Proposed framework. In this section, the authors present their proposed framework for the audit of RCM data in industrial systems. The framework replaces the TTP typically involved in these systems with a permissioned blockchain architecture, leaving data producers/data owners (providers), data users (consumers), and SC as the key actors in the system. Figure 2 illustrates this change; Figure 2 (a) shows a typical trust arrangement that would apply in a none DLT-based RCM network; in this case all parties must trust that the other producing/consuming parties will honour their obligations under the agreement defining the distribution of system costs; the TTP reviews local financial cost assessments provided by the other actors in order to confirm adherence to the applicable terms. This process will henceforth be referred to as “local cost monitoring.” As the local cost monitoring of both providers and consumers is dependent on the data they report, even with the TTP in place there is no guarantee of strict adherence to the terms of the contractual agreements between the parties. As an example of the requirement for trust, consider the Quality of Service (QoS) criteria placed on a data provider. Honest providers could choose to comply with the terms of the signed agreement and offer the requested level of service that they initially advertised; this would result in an estimated cost calculation for the data as delivered and an associated attribution of the cost to the consumer. The consumer, on the other hand, will have their own interpretation of the quality of the service they have received; this may tally with that of the provider, or may be impacted by external factors such as network latency resulting in a different view of the fair attribution of the cost from the consumer’s side. To reinforce their point of view, both parties will provide evidence, but as there is no confidence between them, there will be no trust in the correctness of their evidence. The presence of the TTP goes some way to mediating these issues but still requires that the evidence as presented by the provider and consumer is fundamentally accurate, or that the TTP can identify when that evidence is incorrect and (ideally) who is in error. By comparison, the relationships and trust between actors required in the proposed framework are shown in Figure 2 (b). A trust relationship between the provider and the customer is no longer necessary, although both sides do need to trust the DLT and the SCs that im...
Proposed framework. It is proposed that the service will be delivered through one team, managed by the Heritage Manager at MCC retaining the existing team positions and structure for MCC with the addition of the one new fixed term post. The existing team Leader Economy and Strategic Regeneration (Post E) will also provide additional resource for the Heritage Service as set out below: A team structure is set out in Appendix A.
Proposed framework. It is proposed that the service will be delivered through one team, managed by the Heritage Manager at MCC. A team structure is set out in Appendix A.
Proposed framework. The below table illustrates a proposal for a new distribution framework for STA Population-Based funds.
Proposed framework. It is proposed that the service will be delivered by MCC managed by the Heritage Manager at MCC. Only the CADW nominated officers as identified above to authorise Listed Building Consents under the CADW scheme of delegation: 9 COMMITMENT
