The memo assessment — Lakeshore Print Co.

The assessment's shape

The memo assessment is worth 20 % of the course, the most of any single piece, and its shape is fixed: a case with an ethical element → a recommendation memo. It is marked on R-memo — a Memra rubric mirroring the genre criteria the open sources agree on — with R-conflict inside the ethical element: states the conflict in one sentence · names the value or rule at stake · proposes a specific, proportionate action · tone respectful and non-accusatory · offers a next step. The ethical element does not get a paragraph headed Ethics at the end. It sits inside a criterion (a supplier's labour practices under sustainability; a vendor's approach under vendor conduct) or as a constraint on how the recommendation was reached (a quote obtained improperly cannot be used), and it appears again in next steps as an action with an owner.

The clinic's memo, every line labelled

MEMORANDUM
To:    Tomas Reyes, Office Manager, Grand River Family Dental
From:  Sam Whitfield, Analyst, Wren Advisory
CC:    the partner dentists, Grand River Family Dental
Date:  20 March 2026
Re:    Recommendation on appointment booking — online booking with reminders

[header complete and specific]

Purpose. You asked on 3 March for a recommendation on replacing the paper appointment book, for the dentists' decision at the end of March; this memo gives that recommendation and the analysis behind it. [purpose line in sentence one]

Recommendation: move to an online-booking system with automated reminders (option C), at about $150 a month, with go-live in a quiet week in May. On the figures you supplied, and assuming the receptionists can be trained within a fortnight, it is the strongest of the four options. [recommendation up front, one sentence]

Analysis. Four options — the paper book (status quo), a reminder-only service, full online booking, and a hybrid keeping phone booking for existing patients — were assessed against five criteria weighted by the objectives you and the dentists set. [analysis organised by criteria] No-show reduction (0.30): reminders on every booking; the peer-reviewed review of reminder systems, not the vendor's figure, is the evidence — paper 1, reminder-only 4, full 5, hybrid 4. Scheduling accuracy (0.20): one shared calendar ends double-bookings — paper 1, reminder-only 1, full 5, hybrid 4. Annual cost (0.20): paper nothing; reminder-only about $60 a month; full and hybrid about $150 a month — the reminder-only service is cheapest of the changes; full booking about $1,800 a year. Ease of use for the front desk (0.15): paper is familiar; the full system asks the most of the receptionists in the first month; the hybrid asks less. Patient experience (0.15): booking online or by phone into the same calendar with a reminder either way is the best of the four. Table 1 gives the matrix; weighted totals: paper 2.20, reminder-only 3.10, full booking 3.90, hybrid 3.75. [qualitative and quantitative both] Sensitivity: moving 0.10 of weight from no-shows to ease of use puts the hybrid ahead, 3.75 to 3.60 — the choice between them turns on the training burden, and the hybrid is the fallback at the checkpoint if that burden proves too great. Assumptions: the no-show baseline is 12 % from your February count; vendor pricing is the March quotes in Appendix A. [assumptions stated; sources cited; appendix referenced]

Vendor conduct. One vendor has offered you a referral bonus for signing. Because you are selecting the system, accepting it would be a conflict of interest, and the dentists could not rely on the choice as independent. [the ethical issue addressed explicitly: conflict in one sentence; value at stake] I recommend that you disclose the offer to the dentists and decline it in writing, that the vendor remain on the shortlist and be scored on the same criteria as the others, and that the dentists approve the final choice. [specific, proportionate action; respectful tone; next step] The scores above were assigned before the offer was known and have not been changed.

Next steps. 1. Dentists approve — 28 March. 2. Tomas obtains two written quotes, declining the bonus in writing — 11 April. 3. Dentists select and sign — 25 April. 4. Onboarding and go-live — Tomas and the receptionists — week of 12 May. 5. Checkpoint: no-show % and double-bookings reviewed against the 12 % and two-a-month baselines — Tomas to the dentists — 15 August. [next steps: who, what, by when; first checkpoint]

Appendix A — vendor quotes and cost comparison. [appendix referenced] Two pages; headed; Table 1 in the analysis; no first person beyond I recommend; plain language. [objective, formal, plain, scannable; 1–2 pages, error-free]

What to notice

The referral bonus lives under a criterion heading, in four sentences that hit all five R-conflict lines, and reappears in step 2 as an action with an owner. The matrix is Table 1 and a sentence per criterion. The recommendation is guarded (on the figures you supplied, assuming) without a single assurance. And the memo is two pages because the quotes and the arithmetic are in Appendix A.

Now Lakeshore

You have every piece from modules 4–9 and the first five lessons of this one. Assemble the memo in the exam below. Three things carry the most marks: the recommendation sentence first; the analysis by criterion with Table 1; and the tickets handled inside the analysis — disclosed, declined, the vendor kept on merit — with a next step, not in a closing paragraph.