Work Plan Development Process Sample Clauses
The Work Plan Development Process clause outlines the procedures and responsibilities for creating, reviewing, and finalizing a detailed work plan for a project or engagement. Typically, this clause specifies the timeline for submission, the parties involved in drafting and approving the plan, and the required contents such as deliverables, milestones, and resource allocation. By establishing a clear process for developing the work plan, this clause ensures that all parties have a shared understanding of project expectations and timelines, thereby reducing the risk of misunderstandings and facilitating smoother project execution.
Work Plan Development Process. Annexed hereto as Schedule 6.1(b) is a detailed work plan (the “Work Plan”) for the schedule of activities to be undertaken with respect to the AFFIMED Product subject to this Article 6. Upon mutual consent, the Work Plan may be reviewed and modified by AFFIMED AND XOMA. The Work Plan sets forth the Services to be performed by XOMA, the anticipated timing, work flow and deliverables for the process development and cell line development activities to be undertaken with respect to such AFFIMED Product and the expected attributes of any deliverables (the “Deliverables”) to be provided by XOMA to AFFIMED. The Work Plan shall be implemented by a working committee comprised of not less than two (2) XOMA employees and two (2) AFFIMED employees to oversee and review the implementation of the Work Plan.
Work Plan Development Process. The detailed work plan (which in Maine is represented by the P&C List), is the result of a robust negotiations process between MEDEP and EPA-Region I Senior Leadership and Program Managers. These work plan-level negotiations are initially developed by EPA via the P&C List process, and MEDEP and EPA managers and staff jointly reviewing and modifying the P&C List until the document is finalized with a sign-offby the BPA-Region I Managers. In Maine, all agreed upon EPA-funded work plan items are included in the P&C List. Starting with FFY 2016, EPA released a two-year NPM Guidance planning process as it encourages the Regions and the States to move towards multi-year work plans. For FFY 2016 and FFY 2017, EPA and the Region I States agreed to pilot an on-line (via a Microsoft SharePoint site), two-year P&C List process for documenting negotiated Performance Partnership Grant commitments for the time period FFY 2016 - 2017. Under this approach, there is an expectation that the negotiated work plan commitments will cover a two-year period absent changed circumstances, as defined below. The benefits of this approach include minimizing/eliminating the need for extensive work plan negotiations at the mid-point of a two year cycle, with recurring commitments from year one typically carrying over into year two. Adjustments to year-two commitments will be necessary if there are changed circumstances such as changes in Administrator/NPM priorities, revisions required by BPA's Annual Commitment process, a substantial reduction or increase in EPA funding, and similar issues experienced at the state levels.
Work Plan Development Process. The detailed work plan (which in NH is formed through the combination of the P&C List, a comprehensive work plan generated from the NHDES Measures Tracking and Reporting System [MTRS], and other separate grant work plans, a significant portion of which is funded with USEPA dollars through the PPG and other funding sources), is the result of a robust negotiations process between NHDES and EPANE Senior Leadership and Program Managers. These work plan-level negotiations are first kicked-off by EPANE via the P&C List process, which is negotiated in partnership with NHDES. NHDES and EPANE Managers and staff jointly review and modify the P&C List until the document is finalized with a sign-off by the EPANE Regional Administrator. In NH, all agreed upon USEPA-funded work plan items (especially those negotiated via the P&C List), as well as many other non-USEPA funded activities throughout NHDES, are “driven” into the department’s Comprehensive Work Plan, which is developed via the MTRS database. Starting in FFY 2016, USEPA released a two-year NPM Guidance planning process and encouraged the Regions and the States to move towards multi-year work plans. In FFY 2016 and FFY 2017, EPANE and the Region I States agreed to pilot an on-line (via a Microsoft SharePoint site), two-year P&C List process for documenting negotiated PPG commitments. Under this approach, which continues to this day, there is an expectation that the negotiated work plan commitments will cover a two-year period absent changed circumstances, as defined below. The benefits of this approach include minimizing/eliminating the need for extensive work plan negotiations at the mid-point of a two-year cycle, with recurring commitments from year one typically carrying over into year two. This approach should also better align the priorities communicated through the NPM and individual programmatic grant guidances with the commitments and flexibilities negotiated in grant work plans. Adjustments to year-two commitments will be necessary if there are changed circumstances such as changes in Administrator/NPM priorities, revisions required by USEPA’s Annual Commitment process, a substantial reduction or increase in USEPA funding, and similar issues experienced at the state levels.
Work Plan Development Process. Starting with FFY 2016, USEPA released a two-year NPM Guidance planning process and encouraged the Regions and the States to move towards multi-year work plans. For FFY 2016 and FFY 2017, EPA Region 1 and the Region I States agreed to pilot an on-line (via a Microsoft SharePoint site), two-year P&C List process for documenting negotiated Performance Partnership Grant commitments for the time period FFY 2016 - 2017. Under this approach, there is an expectation that the negotiated work plan commitments will cover a two-year period absent changed circumstances, as defined below. The benefits of this approach include minimizing/eliminating the need for extensive work plan negotiations at the mid-point of a two-year cycle, with recurring commitments from year one typically carrying over into year two. This approach will also better align the priorities communicated through the NPM and individual programmatic grant guidances with the commitments and flexibilities negotiated in grant work plans. Adjustments to year-two commitments will be necessary if there are changed circumstances such as changes in Administrator/NPM priorities, revisions required by USEPA’s Annual Commitment process, a substantial reduction or increase in USEPA funding, and similar issues experienced at the state levels.
Work Plan Development Process. VT DEC will work with EPANE annually to develop, edit and enhance the Priorities and Commitments List (P&C) that serves as the major work plan and documented list of required programmatic deliverables under our grant. VT DEC will use the UPANE SharePoint Site to negotiate and communicate “real time” through the sharing of documents on-line. This process was used to develop the new two-year P&C List for FFY20 and FFY21. Under this approach, there is an expectation that the negotiated work plan commitments will cover a two-year period, absent changed circumstances, as defined below. The benefits of this approach include minimizing/eliminating the need for extensive work plan negotiations at the mid-point of a two- year cycle, with recurring commitments from year one typically carrying over into year two. This platform allows program staff in both organizations to communicate directly on developing the list of commitments under the PPA and related PPG. It is a dynamic tool that not only saves staff time collectively, but it also encourages stronger communication by making it easier to correspond on items such as suggesting edits, additions and deletions. Adjustments to year-two commitments will be necessary if there are changed circumstances such as changes in Administrator/NPM priorities, revisions required by USEPA’s Annual Commitment process, a substantial reduction or increase in USEPA funding, or similar issues experienced at the state levels.