Annabelle Condon

English 320

Action Request Email

20 April 2006

The purpose of this paper is to analyze, revise, and justify the revisions of an action request email. The analysis is to issues with the content and layout of the email. The revision is to make this email more reader friendly through design and revision of the content. The final purpose and section of the paper will focus on justification behind the revision of the email.

There are several problems with this email. The problems are structural and content based. The issues with this email damage the effectiveness it could potentially have.

First, the email subject line does not convey the contents or need for action as proposed in the end of the email. The beginning of the email contains and “re” section, this also does not really cover the contents of the email. The next major structure problem is in the layout of the paragraphs. The author begins with a history and places the call to action at the end of the email. This creates a problem for the average person who normally just scans the introduction.

The content of the email is also an issue. Because of word choice and order it is hard to pick out just what the author is trying to say. The subject and heading are both unclear. There are also no details related to the call to action. In the final paragraph the author does ask for you to review the draft for a meeting on the 15th but does not give a location or date. He/She also fails to explain what can be done if the reader finds any issues or has any concerns.

The Original:

Dear Faculty,
re: revision College Handbook, Section VI, "Promotion."
This semester, the PTE Committee of the College of Arts and Sciences is reviewing the sections in the Handbook for Faculty and Lecturers that pertain to promotion, tenure, and evaluation. This review became necessary when Dean O'Hara charged the Committee with the review of departmental PTE documents for compliance with University policies, an issue that will be addressed separately.
It became apparent to us that Section VI of the Handbook (on procedures for promotion) needed to be clarified and moved closer to Section XI, "Academic Promotion Standards." We revised Section VI with the intent to produce clear procedures that assist the applicants as well as the departments during the promotion process. We ask that you review the attached draft so that the faculty may discuss and possibly vote on its approval during the college meeting on February 15, 2006. Added language has been underlined, with the footnotes explaining our rationale.

To compare our draft proposal with Section VI of the existing document, please go to the Handbook for Faculty and Lecturers available at

Sincerely,
Promotions, Tenure, and Evaluation Committee:
Jennie May(Humanities)
Illini Smith, Chair (Humanities)
Tod Drexel(Social Sciences)
Roger Larger(Social Sciences)

The Revision:

Dear Faculty,
re:Please Review Revision to College Handbook for February 15th Meeting

We are asking that you review the attached revised draft of section VI, “Promotion” of the college handbook. We are asking the faculty to do this so the faculty may discuss and possibly vote on its approval during the college meeting on February 15, 2006 at 7pm in University Chambers room at the Memorial Union.

The need for revision came to our attention when Dean O'Hara charged the Committee with the review of departmental PTE documents for compliance with University policies, an issue that will be addressed separately. This led the PTE committee of the College of Art and Sciences to review the sections in the handbook that pertain to promotion, tenure, and evaluation.

Upon further review of the handbook it became apparent that Section VI of the handbook needed to be clarified. This clarification is necessary to move us closer to Section XI, “Academic Promotion Standards.”

The intent of our revision is to produce clear procedures that assist the applicants as well as the departments during the promotion process. Once again please review the attached draft for discussion and a possible vote at the February 15th meeting. We have underlined added language and added footnotes to explain our rationale.

To compare our draft proposal with Section VI of the existing document, please go to the Handbook for Faculty and Lecturers available at Thank you for your time and thoughtful considerations.

Sincerely,
Promotions, Tenure, and Evaluation Committee:
Illini Smith, Chair (Humanities)

Jennie May(Humanities)
Tod Drexel(Social Sciences)
Roger Larger(Social Sciences)

As you can see by briefly looking over the two emails there have been several changes made. I made several changes to the layout and word choice. These changes should help to make readers more receptive to the email and its contents as well as make it easier to find the point of the email with one quick glance.

The first change I made was to the subject line. The new subject line clearly points out that this email requires action. This will make is easier for the reader to establish that this email requires further reading without opening it. The second change I made was to move the call to action to the first paragraph. The original email put this call to action somewhere near the end, this made it difficult to find. I also added more details to the information about the meeting. The first email points out that this issue will be discussed at a meeting on the 15th of February, but does not give a time and place. Putting in a time and place sets a deadline for the reader so they know exactly how long they have to complete the desired action.

Moving down the email you can see that the second paragraph has also been pulled apart, moved, and reworded. The first think I did was to move the first sentence down to a third paragraph. I felt that the information posed after that sentence should come first as background information. I also placed some of the information I took out of the first paragraph in this section. I did this because I believe it is important to keep the background information and explain why this is being done, but I still believe it should go after the request for action. This should hopefully help to reinforce the necessity of the action.

The third paragraph in the revision explains exactly why this is being done. It is followed by a fourth paragraph explaining the intent of the revisions and also reiterates the call to action for those who missed it in the subject and introduction. The goal here is to be sure everyone understands what is being asked of them and why they are being asked to do it. These two paragraphs follow the background information. The final section gives a reference point to locate the current policy in case anyone wishes to compare it with the original. It is very similar to the original. I also added a thank you to this section. The goal here is to give the reader all the resources they may need, as well as the motivation to do it. The very last change I made was to put the Chair of the board first in the signature.

I feel that the changes made will likely help to clarify the contents of this action request email. They will make it easier for the reader to find the action request, as well as understand why they are being asked to complete the action. Like explained above, each change made was made to better this email. Hopefully now this email will make it into the inbox and keep it out of the trash.