OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN Sample Clauses

OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN a. Progress towards project objectives Progress towards the overall objective of creating “a learner-centred ecosystem of digital services have been satisfactory. Elements of this ecosystem can be seen in the presented framework architecture and the specific implementation of the beta pilot versions. The next period should refine the beta versions, document clearly user feedback and how it informed developments and detail how real-life integrations could occur. The first objective (to study and develop an integrated and holistic learner-centred ecosystem) is on a good way to be fully achieved. Updated deliverable D15 is well documented and presents the study related to the development of CompLeap requirements and architecture design, detailing user needs related to the current service ecosystem. Significant progress towards the second objective (to tailor the functionality of this framework so that it is suitable across Europe) has been made mainly through efforts to deploy the beta prototypes to other countries than Finland, the availability of the developed solutions as open source, efforts to map existing competences to the ESCO ontology, together with developing a case study to exploit potential synergies between CompLEAP and EUROPASS. Progress towards the third objective (to technologically build prototypes of the CompLeap ecosystem) has been satisfactory. Compared to the HTML mock-up prototypes of the first reporting period, a beta version has been released that exemplifies the use of the ecosystem. There is however more to be done in relation to piloting and refinements. It is also crucial that at least the consortium assesses how mock- up implementations can be replaced by real-life data and how much effort this entails. It is desirable though that an integration with a real-life data API is implemented during the lifetime of the project. The fourth objective (to support the deployment of the ecosystem through various professional networks) has been properly addressed in the period under review. A strong commitment and collaboration among associated partners and networks has emerged in the period under review (M12-M18) and the deployment of the framework architecture and the developed prototypes including analytics will take place in Finland, the Netherlands, Germany and some other EU-countries (through networks that are already available among the partners, i.e. innoVET via Gradia).
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN a. Progress towards project objectives The overall objective of creating “a learner-centred ecosystem of digital services and products” seems at the current state partially achieved by means of an articulated framework architecture based on international standards. The first objective (to study and develop an integrated and holistic learner-centred digitalised ecosystem) has not yet been achieved. There is work being undertaken with regards studying and learner-centered systems, however from the provided documentation and deliverables (D15) the level of achievement is not sufficient. It is also apparent that there has been work towards defining user requirements and the ecosystem architecture, that is though not well documented and presented. The second objective (to tailor the functionality of this framework so that it is suitable across Europe) is aimed to be achieved though associate partners and networks; there is however little evidence of what associate partners have contributed to the project yet. The work undertaken for achieving the third objective (to technologically build prototypes of this ecosystem) is in the mid of this reporting period; however, with regards to the development of prototypes of the ecosystem the project has still a long way to go from the current design/mock-up state that has been presented. The fourth objective is not relevant for this reporting period.
Sample 1
OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN a. Progress towards project objectives: Have the objectives for the period been achieved? In particular, has the project as a whole been making satisfactory progress in relation to the Description of Work (Annex I to the grant agreement)?:
Sample 1
OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN a. Progress towards project objectives Overall the progress towards the objectives is acceptable. The consortium made efforts to deliver a sound and tested platform for competence development. The project put more focus on developing the education recommendation system as part of their learning analytics functionality of the platform. In doing so the second functionality of competence visualisation has left out, which however is a minor deviation. In addition, actual piloting has been only performed in Finland. The consortium claims that this was base because of the limited project time available, however, it also seems that associate partners could not pull together the resources required to enable an on-site deployment. Nevertheless associate partners have been involved in discussions/presentations of the CompLeap system architecture and could capitalise on the open-sourced project results for their own local needs. Through this objective 2 (to tailor the functionality of this framework so that it is suitable across Europe) can be considered as largely achieved and objective 4 (to deploy the developed ecosystem through networks) as partly achieved.
Sample 1

Related to OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN

  • Objectives and Scope 1. The Parties confirm their joint objective of strengthening their relations by developing their political dialogue and reinforcing their cooperation.

  • Objectives The objectives of this Agreement are to:

  • Objectives of Agreement 2.1 The objectives of the Agreement are:

  • Program Objectives Implement a rigorous constructability program following The University of Texas System, Office of Facilities Planning and Construction Constructability Manual. Identify and document project cost and schedule savings (targeted costs are 5% of construction costs). Clarification of project goals, objectives.

  • Objective The performance evaluation process gives supervisors an opportunity to discuss performance goals and expectations with their employees, assess and review their performance with regard to those goals and expectations, and provide support to employees in their professional development, so that skills and abilities can be aligned with agency requirements. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to complete the employee’s evaluation.

  • Targets and Milestones Comparing the relative performance of different groups to the over or under- representation within the institution and taking into account our current performance in our Access Agreement milestones, areas for particular focus include: Low Participating Neighbourhoods; Low income groups; Target groups to include gender, disability and care leavers; Black and minority ethnic (BME) group attainment; Completion rates. As a result of the analysis of our performances, our access, success and progression interventions will concentrate on the following: Continuation of involvement in collaborative outreach activity via the KMPF and the Kent and Medway Collaborative Network (KMCNet) as part of the National Network for Collaborative Outreach (NNCO); Recognition of the importance of carefully targeted activity; The use of serial rather than one-off interventions; The importance of long-term outreach to include the whole student lifecycle; The helpfulness of Higher Education Access Tracker (HEAT) for evaluating the impact of interventions; The importance of a whole institution approach; The importance of student attendance monitoring; Ease of access to information and student welfare support; An increasing emphasis on evaluation of activities across the student lifecycle; Accessibility of employability advice and support. Given our relatively strong record to date for widening access and student success, most of the targets seek to maintain, and where possible improve, this performance within a more challenging financial environment. Such targets may be especially challenging and stretching in relation to the access of those from Low Participating Neighbourhoods (LPNs), given the demographic decline in the number of young people (aged 18-21) in the population and the University’s already high recruitment levels from these groups. We have removed the University’s NS-SEC target in response to the UK Performance Indicator Steering Group announcement that HESA will no longer be publishing the NS-SEC indicator after 2016. As we already have LPN and Household Income targets in place we shall not be replacing this target with an alternative. We have reviewed our success targets and added new progression targets for 2017. There was a concern in the institution that our internal reporting did not allow for national and regionally adjusted benchmark comparison. We have therefore made the following adjustments to our success targets: Non-continuation two years following year of entry: part-time first degree entrants – all entrants: Replacing the OFFA agreement target with the similar data from HESA allows for national benchmarking to be undertaken in order to ensure that the University is maintaining its commitment to these students. We aim to keep our non-continuation rate in this area below our HESA benchmark rate. Non-continuation following year of entry: UK domiciled full-time first degree entrants – mature entrants: Changing the target to clearly focus on mature full-time first degree students (to match the national HESA data) ensures that we focus our efforts on this section of the student population and for the outcomes to be compared with HESA benchmarks rather than internally produced data. We aim to ensure that this student population’s non-continuation rate is at or below the HESA benchmark rate by 2020/21. Non-continuation following year of entry: UK domiciled full-time first degree entrants – all entrants: In order to ensure that young students are not disadvantaged by the focus on mature entrants, the University will also commit to maintaining the overall non-continuation rate for all students at or below the HESA benchmark. BME: the University will replace the current phrasing of the target around BME success with a more explicit aim of reducing the success gap experienced by BME students. Progression: the University has added a progression target that aims to keep us around or above the sector benchmark for the Employment Indicator from the DLHE survey. Combined targets from the collaborative KMPF project (agreed by all partners) are to raise applications and subsequent conversions to higher education from within the target schools and colleges in LPNs. These targets will need to be reviewed in the coming years to reflect changes to GCSE grading in schools. Our institutional and collaborative targets are included in tables 7a and 7b respectively.

  • Development Milestones In addition to its obligations under Paragraph 7.1, LICENSEE specifically commits to achieving the following development milestones in its diligence activities under this AGREEMENT: (a) (b).

  • Project/Milestones Taxpayer provides refrigerated warehousing and logistic distribution services to clients throughout the United States. In consideration for the Credit, Taxpayer agrees to invest in a new refrigeration and distribution facility in the XxXxxxxxx Park area of Sacramento, California, and hire full-time employees (collectively, the “Project”). Further, Taxpayer agrees to satisfy the milestones as described in Exhibit A (“Milestones”) and must maintain Milestones for a minimum of three (3) taxable years thereafter. In the event Taxpayer employs more than the number of full-time employees, determined on an annual full-time equivalent basis, than required in Exhibit A, for purposes of satisfying the “Minimum Annual Salary of California Full-time Employees Hired” and the “Cumulative Average Annual Salary of California Full-time Employees Hired,” Taxpayer may use the salaries of any of the full-time employees hired within the required time period. For purposes of calculating the “Minimum Annual Salary of California Full-time Employees Hired” and the “Cumulative Average Annual Salary of California Full-time Employees Hired,” the salary of any full-time employee that is not employed by Taxpayer for the entire taxable year shall be annualized. In addition, the salary of any full-time employee hired to fill a vacated position in which a full-time employee was employed during Taxpayer’s Base Year shall be disregarded.

  • Project Specific Milestones In addition to the milestones stated in Section 212.5 of the Tariff, as applicable, during the term of this ISA, Interconnection Customer shall ensure that it meets each of the following development milestones:

  • Objectives of this Agreement The objectives of this agreement are as follows:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.