Conclusion and Comparing Results Sample Clauses

Conclusion and Comparing Results. In this chapter we generated forecast for consumption of steel in Norway in 2010 based on the historical data from 1997 to 2006. We implemented two approaches: moving average and linear regression. A brief review of methods was described. The challenge to make a forecast was the lack of data for years 2007-2008. Therefore, we decided to assume the forecasted values for 2007-2009 as the real data. The results of forecasts are summed up in the table below: Forecasted Year Moving average 3- period Moving average 5- period Linear Regression 2010 1593.33 1564.8 1343.92 Table 9-6 Forecasting results by moving average and linear regression Type of Error Moving average 3- period Moving average 5- period Least Square Method MAD 152.53 157.35 198.66 MSE 56033.13 53983.35 58446.35 MAPE 10.45% 9.86% 13.20% Table 9-7 Forecast accuracy for 2010 Based on MAPE results we will recommend the moving average 5-period method as the most accurate forecasting technique in this case. Thus, the estimation of steel demand in Norway for 2010 is 1564.8 thousands of metric tons which mean 1,564,800 tons.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Conclusion and Comparing Results

  • Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).

  • Evaluation Results A. Evaluation results shall be used:

  • Expected Results VA’s agreement with DoD to provide educational assistance is a statutory requirement of Chapter 1606, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 1607, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 30, Title 38, U.S.C. and Chapter 33, Title 38, U.S.C (Post-9/11 GI Xxxx). These laws require VA to make payments to eligible veterans, service members, guard, reservist, and family members under the transfer of entitlement provisions. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 1606 is placed on the DoD. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on VA, while the responsibility of providing initial eligibility data for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on DoD. Thus, the two agencies must exchange data to ensure that VA makes payments only to those who are eligible for a program. Without an exchange of enrollment and eligibility data, VA would not be able to establish or verify applicant and recipient eligibility for the programs. Subject to the due process requirements, set forth in Article VII.B.1., 38 U.S.C. §3684A, VA may suspend, terminate, or make a final denial of any financial assistance on the basis of data produced by a computer matching program with DoD. To minimize administrative costs of implementation of the law and to maximize the service to the veteran or service member, a system of data exchanges and subsequent computer matching programs was developed. The purposes of the computer matching programs are to minimize the costs of administering the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; facilitate accurate payment to eligible veterans or service members training under the Chapter of the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; and to avoid payment to those who lose eligibility. The current automated systems, both at VA and DoD, have been developed over the last twenty-two years. The systems were specifically designed to utilize computer matching in transferring enrollment and eligibility data to facilitate accurate payments and avoid incorrect payments. The source agency, DMDC, stores eligibility data on its computer based system of record. The cost of providing this data to VA electronically are minimal when compared to the cost DMDC would incur if the data were forwarded to VA in a hard-copy manner. By comparing records electronically, VA avoids the personnel costs of inputting data manually as well as the storage costs of the DMDC documents. This results in a VA estimated annual savings of $26,724,091 to VA in mailing and data entry costs. DoD reported an estimated annual savings of $12,350,000. A cost-benefit analysis is at Attachment 1. In the 32 years since the inception of the Chapter 30 program, the cost savings of using computer matching to administer the benefit payments for these educational assistance programs have remained significant. The implementation of Chapter 33 has impacted the Chapter 30 program over the past 8 years (fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2017). Statistics show a decrease of 23 percent in the number of persons who ultimately use Chapter 30 from fiscal year 2015 to 2016. The number of persons who use Chapter 33 has consistently been above 700,000 in the past four years. VA foresees continued cost savings due to the number of persons eligible for the education programs.‌

  • Evaluation and Comparison of Tenders 2.24.1 The Procuring entity will evaluate and compare the tenders which have been determined to be substantially responsive, pursuant to paragraph 2.22

  • Estimates and Reconciliation of Estimates Where estimated expenditures are used to determine the amount of the drawdown, the State will indicate in the terms of the State unique funding technique how the estimated amount is determined and when and how the State will reconcile the difference between the estimate and the State's actual expenditures.

  • Termination and Results of Termination 24.1. Without prejudice to the Company’s rights under this Agreement to terminate it immediately without prior notice to the Client, each Party may terminate this Agreement by giving at least three (3) Business Days Written Notice to the other Party.

  • BID TABULATION AND RESULTS Bid tabulations shall be available thirty (30) days after opening on the Orange County website at: xxxx://xxxx.xxxx.xxx/orangebids/bidresults/results.asp or upon notice of intended action, whichever is sooner.

  • Mediation Results Any agreements resulting from mediation shall be memorialized in writing. The results of the mediation shall not be final or binding unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. Mediators shall not be subject to any subpoena or liability, and their actions shall not be subject to discovery.

  • Results The five values obtained shall be arranged in order and the median value taken as a result of the measurement. This value shall be expressed in Newtons per centimetre of width of the tape. Annex 7 Minimum requirements for sampling by an inspector

  • EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF BIDS 30.1 The Employer will carry out evaluation of details and information provided in post- Qualification Questionnaire and any bidder who does not qualify shall not have his/her bid evaluated further.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.