Technical Challenges Sample Clauses

The 'Technical challenges' clause defines how parties will address unforeseen technical difficulties that may arise during the execution of a contract. Typically, this clause outlines procedures for notifying the other party of a technical issue, steps for resolution, and any adjustments to timelines or deliverables that may be necessary as a result. Its core practical function is to provide a clear process for managing and resolving technical obstacles, thereby minimizing disputes and ensuring project continuity.
Technical Challenges. To facilitate the process of negotiating security SLAs with different potential service providers, to make the comparison of different service offerings simpler, and to simplify the commitment phase of the service lifecycle, there is a need for common industry standards and corresponding templates for machine-readable agreements [1]. However, there are no such templates for security SLAs available today. Establishing a security SLA is not sufficient in itself; the agreed terms need to be monitored and controlled as well. However, monitoring and controlling security terms are inherently difficult. While other QoS aspects, such as the ser- vice availability, can easily be measured and controlled by the users themselves, security tends to be more difficult to monitor. One reason is the nature of ser- vice oriented architectures, which are designed to hide the inner workings of the services from the user, exposing only their APIs to the developers. Another rea- son is that the security requirements are often stated in terms of what should not happen, making it difficult to verify that the preventive mechanisms works as intended, until a breach has already occurred. In addition, the really clever attacks often go unnoticed.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Technical Challenges. The challenge, constrained by economics and time, is to produce a finished genome sequence at a cost of under $0.10 per base at a rate of 600 Mb per year, in order to complete the genome for under $300 million dollars in a five-year period. Physical maps of the genome are now estimated to contribute less than 1 penny per base to the finished sequence cost (Lander et al., 1995) and to be nearly complete in time for the start of large scale sequencing of the human genome. This leaves $0.09 per base to go from the physical map to assembled and finished sequence. The most successful high-throughput DNA sequencing centers in the world are currently Principal Investigator/Program Director (Last, first, middle): Went, Gregory T. ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- producing C. elegans sequence from physical maps at $0.50 per finished base at a rate of 10 Mb/year (Sulston et al., 1992; Wilson et al., 1994 ). The rate and cost of sequencing complete bacterial genomes and yeast chromosomes is comparable. To meet the HGP goals, it is necessary to increase the rate of production of finished sequence 60-fold while decreasing the cost 5-fold over these current projects. The logistical concerns of genome-scale DNA sequencing are essentially those derived from the need to increase throughput and reduce cost. This can only be done by improved technology integration and automation. Historically, the introduction of fluorescent four color sequencing into the life science research market enabled the sequencing of individual clones, small contiguous regions, and, when pushed to the limits of the original technology, the sequencing of the first complete bacterial genome (Fleischmann et al., 1995). An early 4-dye commercial instrument produced by Applied Biosystems, Inc., the ABI 373, and its subsequent replacement, the 377, were not designed with the logistics of large scale genomic sequencing in mind. Specifically, these instruments were not designed to efficiently integrate into a "factory environment" consisting primarily of robotic sample handling automated within an informatics framework.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Technical Challenges. The use of RFID in the mining environment presents a number of challenges. These include read- ability due to long distances and unknown radio environment, uncertain orientation of transpon- ders, mechanical and electrical interference, and separation due to size and density. The subsec- tions below present conclusions and results on these technical challenges. The work performed in DISIRE on these matters link to work performed in the ePellet project, which was done by LTU in cooperation with LKAB. Thus, the sections below also contain results that were achieved in the frame of the ePellet project, as these to a high degree will affect the work and decisions taken in DISIRE.
View Source
Technical Challenges. 4.4.1 Use of the system in process outside the operative range
View Source
Technical Challenges. The use of RFID in the mining environment presents many challenges. These include readability due to long distances and unknown radio environment, uncertain orientation of transponders, mechanical and electrical interference, and separation due to size and density. The work performed in DISIRE on these matters link to work performed in the ePellet project, which was done by LTU in cooperation with LKAB. More details related to this work can be found in D3.1 which contains what were achieved in the frame of the ePellet project, as these to a high degree will affect the work and decisions taken in DISIRE. Tests were performed in Luleå harbour during early 2015. The tests were conducted at the location shown in Figure 17, the belt going up to “siktfickan” using a 3.D magnetic probe (Figure 18). 1. Although two RFID-anten- nas were installed at the belt the results presented in D3.1 only presents results from the an- ▇▇▇▇▇ surrounding the conveyor belt due to experimental difficulties and anunfavourably low signal level from the former. (Photograph courtesy of: ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, LTU)
View Source
Technical Challenges. Information technology together with enterprise systems and electronic commerce have supported large-scale business transformations, and forced firms to change their structures and functionality as well as their business strategies. Information technological developments help organizations in developing, capturing, storing and transforming the digital information. IT advancement makes it possible to share information within different units of organizations as well as across the organizations. But still organizations are facing problems how to share information across the supply chain. Today’s organizations have multiple information systems for multiple purposes. While facing different information related problems organizations adopt information system that is best in resolving that problem. According to [21] while implementing ERP systems, companies were forced with two approaches: 1) to change the software to fit the organization or 2) to change the organization to fit the process. Another strategy is “best of breed” approach, in which organizations adopt ERP modules from different vendors to meet their goals. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. in 2001 conducted a research on ERP and application integration. They found integration extremely difficult. They suggest that it is better to fit ERP package rather than try to customize it [22]. Many organizations go for “best of breed” approach, and as a result, many autonomous applications co-exist in companies alongside ERP. These autonomous systems use different identifiers for goods, assets and processes. Exchange of information between these autonomous systems within the organization and across supply chain is difficult in terms of formats, security, privacy, roles and semantic integration. While developing mashups developers are facing analogous challenges of deriving shared semantic meaning between heterogeneous data sets. Translation system between different dataset must be designed. During mapping reasonable assumptions have to be made (e.g. one data source have a model in which an address contains street-field, whereas another does not).
View Source
Technical Challenges. In Task 2.0, the project team will support regional deployment of CCUS programs by focusing on key technical challenges in the PCOR Partnership Initiative region related to stacked storage opportunities; storage resource potential with unconventional reservoirs; storage performance and subsurface integrity; monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) technology; and risk management . The Recipient will collaborate with various PCOR Partnership Initiative members to identify knowledge gaps and address regional challenges through targeted webinars, workshops, reports, and papers.
View Source

Related to Technical Challenges

  • Mediation Process A. Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that may be requested by the City or the PBA. It is an alternative, not a substitute for the formal arbitration process contained in Section 19.8 above. Mediation is an informal process in which a neutral third party assists the opposing parties in reaching a voluntary, negotiated resolution of a charge of discipline. The decision to mediate is completely voluntary for the PBA and the City. Mediation gives the parties the opportunity to discuss the issues raised in the charging document, clear up misunderstandings, determine the underlying interests or concerns, find areas of agreement and, ultimately, incorporate those areas of agreement into solutions. A mediator does not resolve the charge or impose a decision on the parties. Instead, the mediator helps the parties to agree on a mutually acceptable resolution. The mediation process is strictly confidential. Information disclosed during mediation will not be revealed to anyone. B. If both parties agree, a mediation session conducted by a trained and experienced mediator shall be scheduled at a mutually convenient date and time. Either party may choose to have an attorney represent them during mediation. Persons attending the mediation session shall have the authority to resolve the dispute. If mediation is unsuccessful, the parties may proceed to follow the provisions for Arbitration. Information disclosed during mediation will not be revealed to anyone. C. The parties and, if they desire, their representatives and/or attorneys, are invited to attend a mediation session. No one else may attend without the permission of the parties and the consent of the mediator(s). D. The mediator(s) will not function as the representative of either party. However, the mediator(s) may assist the parties in understanding their rights and the terms of any proposed settlement agreement. Each party acknowledges being advised to seek independent legal review prior to signing any settlement agreement. E. The parties acknowledge that the mediator(s) possesses the discretion to terminate the mediation at any time of any impasse occurs or either party or the mediator deems the case inappropriate for mediation. F. Prior to mediation, both the City and the PBA (or Employee, only in disciplinary matters) shall enter into a confidentiality agreement, as follows: 1. This is an agreement by the parties to participate in a mediation involving the City against the above named employee. The parties understand that mediation is a voluntary process, which may be terminated at any time. 2. The parties agree to participate voluntarily in mediation in an effort to resolve the charge(s) filed by the City. 3. The parties agree that all matters discussed during the mediation are confidential, unless otherwise discoverable, and cannot be used as evidence in any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding. Confidentiality, however, will not extend to threats of imminent physical harm or incidents of actual violence that occur during the mediation. 4. Any communications between the mediator(s) and/or the parties are considered dispute resolution communications with a neutral and will be kept confidential. 5. The parties agree not to subpoena the mediator(s) or compel the mediator(s) to produce any documents provided by a party in any pending or future administrative or judicial proceeding. The mediator(s) will not voluntarily testify on behalf of a party in any pending or future administrative or judicial proceeding. The parties further agree that the mediator(s) will be held harmless for any claim arising from the mediation process. 6. The parties recognize and agree that the City is subject to Chapter 119, Fla. Stat., relating to public documents. Therefore, all information including all notes, records, or documents generated during the course of the mediation shall be subject to the exemption contained in Section 119.071 (d)(1), Fla. Stats., until the settlement of the matter, or the conclusion of the arbitration, if any, with the exception of the personal notes of the mediator. 7. If a settlement is reached by all the parties, the agreement shall be reduced to writing and when signed shall be binding upon all parties to the agreement, unless the agreement requires City Commission approval, in which case the agreement will not become binding until publicly approved by the City Commission. Said agreement shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Fla. Stats. If the charge(s) is not resolved through mediation, the parties may proceed to follow the provisions for arbitration.

  • Manufacturing (a) The Supplier shall without limitation be responsible, at no additional cost to the Purchaser, for: sourcing and procuring all raw materials for the Products; obtaining all necessary approvals, permits and licenses for the manufacturing of the Products; providing sufficient qualified staff and workers to perform the obligations under this Purchase Agreement; implementing and maintaining effective inventory and production control procedures with respect to the Products; and handling other matters as reasonably requested by the Purchaser from time to time. (b) The Supplier shall not change any process, material, component, packaging or manufacturing location without the Purchaser’s express prior written approval.

  • Manufacturing Technology Transfer Except as provided in Section 4.3(f)(iii)(1) and Section 6.10, with respect to any Collaboration Product (or LGC Reserved Product, if applicable) for which LGC (or its Affiliate) performed CMC Development or CMC Manufacturing, if (a) Cue does not elect for LGC to perform CMC Step 2, CMC Step 3, or CMC Step 4 (or with respect to LGC Reserved Products, upon completion of CMC Step 1), or (b) upon failure of the Parties to reach agreement with respect to a Clinical Supply Agreement or a Commercial Supply Agreement or (c) [***] under this Agreement and does not cure such breach within [***] days (provided, that if such breach is not reasonably capable of cure within such [***] day period, then such cure period shall be automatically extended for an additional [***] day period as long as LGC continues to use diligent efforts to cure such breach in accordance with a reasonable cure plan and if such breach is not reasonably capable of cure within such combined [***] day period, then Cue shall reasonably consider consenting to any extension of such cure period as long as LGC continues to use diligent efforts to cure such breach in accordance with a reasonable cure plan), as applicable, then, in each case upon the written request of Cue, LGC shall use Commercially Reasonable Efforts to make a technology transfer to an Approved CMO the Manufacturing processes (including materials and such other information) but solely as is necessary to enable the Manufacture of such Collaboration Product (including the Collaboration Compound therein) (or LGC Reserved Product, including the LGC Reserved Compound therein, if applicable) by such Approved CMO to comparable biochemical structure, quality and purity as that Manufactured by LGC or its Affiliate or CMO, provided that neither Cue, LGC or any Third Party shall perform such a technology transfer to any CMO [***] without LGC’s consent, not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed if LGC has approved the CMO to manufacture Collaboration Products (or LGC Reserved Products, if applicable). LGC shall conduct such technology transfer as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving such written notice, using good faith efforts to support supply needed to achieve timelines in the Cue Territory Development Plan (or Cue’s development plan for LGC Reserved Products, if applicable) or Cue Territory Commercialization Plan, as applicable. LGC shall conduct the first technology transfer for each Collaboration Product (or LGC Reserved Products, if applicable) [***] (provided that [***]) for a period of up to [***] months from the date Cue or its designee has provided notice it is ready to receive the technology transfer, provided, that such [***] month period [***]. After the expiration of the initial such [***] month period for a Collaboration Product (or LGC Reserved Products, if applicable), if required to complete the technology transfer to enable the Manufacture of such Collaboration Product (including the Collaboration Compound therein) (or LGC Reserved Product, including the LGC Reserved Compound therein, if applicable) by such Approved CMO to comparable biochemical structure, quality and purity as that Manufactured by LGC, LGC shall continue to provide support to Cue for up to an additional [***] period for up to [***] hours at the FTE Rate and thereafter at [***]. Thereafter, LGC will also provide [***] for such Collaboration Product (or LGC Reserved Products, if applicable). Neither Cue nor its Affiliates or Cue Collaborators shall reverse engineer any materials provided hereunder by LGC. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, LGC’s CMC information may only be shared with an Approved CMO.

  • Negotiation and Mediation If either party serves written notice of a Dispute upon the other party (a “Dispute Notice”), the parties will first attempt to resolve the Dispute by direct discussions between representatives of the parties who have authority to settle the Dispute. In the event the Dispute is not resolved within 15 days by the initial representatives to whom the matter is referred, the Dispute will be escalated for resolution to the CFO of each party. If the parties agree, they may also attempt to resolve the Dispute through mediation administered by a mutually agreed upon mediator.

  • Sustainable Development 4.1 The Authority will review the Contractor’s Sustainable Development Policy Statement and Sustainable Development Plan submitted by the Contractor in accordance with the Schedule (Sustainable Development Requirements) and then at least annually thereafter. 4.2 Sustainable Procurement Risk Assessment Methodology (SPRAM) is a tool used by the Authority to identify and mitigate any potential risks to sustainability in contracts. The process requires that each Contract be assessed for its potential social, economic and environmental risks, throughout the various stages of its lifetime. Where risks are identified, appropriate mitigation action is required to reduce or eliminate the risk to sustainability. The Authority may at times require input from the Contractor in order to ensure that this process is given the required levels of consideration.