Decision Analysis Sample Clauses

Decision Analysis. TreeAge Pro 2.0 was used to conduct a decision analysis and subsequent expected value (EV) calculation. Decision analysis is conducted to assist policy makers in making decisions regarding what interventions to implement (Xxxxxx et al., 2003). EV is calculated so that uncertainties (different interventions) can be compared to one another. The alternative with the best EV maximizes utility or value (Xxxxxx et al., 2003). A decision tree was constructed within the software. As shown in Figure 2 the decision node question was defined as Dental Service Options. The two treatment choices were teledentistry and traditional dentistry. Each choice had one chance node with two possible events; a treat event or a no treat event. Each event ended in a terminal node. The cost for each terminal node equals the cost per child for each intervention and varied depending on the inclusion or exclusion of the intangible cost. These values are shown in subsequent figures. Figure 2. Decision Analysis Tree (TreeAge Pro 2.0, 2011). The probability for the branch of the teledentistry treat option was 0.5 and was also 0.5 for no treat. These probabilities were selected because parents could either grant permission for their child to obtain teledentistry services or not. The cost for the teledentistry terminal node for treatment was $1,056.90, the teledentistry cost per child treated. The cost for the terminal node for no treatment was zero. The probability for the branch of the traditional dentistry treatment option was .25 and was .75 for no treatment. These probabilities were selected based on The Georgia Dental Association’s (GDA), “2010 White Paper” and Georgia’s poverty levels. The GDA stated that 41.9% of families with an income of 200% to 400% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL) visited the dentist at least one time in a year and only 26.5% of those at 100% or less FPL had an annual dental visit (Georgia Dental Association, 2010). In 2009, 46% of Georgians had an income at 200% to 400% of FPL and 21% were at 100% or below (State Health Xxxxx.xxx, 2009a). The following equation was used to calculate the traditional dentistry probabilities for the decision tree. (46% x .419) + (21% x .265) = .25 probability of obtaining traditional dental services 1 - .25 = .75 probability of not obtaining traditional dental services The cost for the traditional dentistry terminal node for treatment was $438.89, the traditional dentistry cost per child treated. The cost for the terminal node for n...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Decision Analysis. The decision analysis phase represents the end result of system analysis where the previous phases are evaluated and a recommended solution is put forth. [75] In this phase the various changes and system improvements as suggested by the requirements analysis and logical design phases were evaluated. The list was consolidated and refactored to match the final understanding of the problems and opportunities of this system improvement. As a final step the list was prioritized based on the importance of the change as it related to the project objectives, the time and effort needed to complete, and the impact that each change would have on the end user experience. With these considerations in mind a final list of changes for this iteration of development was selected.
Sample 1
Decision Analysis. 4.6.5.1 Document Tradespace analysis and design decisions with the appropriate level of rigor according to the risk involved. These may be informal notes by developers or engineers for less formal decisions or a Decision Analysis Report for more involved decisions.
Sample 1

Related to Decision Analysis

  • COMPENSATION ANALYSIS After the expiration of the second (2nd) Renewal Term of this Agreement, if any, a Compensation Analysis may be performed. At such time, based on the reported Total Gross Revenue, performance of the Concession, and/or Department’s existing rates for similarly- performing operations, Department may choose to increase the Concession Payment for the following Renewal Term(s), if any.

  • Analysis LICENSEE represents and agrees that it will only incorporate Components received from authorized suppliers into Licensed Products and for no other purpose, and that LICENSEE will not directly or indirectly attempt to reverse-engineer any material provided to it hereunder by LICENSEE or any supplier of any Component.

  • Data Analysis In the meeting, the analysis that has led the College President to conclude that a reduction- in-force in the FSA at that College may be necessary will be shared. The analysis will include but is not limited to the following: ● Relationship of the FSA to the mission, vision, values, and strategic plan of the College and district ● External requirement for the services provided by the FSA such as accreditation or intergovernmental agreements ● Annual instructional load (as applicable) ● Percentage of annual instructional load taught by Residential Faculty (as applicable) ● Fall Full-Time Student Equivalent (FFTE) inclusive of dual enrollment ● Number of Residential Faculty teaching/working in the FSA ● Number of Residential Faculty whose primary FSA is the FSA being analyzed ● Revenue trends over five years for the FSA including but not limited to tuition and fees ● Expenditure trends over five years for the FSA including but not limited to personnel and capital ● Account balances for any fees accounts within the FSA ● Cost/benefit analysis of reducing all non-Residential Faculty plus one Residential Faculty within the FSA ● An explanation of the problem that reducing the number of faculty in the FSA would solve ● The list of potential Residential Faculty that are at risk of layoff as determined by the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources ● Other relevant information, as requested

  • Statistical Analysis 31 F-tests and t-tests will be used to analyze OV and Quality Acceptance data. The F-test is a 32 comparison of variances to determine if the OV and Quality Acceptance population variances 33 are equal. The t-test is a comparison of means to determine if the OV and Quality Acceptance 34 population means are equal. In addition to these two types of analyses, independent verification 35 and observation verification will also be used to validate the Quality Acceptance test results.

  • Systems Review The Construction Administrator will conduct reviews of proposed roof, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, conveyance, sprinkler, telecommunications, and life safety systems, and will consider initial cost, availability, impact on the overall program, comfort and convenience, long-term maintenance and operating costs, and impacts on schedule.

  • DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The goal of this task is to collect operational data from the project, to analyze that data for economic and environmental impacts, and to include the data and analysis in the Final Report. Formulas will be provided for calculations. A Final Report data collection template will be provided by the Energy Commission. The Recipient shall: • Develop data collection test plan. • Troubleshoot any issues identified. • Collect data, information, and analysis and develop a Final Report which includes: o Total gross project costs. o Length of time from award of bus(es) to project completion. o Fuel usage before and after the project.

  • Search, Enquiry, Investigation, Examination And Verification a. The Property is sold on an “as is where is basis” subject to all the necessary inspection, search (including but not limited to the status of title), enquiry (including but not limited to the terms of consent to transfer and/or assignment and outstanding charges), investigation, examination and verification of which the Purchaser is already advised to conduct prior to the auction and which the Purchaser warrants to the Assignee has been conducted by the Purchaser’s independent legal advisors at the time of execution of the Memorandum.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Design Review At appropriate stages of design, documented reviews of the design results shall be planned and conducted. Participants at each Design Review shall include representatives of all functions concerned with the design stage being reviewed, as well as other specialist personnel, as required. Records of such reviews shall be maintained. Any computer software used to perform alternative calculations or verify clearances through the use of scale models or computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) techniques shall be validated before the use of the application, with validation documented in accordance with Section 2.2.15. In addition, at each submittal to IFA for review, Developer shall provide hand calculations that validate any calculations performed by computer software.

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