report style结课报告

2023-02-24 00:48 作者:起啥名字才不重样 0人读过 | 我要投稿

这种文章的风格不属于论文范畴，没有字号，字体，字间距，行距，排版之类的要求。除了引用，文献综述，文献列表需要遵循哈佛文献格式外，没有格外的硬性要求。不过，有几个地方可以注意一下，修改这些地方可以得到更加整洁的文章。

A cover page这种文章的排版，一般而言，第一页是封面，报告的title，学号，姓名，导师名称，项目组组长名称，学科名称，文章总字数，提交日期都在这一页。有些学校会要求在页脚或者页眉制作页码。

content page

一般而言，第二页是目录页。我对于制作目录啥的不太擅长。目录内容和高中课本上、小人书中平常见到的实体书目录是一样的。一般包含大标题、小标题和页码

An introduction section

有些学校不要求非得在report里写这个。没要求可以不写。不过写了也不算违规。而且我个人认为还是写比较好。这部分要求准确清晰的描述整篇文章所用到的研究内容，研究方向，研究方法，研究工具。充字数的废话不要在这部分里写。很多老师都是从Introduction里了解学生到底写了什么的，这部分要是写的不清楚，会直接失去老师的好感。introduction是全文精华中的精华，会将文章的核心内容直接反应出来。想要写出优秀的introduction，可以多看几篇英文论文，看多了自然会写了。那些学术领域的大佬们都是写introduction的高人。在这里放一个示例，注意看绿色的部分：

Change management has been defifined as ‘the process of continually renewing an organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers’ (Moran and Brightman, 2001: 111). According to Burnes (2004) change is an ever-present feature of organisational life, both at an operational and strategic level. Therefore, there should be no doubt regarding the importance to any organisation of its ability to identify where it needs to be in the future, and how to manage the changes required getting there. Consequently, organisational change cannot be separated from organisational strategy, or vice versa (Burnes, 2004; Rieley and Clarkson, 2001). Due to the importance of organisational change, its management is becoming a highly required managerial skill (Senior, 2002). Graetz (2000: 550) goes as far as suggesting ‘Against a backdrop of increasing globalisation,deregulation, the rapid pace of technological innovation, a growing knowledge workforce, and shifting social and demographic trends, few would dispute that the primary task for management today is the leadership of organisational change.’

Since the need for change often is unpredictable, it tends to be reactive, discontinuous, ad hoc and often triggered by a situation of organisational crisis (Burnes, 2004; De Wit and Meyer, 2005; Luecke, 2003; Nelson, 2003). Although the successful management of change is accepted as a necessity in order to survive and succeed in today’s highly competitive and continuously evolving environment (Luecke, 2003; Okumus and Hemmington, 1998), Balogun and Hope Hailey (2004) report a failure rate of around 70 per cent of all change programmes initiated. It may be suggested that this poor success rate indicates a fundamental lack of a valid framework of how to implement and manage organisational change as what is currently available to academics and practitioners is a wide range of contradictory and confusing theories and approaches (Burnes, 2004). Guimaraes and Armstrong (1998) argue that mostly personal and superfificial analyses have been published in the area of change management, and according to Doyle (2002) there is even evidence to suggest that with only a few exceptions existing practice and theory are mostly supported by unchallenged assumptions about the nature of contemporary organisational change management. Edmonstone (1995: 16) supports this observation when stating ‘many of the change processes over the last 25 years have been subject to fundamental flflaws, preventing the successful management of change’.

Even though it is diffificult to identify any consensus regarding a framework for organisational change management, there seems to be an agreement on two important issues. Firstly, it is agreed that the pace of change has never been greater then in the current business environment (Balogun and Hope Hailey, 2004; Burnes, 2004; Carnall, 2003; Kotter, 1996; Luecke, 2003; Moran and Brightman, 2001; Okumus and Hemmington, 1998; Paton and McCalman, 2000; Senior, 2002). Secondly, there is a consensus that change, being triggered by internal or external factors, comes in all shapes, forms and sizes (Balogun and Hope Hailey, 2004; Burnes, 2004; Carnall, 2003; Kotter, 1996; Luecke, 2003), and, therefore, affects all organisations in all industries.

While there is an ever-growing generic literature emphasising the importance of change and suggesting ways to approach it, very little empirical evidence has been provided in support of the different theories and approaches suggested (Guimaraes and Armstrong, 1998). The purpose of this article is, therefore, to provide a critical review of theories and approaches currently available in a bid to encourage further research into the nature of organisational change with the aim of constructing a new and pragmatic framework for the management of it. In order to do so the article has adopted Senior’s (2002) three categories of change as a structure with which to link other main theories and approaches. These three categories have been identifified as change characterised by the rate of occurrence, by how it comes about, and by scale. Although total quality management (TQM), business process re-engineering (BPR) and other change initiatives embrace several of these characteristics (Balogun and Hope Hailey, 2004; Pettinger, 2004) this article will concentrate on the main characteristics of change and not on individual change initiatives. Finally, the article identififies some areas for further research.

本文的目的是，提供一个批判性的理论和方法，一个目前可用的，以鼓励对组织变革的性质的进一步研究，目的是构建一个新的和实用的管理框架。为了做到这一点，本文采用了高级(2002)的三个类别的变化作为结构，与其他主要理论和方法相联系。这三种类型的变化以发生的速度、发生的方式和规模为特征。尽管全面质量管理(TQM)、业务流程再造(BPR)和其他变革举措包含了这些特征中的几个(Balogun和Hope Hailey, 2004;Pettinger, 2004)这篇文章将集中在变化的主要特征，而不是个人的变化倡议。最后，本文提出了一些有待进一步研究的领域。

正文部分需要一些小标题，这些小标题的格式不固定，但整篇文章风格需要统一。小标题不需要太多，一个标题下面可以写两到三段即可。

Recommendations

示例：

Drawing on the reported poor success rate of change programmes in general, the lack of empirical research on change management within organisations, and an arguably fundamental lack of a valid framework for organisational change management, it is recommended that further research into the nature of change management is conducted. The fifirst step in this process should be to carry out exploratory studies in order to increase the knowledge of organisational change management. Such studies should enable an identifification of critical success factors for the management of change. Furthermore, in order to construct a valid framework for change management it is arguably necessary to enable measurement of the success rate of change initiatives. Methods of measurements fore, be designed.

conclusion

示例：

It is evident from this article that change is an ever-present element that affects all organisations. There is a clear consensus that the pace of change has never been greater than in the current continuously evolving business environment. Therefore, the successful management of change is a highly required skill. However, the management of organisational change currently tends to be reactive, discontinuous and ad hoc with a reported failure rate of around 70 per cent of all change programmes initiated (Balogun and Hope Hailey, 2004). This may indicate a basic lack of a valid framework of how to successfully implement and manage organisational change since what is currently available is a wide range of contradictory and confusing theories and approaches, which are mostly lacking empirical evidence and often based on unchallenged hypotheses regarding the nature of contemporary organisational change management.

By providing a critical review of current change management theories and approaches, applying Senior’s (2002) three categories of change as the focal structure, this article has made an attempt to highlight the need for a new and pragmatic framework for change management. In order to construct such a framework it is recommended that further exploratory studies of the nature of change and how it is being managed should be conducted. Such studies would arguably identify critical success factors for the management of change. The article also suggests that methods of measuring the success of organisational change management should be designed in order to evaluate the value of any new frameworks suggested.

从本文中可以明显看出，变化是影响所有组织的一个永远存在的因素。人们明确地一致认为，在当前不断变化的商业环境中，变化的步伐从未超过现在。因此，成功地管理变革是一项高度需要的技能。然而，目前对组织变革的管理往往是反应性的、不连续的和临时性的，报告的失败率约为所有发起的变革计划的70%（巴洛根和霍普Hailey，2004年）。这可能表明一个基本缺乏一个有效的框架如何成功地实现和管理组织变革，因为目前可用的是一个广泛的矛盾和混乱的理论和方法，大多是缺乏经验证据，往往基于无挑战的假设关于当代组织变革管理的本质。本文通过对当前的变革管理理论和方法进行批判性的回顾，将高级变革管理理（2002）的三类变革作为重点结构，试图强调建立一个新的和实用的ch框架的必要性