Decision Structure Sample Clauses

Decision Structure. We describe the structures to manage conflicts, change, and risks. The decision procedures of ENVISAGE reflect the organizational structure of the project and the responsibilities of the different management bodies. Conflict management. In a project like ENVISAGE, with experienced researchers leading the work packages and tasks, most scientific disagreements will be resolved by discussions leading to consensus. However, sometimes con- sensus may not be achievable (or not within reasonable time). In ENVISAGE, we have developed a conflict resolution procedure which settles how we plan to resolve conflicts within the project. This conflict resolution procedure, which is detailed in Section B2.1.3 below, describes how a conflict which remains unresolved at a certain level, may escalate from the work package to the SC or the GA. At SC and GA meetings, voting is used in the case of disagreement as described above. Change management is crucial for the success of the project. In ENVISAGE, Work Package Leaders are in charge of technology watch, i.e., the continuous monitoring of the state of the art in the scientific community. If some research tasks become irrelevant or change in nature because they have already been (partly) solved by others or due to technological development, the Work Package Leader of the concerned work package can propose amendments to the work plan, which are then approved by the SC. All such amendments are regularly integrated into the Description of Work and submitted to the Commission for review in time before the regular annual reviews. Risk management is handled through ENVISAGE’s risk management process, detailed in Section B1.3.3. The Scientific Coordinator and the SC are in charge of continuously revising the project risk plan during the entire lifetime of the process, and to proactively anticipate and identify potential technical risks as early as possible. This is done Management Body Composition Responsibilities Project Coordinator Scientific Coordinator, Administrative and Financial Management Team • Success of the overall running project • Achievement of the project objectives • Implement the decisions of the GA • Intermediary in all relations with the EC officers Scientific Coordinator • Perform assigned management tasks according to the CA • Produce progress reports and call meetings of the consortium, the SC, and the GA Steering Committee Work Package Leaders (including the Scientific Coordinator) • The technical direction an...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Decision Structure

  • Classification Structure All employees working under this Agreement shall be classified according to the skill based classification structure set out in Appendix A.

  • Governance Structure The Academy shall be organized and administered as a Michigan nonprofit corporation under the direction of the Academy Board and pursuant to the governance structure as set forth in the Bylaws. The Academy’s Board of Directors shall meet monthly unless another schedule is mutually agreed upon by the President and the Academy. The Academy shall not delegate this duty of organization and administration of the Academy without the express affirmative consent of the University.

  • Project Changes 1.8.1. All changes shall be administered per the UGC.

  • Structure Appendices 1 and 2 are incorporated into and form part of this DPA. They set out the agreed subject-matter, the nature and purpose of the processing, the type of Personal Data, categories of data subjects and the applicable technical and organizational measures.

  • Agreement Structure 2.1 An “Agreement” hereunder shall consist of this Master Agreement, the Schedule, and their applicable attachments and represents the complete and exclusive agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter of the Schedule, and replaces any prior oral or written communications between the Parties relating thereto. Each Lease is effective when the Schedule containing such Lease is executed by the Parties thereto.

  • Organizational Structure The ISO will be governed by a ten (10) person unaffiliated Board of Directors, as per Article 5 herein. The day-to-day operation of the ISO will be managed by a President, who will serve as an ex-officio member of the ISO Board, in accordance with Article 5 herein. There shall be a Management Committee as per Article 7 herein, which shall report to the ISO Board, and shall be comprised of all Parties to the Agreement. There shall be at least two additional standing committees, the Operating Committee, as provided for in Article 8, and the Business Issues Committee, as provided for in Article 9, both of which shall report to the Management Committee. A Dispute Resolution Process will be established and administered by the ISO Board in accordance with Article 10.

  • Product Changes Vocera shall have the right, in its absolute discretion, without liability to End User, to update to provide new functionality or otherwise change the design of any Product or to discontinue the manufacture or sale of any Product. Vocera shall notify End User at least 90 days prior to the delivery of any Product which incorporates a change that adversely affects form, fit or function (“Material Change”). Vocera shall also notify End User at least 90 days prior to the discontinuance of manufacture of any Product. Notification will be made as soon as reasonably practical for changes associated with regulatory or health and safety issues.

  • Management Structure Describe the overall management approach toward planning and implementing the contract. Include an organization chart for the management of the contract, if awarded. 3.2

  • Framework Management Structure 2.1.1 The Supplier shall provide a suitably qualified nominated contact (the “Supplier Framework Manager”) who will take overall responsibility for delivering the Goods and/or Services required within this Framework Agreement, as well as a suitably qualified deputy to act in their absence.

  • Report Structure Provides an analysis of each error type (by error code). The report is in descending order by count of each error code and provides the following: • Error Type (by error code) • Count of each error type • Percent of each error type • Cumulative percent • Error Description • CLEC Caused Count of each error code • Percent of aggregate by CLEC caused count • Percent of CLEC caused count • BellSouth Caused Count of each error code • Percent of aggregate by BellSouth caused count • Percent of BellSouth by BellSouth caused count. Data Retained Relating to CLEC Experience Relating to BellSouth Performance • Report Month • Total Number of Lsrs Received • Total Number of Errors by Type (by Error Code) - CLEC caused error • Report Month • Total Number of Errors by Type (by Error Code) - BellSouth System Error SQM Disaggregation - Analog/Benchmark SQM Level of Disaggregation SQM Analog/Benchmark • Not Applicable • Not Applicable SEEM Measure SEEM Measure No Tier I Tier II O-5: Flow-Through Error Analysis SEEM Disaggregation - Analog/Benchmark SEEM Disaggregation SEEM Analog/Benchmark • Not Applicable • Not Applicable O-6: CLEC LSR Information O-6: CLEC LSR Information Definition A list with the flow through activity of LSRs by CC, PON and Ver, issued by each CLEC during the report period. Exclusions • Fatal Rejects • LSRs submitted manually Business Rules The CLEC mechanized ordering process includes all LSRs, including supplements (subsequent versions) which are submitted through one of the three gateway interfaces (TAG, EDI, and LENS), that flow through and reach a status for a FOC to be issued. The CLEC mechanized ordering process does not include LSRs which are submitted manually (for example, fax and courier). Calculation Not Applicable

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