Data Collection Methodology a. CONTRACTOR shall adhere to the most current HMIS Data Standards and Sonoma County HMIS Lead designed program workflow(s) for each homeless program type.
Data Collection Methodology. A single field visit was completed on March 14, 2018 to assess and document the presence of vegetative and wildlife species within the study area. The vegetation field survey for species composition, and community mapping was completed in general accordance with the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario. Observations of wildlife (mammals, birds) were recorded during the field visit along with locational information of the sighting. During the field survey, emphasis was placed on species at risk with the potential to occur within the study area, and a review of potential impacts to the PSW.
Data Collection Methodology. Guidance: This section describes in detail who is responsible for data collection and management (Director of Programs, M&E officer, others), and in what format (database, spreadsheets) data will be managed, and who is responsible for producing which reports. Aspects of quality control at all stages should be described. Relevant details about types of data collection issues such as sampling, tool design, use of sub-contractors and project staff for data collection, etc. would go here. The specific methods used to collect data for the specified indicators are described in detail in each PIRS.
Data Collection Methodology. It was decided jointly by the evaluator and the project’s senior management staff that given the time available, the evaluator would visit four of the six implementation provinces including Phnom Penh. It was further decided to visit one district within each province and two communes per district. The project management staff was actively involved with the evaluator in determining the provinces, districts and communes to be visited according to criteria put forward by the evaluator, and provided a wealth of information upon which to base the selection. The selection criteria for provinces, districts and communes were:
1. Coverage of all four implementing agencies (WV, WP, FLD and VCAO);
2. Coverage of the three focus sectors (Agriculture, fisheries and CDW);
3. Representation of provinces with migration issues;
4. Representation of varying degrees of progress and engagement of local partners;
5. Districts, communes and villages with varying success in terms of capacity development and engagement in the project; and
6. Provinces with reasonable access from each other. The final sites to be selected purposively based on the selection criteria are as follows: • Phnom Penh – Toul Kork District - Sangkat Teuk Laak III (VCAO); • Pursat – Bakan District - Khna Toteng and Boeung Batkandal communes (WP & FLD); • Banteay Meanchey – Preah Net Preah District - Phnum Xxxx and Teuk Chor communes (WV, FLD); and • Siem Reap – Pouk District - Keo Por and Reul communes (WV, FLD and VCAO). The evaluator identified a list of stakeholder groups to be included for interviews and group discussions. These included project staff at all levels, WVC management and other non-EXCEL staff, a representative of the US embassy, national government ministries, provincial departments of labor and education, district government officers, adult and child beneficiaries, commune-level authorities and project volunteers. Regarding the selection of child and household beneficiaries to invite for an interview, names were randomly selected from a list of beneficiaries per site by assigning computer-generated random numbers and selecting up to five females and five males (where actual numbers of beneficiaries permitted) per group interview. The stakeholder interviews followed flexible question guides or focus group discussion guides developed in advance by the evaluator for each stakeholder group. A National Stakeholders’ Workshop was held on 5 May, 2015, with representatives from all major stakehol...
Data Collection Methodology. Provided that Client is in compliance with its obligations under Section 4, Press Xxxxx shall use commercially reasonable efforts to:
a. InfoTurn Surveying (Mail Methodology): ▪ Provide surveys and accompanying cover letters for each contracted patient survey service; ▪ Provide surveys and a return, business reply envelope with each mailing; ▪ Complete mailings within three (3) business days of receipt of electronic patient data; ▪ Provide access to scanned survey images within three (3) business days of their return via the PG Application; and ▪ Transcribe all survey comments made in English within five (5) business days of Press Xxxxx’x receipt, if Client has contracted for Press Xxxxx’x “Comments Service”.
Data Collection Methodology. The CODAP Project exchanges data on passive component degradation and failure, including service-induced wall thinning, non-through wall crack, leaking through-wall crack, pinhole leak, leak, rupture and severance (pipe break caused by external impact). For non-through wall cracks the CODAP scope encompasses degradation exceeding design code allowable for wall thickness or crack depth as well as such degradation that could have generic implications regarding the reliability of in-service inspection (ISI) techniques. The following failure modes are considered: • Non-through wall defects (e.g., cracks, wall thinning) interpreted as structurally significant and/or exceeding design code allowable. • Loss of fracture toughness of cast austenitic stainless steel piping. The loss of fracture toughness is attributed to thermal aging embrittlement. • Through-wall defects without active leakage (leakage may be detected following a plant operational mode change involving depressurization and cool-down, or as part of preparations for non-destructive examination, NDE). • Small leaks (e.g., pinhole leak, drop leakage) resulting in piping repair or replacement; • Leaks (e.g., leak rates within Technical Specification limits); • Large leaks (e.g., flow rates well in excess of Technical Specification limits); • Major structural failure (pressure boundary "breach" or "rupture"). In other words, the CODAP Event Database collects data on the full range of degraded conditions, from "precursors" to major structural failures. The structural integrity of a pressure boundary is determined by multiple and interrelated reliability attributes and influencing factors. Depending on the conjoint requirements for damage and degradation, certain combinations of material, operating environment, loading conditions together with applicable design codes and standard, certain passive components are substantially more resistant to damage and degradation than others. As an example, for stabilized austenitic stainless steel pressure boundary components, there are no recorded events involving active, through-wall leakage. By contrast, for unstabilized austenitic stainless steel, multiple events involving through-wall leakage have been recorded, albeit with relative minor leak rates. Flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC), if unmonitored, is a relatively aggressive degradation mechanism that has produced major structural failures, including double-ended guillotine breaks (DEGB). The types of pipe failure...
Data Collection Methodology
Data Collection Methodology
