Monitoring Framework Clause Samples
Monitoring Framework. The first consideration in areas where there is expenditure on a range of support activities is to have an overview of the number of projects supported and the corresponding expenditure. These are the initial outputs of the Programme in this area. Following on from the basic project management data, other information is expected on the outputs, results and longer term outcomes of the Programme. This information is formalised in monitoring and indicator systems. It has been seen that these are relatively well developed with respect to the Financial Instruments and the Enterprise Europe Network. However, in parallel to the less precise specification of anticipated outcomes in the innovation area in the initial Decision and Impact Assessment, monitoring data have also been developed less consistently and in a more diffuse manner. Nonetheless there has been progress in these areas. Monitoring tools for the Europe Innova and PRO INNO initiatives were partially developed during the first period of the initiatives (2006-2009) when they were supported under FP6. The Calls for Proposals for some activities stipulated that bidders had to propose an appropriate set of performance indicators for monitoring progress and assessing the overall impact of the activity. However, from the Commission side, there was no systematic structure to monitor and assess the performance and impact of the projects. Ex-post, the assessment of the two initiatives distinguished between the direct or indirect impacts of the projects and activities35. Direct results were primarily the outcomes achieved by the projects and activities supported, while indirect results were the “spill over effects” beyond the scope of the projects. According to the interviews with the Commission, this approach was systematised during the new phase of the two initiatives and a third category of impacts was added referring to potential impacts beyond the project. Requirements on the project co-ordinators to deliver the relevant data have been included in the respective contracts, although not from the very beginning36. The feedback from the evaluation of the EIP indicators and the Panel discussions on measuring the impact of European innovation policy co- operation initiatives (focusing on PRO INNO) that took place on 19th January 2010 served to further systematise this process. In the case of Europe-Innova initiative37, project co-ordinators have been asked to identify indicators for the direct and indirect impa...
Monitoring Framework. The Ho-Chunk Nation monitoring program includes program activities in the areas of baseline water quality monitoring and inventory and assessment of wetland resources. In addition, synoptic studies are incorporated into monitoring when needed and as budget and staffing allow. Monitoring includes field measurement and laboratory analysis of chemical water quality parameters, stream habitat assessments and biological monitoring. Funding was used to monitor nine fixed stations on a quarterly basis during the 2018-2019 monitoring period. In addition, (2) Rotating Year 2 stations and (6) Rotating Year 3 stations were monitored in 2018 along with (6) Rotating Year 4 stations in 2019.
Monitoring Framework. The Concessionaire must submit the following reports to the Authority at such frequency as provided. Hospital Statistics a) OP and IP statistics by specialty b) No. of surgeries performed by specialties c) Bed utilization d) OT utilization e) Utilisation of diagnostics f) Laboratory tests statistics g) Quality Indicators h) ALOS (APL/BPL/Aggregate) Daily, Monthly, Quarterly, Annually Manpower Deploymen t a) Manpower deployment vis-à-vis the planned positions across all categories Monthly
Monitoring Framework. The SUPER MoRRI project designed a monitoring framework in which a variety of different forms of information were gathered. Different types of data were generated at varying levels of analysis. These data and information resources are assembled at the PROMISE portal (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇) with the aim of supporting transformation in R&I toward enhanced openness, citizen participation, and more responsible practices and cultures. Attention was paid to the policies and actions of different types of organisations and the practices and motivations of researchers toward transforming R&I for the benefit of society.
2.1 Conceptual and policy basis for the monitoring framework The basis for the development of the PROMISE portal was conceptual thinking regarding responsible research and innovation (RRI). The SUPER MoRRI project embraced a variety of approaches to thinking about RRI, which had developed in parallel rather than through a process of consolidation (European Commission 2014, 2017; ▇▇▇▇ et al. 2012; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2013; ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2013, 2014). A review of the underlying ontological and axiological assumptions of the main conceptualisations of responsible innovation (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇ 2018) argued that differences among these visions are in part tied to the policymaking and scholarly contexts from where they emerged. SUPER MoRRI adopted an open understanding of responsibility in research and innovation, viewing this as a strength in terms of potential versatility of operationalisations that could be developed. The European Commission (EC) conception of RRI emerged from its science with and for society (SwafS) policies and R&D work programmes. The EC describes RRI as diverse sets of societal actors (researchers, citizens, policymakers, business, third sector organisations, etc.) that “work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society”.2 The major mechanism for bringing actors together is public engagement, one of the EC’s six RRI ‘keys’ along with ethics, gender equality, governance, open science and science education. Implementing interventions focused on each of these keys thus describes the broad pathway toward better alignment between science, innovation and society. The abstract framing of the EC definition around ‘alignment’ is to some extent counterbalanced by the six keys as categories that can be more straightforwardly operatio...
Monitoring Framework. 12
2.1 Conceptual and policy basis for the monitoring framework 12
2.2 Purposes and functions of monitoring 14 2.3 Users 15 2.4 Responsible Quantification 15
Monitoring Framework. Project Benefits KPIs
1. ▇▇▇▇ will manage the regional data collection contract for the participating local authorities and provide any non-participating local authorities with the specifications for data collection so that region-wide benchmarking is possible Cost to each council is less than individual contracts Tendering costs to each council are reduced Data collection completed on time to required accuracy Data is consistent over whole network At least two consultancies are successful in delivering the work Procurement complies with NZTA procedures Cost savings demonstrated Contract deliverables are on time/to budget/to quality standards Each Funding partner/participant is satisfied with the contract deliverables
2. An annual benchmarking tool will be implemented and enhanced to demonstrate the region’s comparable performance with respect to customer satisfaction, asset condition or other network outcomes, and level of investment Common measures are used in all councils These measures are also used in LTPs and Annual Reports Comparisons can be made between councils Staff from all Councils actively participate in project At lease four improvement opportunities are identified from the benchmarking analysis
3. Each year (between July and October) a collaborative review of each council’s forward works programme will be completed (based on the NZTA’s Review and Prioritisation Team work) Knowledge/experience shared Professional relationships established/strengthened % of sites rated as ‘about right’ increases each year Mechanism for collaboratively assessing sites developed New types of treatments introduced
4. Mid-year and annual reports will be produced for all stakeholders to communicate progress against planned outcomes Value of RATA demonstrated to participants Savings identified offset NZTA funding to RATA Monitoring framework further developed to demonstrate success Future Opportunities/Projects Develop a consistent regional approach for components in the 30- infrastructure strategy (such as infrastructure assessments of remaining life) Consistency in interpretation of requirements across region Develop ▇▇▇▇ processes and protocols for consistent data/inventory management Value added by putting emphasis on critical data Data collection can be standardised KPI data can be easily compared Reliable data available for growth and expenditure forecasts Aligned with Austroads and Road Efficiency Group work to support the implementation of meta-data standard...
Monitoring Framework. ▪ To improve operational efficiency rosters to be pre-approved by an appropriate manager;
Monitoring Framework. The full set of documents, which may be updated from time to time, can be found at: