Document Structure. 2.1 In general, the Agreement will consist of the following documents, whereby in the event of any inconsistency or conflict between or among provisions of the following documents, the contents of the document first listed shall have precedence and shall prevail over the documents listed later, in descending order:
Document Structure. Section 3.0 details the three opportunity analyses. Supporting information for Section 3.0 is contained in the Appendices. Appendix A contains the Minnesota wants and needs definitions, Appendix B contains the Minnesota services definitions, Appendix C contains the demand weight analysis data, and Appendix D contains the demographic analysis data. Section 4.0 details the strength relationship analysis.
Document Structure. This document is structured to capture the key conditions of the agreement in a logical order. It is understood that the agreement may be changed at any time by the mutual consent of both parties using the revision history and approval records contained in the Document Distribution, Approval and Revision History.
Document Structure. It is important to realise that an SLA, no matter how detailed, will not provide sufficient assurance for a customer to trust a service provider with their data. The approach of auditing a service provider and using an audit certificate as evidence of trustworthiness is discussed in Chapter 2 and a survey of the AV preservation community’s attitude to trust is described and the results presented. The key relationships between the service, resources, service level agreements (SLAs) and customer interactions are outlined in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 then provides the necessary background to understanding how SLAs can be managed, discussing the importance of not including objectives or constraints in an SLA that cannot be measured, proposing how to capture the necessary terms using a generic framework and outlining architectural options for measurement and management systems.
Document Structure. This document is comprised of the following chapters: Chapter 1 is the introductory section of this document.
Document Structure. The remainder of this document is structured as follows: in Section 2 we describe our approach to designing a protocol for the re-negotiation of contracts and com- pare it against other approaches. Section 3 then outlines the requirements (and non-requirements) for the protocol. Section 4 describes the assumptions made and the framework within which a re-negotiation occurs. Section 5 then specifies the protocol. The paper concludes with Section 6, which provides a summary and discusses future work.
Document Structure. This section describes the structure of the document. - Section 1 is this introduction - Section 2 describes the service components - Section 3 define the services terms and conditions of usage
Document Structure. The structure of Attachment 9-A is represented below. Field Name Description REQ ID Remedy ticket number for the Solution Request (REQ #) Summary Drop down menu value that the Authorized User selected when entering the ticket; if Service Provider entered the ticket is it free form text DIR Customer The source of the Solution Request, on an agency basis. Another field, “Affected Company,” will have the agency if the ticket was entered by someone else (usually DIR or Service Provider) Affected Company The DIR Customer affected by the REQ. This may be different than the DIR Customer field, when the ticket is entered by someone other than the DIR Customer (usually DIR or Service Provider). Submit Date Date and time ticket was entered into the Remedy system (system timestamp). Expedite Flag Expedite flag – The SDM will set this flag to "Yes" if both SDM and the DIR Customer IT Director agree it should be expedited. Solution Type Internal means a Service Provider request or Service Provider funded as included in the RU. External means a DIR Customer request or funded by HSC. Field Name Description Cat Tier 1 Set by Service Provider when REQ is evaluated; Solution Request = normal REQ; pre-RFNS = request to have DIR evaluate for RFS; RFNS = currently under discussion and evaluation as a RFNS (Service Provider sets it to this once they think it is a RFNS, even though DIR may not yet agree). Status Pending = waiting for DIR Customer; Assigned = waiting for Solution Account Manager and Architect assignment, not actively being worked; Planning in Progress = evaluating request for complete requirements and obtaining DIR Customer representative approval; Implementation in Progress = actively working the request ASGRP CSA Group = the RFNS team; Solution Design = the regular procurement team that does requests covered by HSC or RU. Request By Date Date this ticket needs to be completed by. Entered into the ticket when submitted by the DIR Customer requester. Type Standard - Intel Hardware or Software, UNIX Hardware or Software procurements (any combination) that uses DCS standard hardware configurations or software packages already in scope. (e.g. adding new Instances); Commodity – Purchase of new licenses for software already within the Agreement that a DIR Customer already uses (e.g. purchase of new SSL certificates, CALs, Database, Application Utility, WebSphere, Blackberry); Custom - A procurement that requires architecture of the hardware infrastructure, such as n...
Document Structure. Following this concept, a set of six evaluation criteria was defined in order to evaluate all use cases. They are presented in Section Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata., Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata..
Document Structure. Chapter 2 describes the design of a survey instrument for collecting data of shippers business activity and shipment routes for their typical shipments. We present data obtained by carrying out the survey in 12 corridor countries. Competitive interfaces between truck-only and rail-based transport solutions are identified, and we explain how data were used to identify barriers that hinder bigger volume shares on rail-based transport solutions. For the typical shipments the survey questionnaire included a section where the shipper was asked to rank the importance and satisfaction of 23 transport quality dimensions. In chapter 3 we present results from analyses of shippers ranking of quality dimensions and factor analysis of the quality dimensions underlying “desired level of service quality”. We present results from in-depth analyses of the effect on transit time of marginal increases of distances in different part of the transport network. Chapter 4 contains extracts of data from official statistical sources for economic importance of the REORIENT Corridor and characteristics of corridor freight flows, which are used to assess and discuss the potential that new rail services in the REORIENT Corridor could attract considerable amounts of freight from road to rail based transport solutions. Identified improvements needed for attracting freight from road to rail are presented in chapter 5. We conclude the chapter by a description of the REORIENT service concept which is designed to take into account the improvements we found necessary to attract freight from road to rail.
