Structured Decision Making Sample Clauses

Structured Decision Making. The Technical Subcommittee developed a structured decision-making process to evaluate fish passage at the Project (Oosterhout 1998). The reasons for developing this process were (1) to develop common objectives among the interested agencies and organizations, (2) to allow information to be developed under controlled rules that would promote common understanding, and (3) to allow the passage decision to be divided into its decision components for evaluation. Perhaps the most important outcome of using the structured decision-making process was Technical Subcommittee consensus on the major uncertainties surrounding the potential reintroduction of each species under consideration. The Technical Subcommittee utilized the identified uncertainties to direct a rigorous study effort to reduce the level of uncertainty inherent in such a complex undertaking. A stochastic life cycle model (PasRAS) was developed for sockeye and spring chinook (Oosterhout 1999) to support the decision-making process. In addition, a deterministic steelhead model addressing the complicated life history of steelhead and potential inter-relationships between steelhead and rainbow trout was developed as a tool to help evaluate uncertainties associated with reintroduction scenarios (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxxxx 2001). These models allowed the relative importance of each uncertainty to be evaluated for these species so that experimental efforts could be further focused.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Structured Decision Making

  • Shared Decision Making 33-1 Purpose The purpose of a shared decision making program is to create an atmosphere in which decision making is a collegial, shared, process that fosters an exchange of ideas and information necessary for effective professional practice and for improved student performance. The Association and District agree to continue pursuing jointly the implementation of legitimately recognized school councils as a foundation of a shared decision-making program. All provisions of this Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect throughout the process.

  • Decision Making The JDC shall make decisions unanimously, with each Party’s representatives collectively having one (1) vote and at least one (1) representative from each Party participating in such decision. In the event the JDC determines that it cannot reach an agreement regarding a decision within the JDC’s authority, then, within *** Business Days after such determination: (a) for any matter that is not a Critical Issue *** shall have the final decision making authority on such matter; and (b) for any matter that is a Critical Issue, the matter shall be referred to FivePrime’s Chief Executive Officer (or designee) and HGS’ Chief Executive Officer (or designee) for resolution. If such executives cannot resolve the matter within *** Business Days, then the Chief Executive Officer of *** (or designee) shall have the final decision making authority on such matter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Development Plan shall not be amended, without FivePrime’s prior written approval (which approval may be withheld in FivePrime’s sole discretion), to: (i) increase or materially change the nature of FivePrime-Conducted Trials or Other FivePrime-Conducted Activities; or (ii) require FivePrime to continue any FivePrime-Conducted Trial if FivePrime, in its reasonable judgment, decides not to continue such trial for any business, scientific, safety, efficacy, enrollment or ethical reason, provided that, in the event FivePrime so decides to discontinue such trial, HGS shall have no further obligation to reimburse FivePrime under Section 4.2(d) except with respect to costs *** INDICATES MATERIAL THAT WAS OMITTED AND FOR WHICH CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT WAS REQUESTED. ALL SUCH OMITTED MATERIAL WAS FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 406 PROMULGATED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED. already incurred by FivePrime prior to such discontinuation and any and all standard close out costs incurred thereafter, and HGS shall have the right to continue such trial by itself at its expense. When *** make a final determination under this Section 3.4, that final determination must be consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

  • SITE-BASED DECISION MAKING A. The District shall provide the training and staff development to support accountability/site- based decision-making activities. Teachers shall be given release time to attend these programs.

  • Initial Decision Maker The Architect will serve as the Initial Decision Maker pursuant to Article 15 of AIA Document A201–2017, unless the parties appoint below another individual, not a party to this Agreement, to serve as the Initial Decision Maker. (If the parties mutually agree, insert the name, address and other contact information of the Initial Decision Maker, if other than the Architect.) « » « » « » « »

  • Automated decisions For purposes hereof “automated decision” shall mean a decision by the data exporter or the data importer which produces legal effects concerning a data subject or significantly affects a data subject and which is based solely on automated processing of personal data intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to him, such as his performance at work, creditworthiness, reliability, conduct, etc. The data importer shall not make any automated decisions concerning data subjects, except when:

  • Hearing Decision The decision of the Board shall be in writing and shall contain findings of fact and the personnel action approved, if any. The findings may reiterate the language of the pleadings or simply refer to them. The decision of the Board shall be certified to the Superintendent or designee who recommended the personnel action, and he/she shall enforce and follow this decision. A copy of the decision shall be delivered to the appellant or his/her designated representative personally or by registered mail. The decision of the Board shall be final.

  • Proposing Integration Activities in the Planning Submission No integration activity described in section 6.3 may be proposed in a CAPS unless the LHIN has consented, in writing, to its inclusion pursuant to the process set out in section 6.3(b).

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • COURT'S DECISION 33.01 In the event of any articles or portions of this Agreement being held improper or invalid by any Court of Law or Labour Relations Board, such decision shall not invalidate any other portions of this Agreement than those directly specified by such decision to be invalid, improper or otherwise unenforceable.

  • Statewide HUB Program Statewide Procurement Division Note: In order for State agencies and institutions of higher education (universities) to be credited for utilizing this business as a HUB, they must award payment under the Certificate/VID Number identified above. Agencies, universities and prime contractors are encouraged to verify the company’s HUB certification prior to issuing a notice of award by accessing the Internet (xxxxx://xxxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xx.xx/tpasscmblsearch/index.jsp) or by contacting the HUB Program at 000-000-0000 or toll-free in Texas at 0-000-000-0000.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!