Organisational structures. There are a number of structures available for the pilot community groups to use, which will be suitable as accountable-bodies to apply for funding from various sources (including RDPE); to enter into contracts with others; to operate as vehicles to manage the infrastructure investment required and deal with the considerable number of cost/revenue transactions going forward. As acknowledged in the tender, there is already a large body of evidence available in terms of organisational and legal structures that may be suitable for these pilots and this is a well trodden path made by others who have faced similar choices. Robust advice and guidance can be sought from independent statutory bodies such as the Charities Commission xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx/index.aspx and the CIC Regulator xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx.xx/cicregulator and both organisations produce summary and detailed guidance on every aspect of legal formation, constitution, statutory obligations, management etc. Some of the pilot communities have already elected to constitute; at least two as a Community Interest Company’s (CIC), and this indicates that they will already have considered their options quite carefully. Others have acknowledged that they have agreed ‘constitutions’ but have not formally constituted legally as yet. We intend to provide detailed advice on organisational structure as part of the workshop sessions, each of which will be delivered as discrete sessions, tailored to the needs of each pilot. In this way we can adjust the content and level of advice, depending on their progress and knowledge to date. The target of this advice is to prepare each so that they can constitute and so act as an accountable-body for application to RDPE and other funding. In our view the most likely organisation that most pilots will settle on will be a Community Interest Company (CIC) or a Company Limited by Guarantee, both of which offer a suitable structure for operation as an accountable-body, although there are fundamental differences between each. A further option under the route of company limited by guarantee may be registration as a charity, as this may provide other benefits that may well be useful in terms of access to sources of funding, direct and in-direct taxation. Allied to this, there may be benefit in a pilot registering as a charity and then forming a wholly-owned trading subsidiary to undertake the work required. Finally, if synergies existed between two or more pilots, an opti...
Organisational structures. The Chief State Pathologist is supported by two State Pathologists, two Deputy State Pathologists, a part-time locum Assistant State Pathologist, a senior laboratory analyst, and 4.4 (whole-time equivalent) administrative staff.
Organisational structures. All parties to this agreement will ensure that there is representation for their partners at cluster and borough level governance structures. Partners commit to engaging in relevant boards and committees as an opportunity to bring together relevant expertise and representation. All partners should be actively involved in planning for the 2012/13 “end state” when the Health and Social Care Bill is enacted. We will do this in Barking and Dagenham through: • Ensuring that there is a senior local authority representative on the Barking and Dagenham PCT Board. At the time of drafting, the Council has confirmed this as the Corporate Director of Adult & Community Services. • Ensuring that there is a senior PCT and GP clinical commissioning group (CCG) lead on the Barking and Dagenham Health and Wellbeing Board. At the time of drafting, this is achieved through the following membership: o Non-Executive Director, Xxxx Xxxxxx o Executive Director, Xxxx Xxxxxxx o Borough Director, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx o Joint Director Public Health, Xxxxxxx Xxxx o Chair of the Clinical Commissioning Committee, Dr Xxxx Xxxxxx o Clinical Commissioning Group leads, Xx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Membership of the Health & Wellbeing Board is anticipated to change as the Board moves from Shadow to full form over the course of 2012/13. • Committing to the following representatives attending partnership meetings: Borough Meeting ONEL Attendee Local Strategic Partnership Board Non- Executive Director, Xxxx Xxxxxx Public Service Board Chief Executive, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx or Executive Director Xxxx Xxxxxxx Health & Wellbeing Board Non-Executive Director, Xxxx Xxxxxx Executive Director, Xxxx Xxxxxxx Borough Director, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Joint Director Public Health, Xxxxxxx Xxxx Health and Wellbeing Board Executive Borough Director, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Joint Director Public Health, Xxxxxxx Xxxx Children’s Trust Borough Director, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Skills, Jobs and Enterprise Board Finance lead, Xxxxxxx X’Xxxxx Local Safeguarding Adults’ Board Borough Director, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Local Safeguarding Children’s Board Local sub groups Borough Director, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx and Deputy Director of Safeguarding, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Designated Nurse – Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Integrated Children’s Health Board Borough Director, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Learning Disability Partnership Borough Director, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Community Safety Partnership Executive Mgt team Member Xxxxxx Xxxxx 3 x SAB sub groups • Training and education • Case review • Performance an...
Organisational structures. The following diagrams illustrate the organisational structures within each RCA, including the provision of network management and maintenance contract services. Also important are the safety related interactions with other internal departments within each Council. These are recorded in the detailed SMS procedure sheets in Appendix IV. Rangitikei District Asset Manager Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Network Manager Xxxxx Xxxxx (GHD) Engineering Services Network Management Consultant GHD Consultants Ltd Maintenance Contractors: Urban and Rural – Works Infrastructure Ruapehu District District Engineer Xxxxx Xxxx Team Leader Land Transport Xxxxx Xxxxxx Engineer Road Development (vacant) Network Consultant – GHD Consultants Ltd Manager Xxxxx Xxxxx Maintenance Contractor: Urban and Rural Network – Inframix Wanganui District Roading Manager Xxxx Xxxxx Network Management Consultant Opus International Consultants Ltd Maintenance Contractors: Urban – Works Infrastructure Rural – Works Infrastructure
Organisational structures. When a central registry is used, the organisational structure over which agents com- municate is constrained, such that all agents indirectly locate each other through the central registry. As discussed, this causes a bottleneck and a single point of failure. To address this, we might consider decentralising service location by which this central registry is removed, and services must instead be located though direct communication between agents that require services and agents that offer services (and, depending on the context, agents can be on both sides of this interaction). However, because agents communicate across the set of all connections that link them — across the organisa- tional structure — these links are crucial. In particular, in the centralised approach, the connections exist only between the central registry and each agent in the system. In order to decentralise, therefore, we must ensure that there are appropriate connec- tions between the agents in the system to a sufficient degree that decentralised service location is facilitated. A simple solution is to create a connection between every pair of agents, as shown on the left in Figure 6.1, so that each agent can communicate with all others directly. For example, the same structure is displayed on the right hand side of Figure 6.1, and highlights the connections, in bold, that link agent m directly to every other agent. However, when a system is of any significant scale this becomes, at some times, imprac- tical because it is expensive to maintain the amount of information required and, at others, infeasible because it is not possible for every agent to keep an up-to-date record of every other agent in the system. Instead, we must consider alternative structures where the number of required connections is reduced, but services can still be located. Our agents are, to a degree, cooperative, and so will help each other to locate services, so we do not need a fully connected structure. To ensure that any agent can locate a service offered by any other agent, we do not require a connection between each pair of agents, but rather a path of connections between every pair. This is to say that, if the m n k p u q m n k p u q Connected m n k p u q m n k p u q Not Connected Figure 6.2: Path of connections between agent m and all other agents organisational structure is a graph, where agents are vertices, and connections between agents are edges between these vertices, then the graph must be conn...
