Talk:Procurement/Archives/2015

Improvements to the general readability of the article

I was reading through this article, since I'm rather familiar with various aspects of procurement; but, I think it can use just a bit of improvement in its readability. I can tell that someone has spent lots of time putting the information and thought into it. But, someone perhaps needs to go through it and finely edit it, so as to make it more polished. For example, consider these aspects: list of items in a sentence; use of commas and semicolons; better use of prepositions; wordiness; redundancy; overly technical language that runs-on (convoluted), etc.

Myself, I've done a lot with purchasing, receiving, sales, distribution, material handling and so on. Despite that, sections of this article make me think twice about what I'm reading. Somehow, it comes off more complicated than what seems necessary. The idea of "procurement" need not seem like "rocket-science." More over, its concept and description should not become a bunch of endless jargon that's simply threaded together. Just because Wikipedia is encyclopedic, doesn't mean it has to be textbookish. It's articles and topics can (and should) easily summarize things for readers… not make them overly complex and overwhelming. A reader should not have to press link after link (definition after definition) to comprehend what's at discussion and get the sum of its parts.

Here's just a section of how it currently reads:

Almost all purchasing decisions include factors such as delivery and handling, marginal benefit, and price fluctuations. Procurement generally involves making buying decisions under conditions of scarcity. If good data is available, it is good practice to make use of economic analysis methods such as cost-benefit analysis or cost-utility analysis.

An important distinction should be made between analyses without risk and those with risk. Where risk is involved, either in the costs or the benefits, the concept of expected value may be employed.

Here's how I might edit (if I understand it right):

Almost all purchasing decisions include: Delivery (commerce); material handling; marginal utility; marginal cost. Procurement generally involves buying decisions under conditions of scarcity and/or expected changes to total cost. When cost data is available, best procurement practices use [Cost-benefit] (CBA) and/or [Cost–utility] (CUA) analyses to determine risk.

Forget about that last sentence. I could not even try to re-edit that; because it's almost undecipherable. What exactly is a "concept of expected value"? How is that concept "employed." Is it a theory? What's actually being said here? It's way too convoluted. Are you actually referring to this article, Expected Value (or something of that sort)? In other words, does someone have to immerse themselves in "probability theory and statistics," before comprehending the basic "procurement" practices that's simply "doing business"?

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh… I'm not saying that my suggestion is all that much better. But, I'm trying my best to show how some devices might be used to make this article (and its topic) more "user friendly," simple, easy and digestible. And less wordy. By the way, I'm not singling out this article, over a few others. Ca.papavero (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)