. Also the chart should have at least a title and axis titles to explain what is happening.

Inputs[edit source]

I found this hard to follow simply because I have no background with servers. Some explanations of number of servers added/provisioned and how to decide what consolidation factor is right for your company may help. You could add them to the assumptions page and hyperlink the inputs.

Executive Summary[edit source]

Could be flashier to draw attention. The chart should also have a title to explain the savings. Very nice paragraph with the numbers linked to it. Should probably hyperlink to the projected savings page as a "for more information" type thing.

Projected Savings[edit source]

Looks very nice, I like the layout of economics, environmental etc on the left side. Snazzy colour scheme too. I found it very difficult to follow formulas and check calculations because none were given and there were no hyperlinks to values assumed.

The Installation and internal labor calculation: should this be multiplied by the current number of servers? Won't most of those servers be removed and not need installation and labor? Or is this the cost of removal? Or do I just not understand at all?

There is a table with other energy sources consumption with no values in it. Either this should be filled in or removed, it looks incomplete as is.

Assumptions[edit source]

Very thorough assumptions including the risk free rates of return. More of this information should be included in the inputs and projected savings/calculations portions to make it easier to follow. Also some of the assumptions seem likely to change from one company to another (I could be wrong there), would they make more sense as inputs than assumptions? The page is laid out very spaciously making it hard to follow which category goes with which value. The page could be condensed more. I like the organization. Also, some assumptions do not have references.--5dt15 02:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)