Institutional Engagement Sample Clauses
The Institutional Engagement clause defines the obligations and expectations for one or more parties to actively involve or collaborate with specified institutions during the course of an agreement. This may include requirements to coordinate with universities, research centers, or governmental bodies for project implementation, reporting, or compliance purposes. By clearly outlining these engagement requirements, the clause ensures that all necessary institutional relationships are maintained, facilitating smooth project execution and regulatory adherence.
Institutional Engagement. Templates and text included in the annual and final reports must provide evidence of broadened engagement of jurisdiction’s institutions in RII-supported activities. These reports must also include evidence of enhanced collaboration among the jurisdiction's universities and colleges, including primarily undergraduate institutions and 2-year institutions, and utilization of resources residing therein.
Institutional Engagement. Annual and final reports must provide evidence of broadened engagement of institutions in RII Track-2- supported activities of the consortium. These reports must also include evidence of enhanced collaboration among the consortium’s universities and colleges, including non-research intensive institutions, and utilization of resources residing therein.
Institutional Engagement. Subdomains for institutional engagement include demand, satisfaction and perceived value, engagement of hospital director and staff, and educational message and awareness (Figure 21). Three out of six hospitals met the cut off for sustainability in the domain of institutional engagement. Apam had the highest average at 2.5, Kete-Kratchi scored 2.4, and Axim had a score of 2.3. Mampong hovered close to the cut off at 1.9, Bole had a score of 1.6, and Kintampo had the lowest average score of 1.3. Scores for satisfaction and perceived value were calculated from multiple scores relating to director and maintenance staff satisfaction with the system and the commitment of the director to the sustainability of the water system. Scores for educational message and awareness were also calculated from multiple scores relating to staff and patient awareness of the water system, and the presence of educational messages on water and sanitation. Subdomain scores were relatively high showing strengths in satisfaction, perceived value of the treatment system, and in engagement of hospital director and staff. All hospitals had low scores in the subdomain for visibility of educational messages in the hospital and awareness of the water treatment system. Educational messages regarding safe water were only observed in Apam hospital. Educational messages regarding hygiene practices were observed in all six hospitals. In three hospitals, educational messages about hygiene were visible to the staff, but not to the patients. Ratings of perceived value and satisfaction about the system by the hospital directors varied across all hospitals. The hospital directors reported overall satisfaction with pressure, color of water, and costs of maintaining the system, but mentioned concerns about water quality within the hospital wards, and poor capacity of maintenance staff to carryout of major system repairs. Hospital directors also had varying levels of commitment to the sustainability of the water treatment system and safe water provision.