The Geospatial Line of Business National Geospatial Advisory Committee June 3, 2008 1 Program An Overview of the Common Solution/Target Architecture Ivan B. DeLoatch Staff Director, Federal Geographic Data Committee Managing Partner, Geo LOB An Overview of the 2006 and 2007 Data Calls for Federal Geospatial Investment Activity Michael T. Thieme On Detail to USGS Lifecycle Management Work Group A presentation on A-16 Themes for NGAC Wendy Blake-Coleman US EPA 2 Geospatial Line of Business
An Overview of the Common Solution/Target Architecture Ivan B. DeLoatch Staff Director, Federal Geographic Data Committee 3 The Problem Geospatial information supports multiple mission requirements: national security, homeland security, law enforcement, health care, environment, natural resources, etc. Over 25 Federal departments and agencies independently collect or produce geospatial information, or invest in potentially duplicative geospatial capabilities Despite the prevalence of geospatial information, there continues to be room for improvement in the planning and coordination of geospatial activities and procurement at the Federal level 4 Geospatial LoB Vision and Goals
Vision The Nations interests are served, and the core missions of Federal agencies and their partners are met, through the effective and efficient development, provision, and interoperability of geospatial data and services. Goals 1. Productive intergovernmental collaboration for geospatial-related activities and investments across all sectors and levels of government. 2. Optimized and standardized common geospatial functions, services, and processes that are responsive to customers 3. Cost efficient acquisition, processing, and access to geospatial data and information 5 Request for Information The LOB Task Force released a Request For Information (RFI) in April 2006. Responses from business, government, non-profits, and vendors were received May 2006 Themes from responses to the RFI: Need for a comprehensive national strategy to optimize spatial data activities Improved, multi-mission, service delivery capability
Cost savings through acquisition and labor cost avoidance Enhanced performance accountability and compliance mechanisms Task Force used RFI input in development of the Geospatial Common Solutions and Target Architecture document 6 Concept of Operations Governance Bodies define, abide by Users Budget Guidance, Policy, Mandates, Business Requirements, Portfolio Management Data Providers
Governance make decisions with business-driven applications using controls disposition of Geospatial Assets Services Citizens gain access to integrated government through provide access to, broker, enable discovery of, enhance, link, support applications on, develop knowledgebased products from
Human Capital Data and Business Information provide, update, stage select, coordinate, integrate Data Stewards oversee lifecycle of, accountable for 7 Common Solutions Map Geospatial LoB Vision
THE NATIONS INTERESTS ARE SERVED, AND THE CORE MISSIONS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THEIR PARTNERS ARE MET, THROUGH THE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT, PROVISION, AND INTEROPERABILITY OF GEOSPATIAL DATA AND SERVICES. GOALS PRODUCTIVE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COLLABORATION FOR GEOSPATIAL-RELATED ACTIVITIES AND COST EFFICIENT ACQUISITION, PROCESSING, AND INVESTMENTS ACROSS ALL SECTORS AND LEVELS OF ACCESS TO GEOSPATIAL DATA AND INFORMATION GOVERNMENT INEFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES UNDERDEVELOPED COST AVOIDANCE STRATEGY AND COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS OBJECTIVES
TO IMPROVE GOVERNANCE PROCESSES AND RESULTS IN ALIGNMENT WITH COMMON GEOSPATIAL SOLUTIONS TO IDENTIFY, EVALUATE AND IMPLEMENT COMMON GEOSPATIAL SERVICES, PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICES TO ENHANCE COORDINATION ACROSS GEOSPATIAL COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS ENHANCED GOVERNANCE IMPLEMENT PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS OBJECTIVES TO COORDINATE GEOSPATIAL REQUIREMENTS AND CAPABILITIES TO IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSOLIDATE GEOSPATIAL ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES TO ENHANCE LOB-WIDE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT GEOSPATIAL REQUIREMENTS LANGUAGE FOR FEDERAL GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
COMMON SOLUTION TRACKS PLANNING & INVESTMENT STRATEGY DEVELOP COORDINATED BUDGET PLANNING, ACQUISITION AND LABOR COST AVOIDANCE OPTIMIZED AND STANDARDIZED COMMON GEOSPATIAL FUNCTIONS, SERVICES, AND PROCESSES THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO CUSTOMERS INEFFECTIVE MULTI-MISSION SERVICE DELIVERY CAPABILITY OBJECTIVES TO IMPLEMENT GUIDANCE PROVIDED THROUGH THE FEA GEOSPATIAL PROFILE TO ADOPT, DEPLOY AND PROMOTE EFFECTIVE USE OF GEOSPATIAL INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS TO ESTABLISH AN LOB-WIDE BUSINESS ARCHITECTURE FOR COMMON FUNCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION OPTIMIZE & STANDARDIZE DATA & SERVICES SHARED AND REUSABLE GEOSPATIAL AND
GEO-ENABLED BUSINESS DATA AND SERVICES 8 Common Solution Framework Enhanced Governance re sp ac on co sib un ilit defi ta ies ne bi l i t an s y d fo de r fin e as se
ts fo r Implement Performance Accountability and Compliance Mechanisms of im pr o ve s fr am es eff e an d
ct iv en es s im pl e m en t s enforces coordinated lifecycle for Optimize & Standardize Shared and Reusable Geospatial and Geoenabled Business Data and Services asset base for coordinated use
Planning & Investment Strategy Coordinated Budget Planning, Acquisition, and Labor Cost Avoidance 9 Solution Components How Solution Track Enhanced Governance The National Geospatial Advisory Committee Council (FACA) (FACA) What Provide advice and recommendations on national geospatial policies and priorities
Designated Data Steward Agencies Outcome Ensure Enhanced responsibility & accountability Performance Accountability & for key Compliance datasets Mechanisms Conduct LoB business requirements planning, portfolio and performance management
functions Geospatial LoB PMO FGDC Secretariat Provide executive leadership Ensure accountability Manage responsibilities FGDC Steering Committee Sr. Agency Official for Geospatial Information (SAOGI) 10 Solution Components Governance Strategy Stakeholder Communities States, Local, County, Regional and Commercial Data and Service Producers
and Consumers National Geospatial Geospatial National AdvisoryCommittee Council Advisory Communications Coordination & Collaboration DOI/FGDC Chair Federal Execution Governs Member of Provide Executive Leadership Ensure Accountability
Manage Responsibilities SAOGI FGDC Steering Committee Coordinates FGDC Coordination Group Assists with GEO support for Geospatial LoB PMO M a n a g e s
Managed Geo - Assets Coordinates With Provide Business Requirements Requirements / Planning FGDC Secretariat Programs Agency CIO FGDC Work Groups Manages (Fed. and Non-Fed.) Agency Capital Planning Federal Programs (Geo Data Producers
and Consumers) GeoServices Portfolio Submission/Compliance Reporting OMB (Budget and Approves Agency Management FEAPMO) Stewards A-16 + Data of National Significance SLAs, MOUs, Contracts Security and
Privacy Architecture/ Standards Investments Performance and Quality Policy 11 Solution Components Solution Track Planning & Investment Strategy How Implement Cross-Agency Standardization and Investment Strategies What
Business Requirements Planning Establish BPAs and leverage SmartBuy for high priority data and services Implement Outcome Coordinated Government- Develop & Execute Portfolio Coordinate budget planning wide Management Aquisition & cost avoidance Geospatial Strategy Portfolio Who Management PMO Track Geospatial Expenditures
Develop Geospatial Budget Coding Structure 12 Solution Components Solution Track Optimize & Standardize Data and Services How Define Geospatial LoB Resource Requirements What Reduce Unnecessary Redundancies Identify and Implement Interoperability Standards & Best Practices Share
Services & Assets Outcome Shared Geo Business Data and Services Who PMO Geo-enable Business & Operational Data Establish Geo Data Coding Service Provide Discovery & Access Brokering Services Enhance GOS and Related
Government-wide Tools 13 Key Benefits Summary Solution Track Enhanced Governance Clarified performance responsibilities and accountability Establishment of a more collaborative and performance oriented culture Solution Track Planning & Investment Strategy Multi-mission delivery capabilities More effective investments through increased sharing and reuse Nationally significant data managed as a Federal portfolio Solution Track
Optimize & Standardize Data and Services Better service to agencies and citizens through increased functionality and more coordinated access to geospatial information Improved data, services and tools 14 Target Architecture Approach The Target Architecture was derived from analyzing the vision, goals, and objectives, which provided the high-level business requirements The Concept of Operations (ConOps) provides the business process framework The common solutions partition the architecture into technology-driven, data-driven, and people-driven aspects The RFI responses provided stakeholder perspectives on driving requirements and architecture principles 15
Target Performance Architecture The Performance Architecture establishes a set of measures and indicators to determine how successful the implementation of the common solution will be Based upon the vision, goals and objectives Establishes an initial set of FEA Performance Reference Model (PRM) measures and indicators Provides guidance to the other layers of the Target Architecture Informs the Joint Business Case
Provides the means to monitor the success of the planned benefits in relation to their actual achieved performance 16 Target Business Architecture The purpose of Target Business Architecture is to help Enterprise Architects map LoB and agency geospatial investments to business activities (functions, subfunctions and processes). This will enable individual geospatial investments (whether, within an agency, cross-agency, or LoB-wide) to be assessed or aligned with business needs Some 50% of the Business Reference Model (BRM) mappings reported by the Federal government have the potential for business enhancement through geospatial data services 17 Target Service Component Architecture The purpose of Target Service Component Architecture is
to provide an organizing framework that describes how geospatial capabilities fit into an interoperable service architecture. Can help to geo-enable business data that have not been typically used in geospatial analysis so they may be more readily used in a geographic context for business purposes Will help Architects to identify how to map unique geospatial functions to the FEA Service Components Reference Model, thus enabling service component-level alignment of geospatial capability within the agencys enterprise architecture Helps to link geospatial capability to geospatial services needed 18 Target Technology Architecture The Target Technology Architecture maps the functions of the GeoLOB Concept of Operations to the
FEA Technical Reference Model (TRM) Promotes widespread use of government-wide acquisition vehicles, such as SmarBUY, to realize cost savings and to support open consensus-based interoperability standards Supports the capability for data providers to more readily make their assets accessible to the broadest user community The Common Services Work Group is involved with realizing the Target Technology Architecture 19 Target Data Architecture The Target Data Architecture outlines a Conceptual target architecture that will enable the widespread adoption of shared and reusable geospatial and geoenabled business data and services
Will be further elaborated as the operational phases of the Geospatial LoB progress Sets forth principles by which various data sets are stewarded and used by the Nation Proposes guidelines for how geospatial data should be defined, structured, and documented to facilitate efficient discovery, sharing, and reuse The Data Lifecycle Management Work Group is involved with realizing the Target Data Architecture 20 Current Approach to Implementation Seven active Work Groups Common Services
Evaluates and expands cross-agency procurement opportunities related to geospatial service and data sharing Geo-Enabled Business Assist federal program managers and executives to identify their geo-enabled business needs, capabilities, and opportunities Grants & Contracts Joint Business Case Lifecycle Management Performance Management Technical Architecture Develops common grants language for geospatial information and services as well as for Federal geospatial contracts Aligns the Joint Business Case to the Geospatial Line of Business including: agency contributions, tasks, and task modifications Evaluates existing geospatial data lifecycle frameworks and develops standard processes for improved lifecycle management Provides the mechanism for reporting and accountability within the Geo LoB to foster the completion of objectives
Develops geospatial requirements and recommendations for technology and telecommunications infrastructure 21 22 Geospatial Line of Business An Overview of the 2006 and 2007 Data Calls for Federal Geospatial Investment Activity Michael Thieme On Detail to USGS 23 Background The GeoLOB conducted three data calls to collect data on geospatial investments and activities across the federal government 2006 Broad-focus quantitative data call Intended to help inform writing of the CS/TA
2007 Limited focus quantitative data call Geospatial Data and Services Priorities Survey a qualitative data call on OMB Circular A-16 priorities 24 2006 25 2006 Approach Conducted April - June of 2006 and covered the years 2005 to 2007 Requested cost data and information about lifecycle-stage (e.g., development stage, or steady state project) Used a broad approach asking for information about: OMB Circular A-16 data theme (e.g., Cadastral, Transportation, Vegetation, Wetlands, etc.) Investment Type (Hardware, Software, Data, Services, and Other) Geospatial Capability (e.g., Feature Server, Geocoder, GIS Server, Mapping Client, etc.) 26
2006 Desired Outcomes Gain awareness of the investments individual agencies were making in geospatial-related activities and capabilities Use results to inform the writing of the Geo LOB Common Solution/Target Architecture document Identify areas of opportunity for improvement 27 2006 Level of Investment 2006 Geospatial Data Call Summary $900.0 811.6 748.7 3 Year Total: $2.33 Billion 768.6 $800.0 $700.0
Sub-Total $748.7 $811.6 $768.6 DME = Development, Modernization, or Enhancement; SS = Steady State 28 2006 Key Findings The Federal government financed directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, $2.33 Billion over a three year period (FY 2005 FY 2007) in spatial data and geographic information systems activities Level of geospatial investment was relatively consistent year over year for the three year reporting period Forty six percent (46%) of agencies reported a three year average of less than one million ($1M) per year in geospatial activities.
29 2006 Key Findings A high degree of unnecessarily redundant investment types was not readily apparent in comparison with other Lines of Business (e.g., Human Resource or Financial Mgmt. LOBs) OMB Circular A-16 Lead agencies are majority investors in the geodetic control, elevation, transportation, and hydrography nationally significant data themes OMB Circular A-16 Lead agencies are not the majority investor in orthoimagery, cadastral, and governmental units nationally significant data themes 30 2006 Issues 20% of all reported investments did not specify the investment type as directed 49% of all reported investments did not specify the GIS, or location-based data theme as directed 37% of all reported investments did not specify the service component (or capability) provided by the investment as directed These issues limited our ability to readily identify
opportunities for LoB collaboration across like data themes, along with our ability to see LoB-wide enterprise architecture capabilities 31 Lessons Learned from 2006 Across government, we should enhance the capability to report geospatial investments and activities in an accurate, consistent, and less burdensome way. Without standard definitions and consistent agency reporting, information obtained from data calls of this sort will remain difficult to capture, be non-conclusive, and have limited utility. The focus of the 2006 data call was likely too broad. Future data calls should narrow the focus and concentrate on priority data sets. Despite data call issues, we saw that the federal government could possibly realize potential cost savings by leveraging SmartBuy or other aggregate purchasing programs. 32 2007 33 2007 Call for Geospatial Data
Conducted April - June of 2007 and covered the years 2007 to 2009 (2009 data are not included here predecisional) limited the focus of the request to specific datasets within A-16 data themes that contain the highest amount of investment activity or show the highest potential for interagency collaboration Collected Quantitative data about services, data, and licensing agreements Collected Qualitative data regarding specific OMB Circular A-16 data sets and priorities for future investments 34 2007 Desired Outcomes Through lessons learned from the 2006 data call, the Geospatial LoB developed a reporting approach designed to: Develop a more accurate and targeted A-16 investment baseline. Capture current data related to future Federal enterprise data and services priorities. Capture additional data/service attribute requirements for high priority datasets. Highlight and prioritize current and future common capability requirements. Develop a better understanding of how agencies use A-16 data and services to meet mission requirements
35 2007 Desired Outcomes The desired outcomes to be realized by following this approach include: Consistent, accurate and less burdensome baseline investment reporting. Enhanced ROI analysis capability for future joint business case development activities. Electronic record of geospatial activities for future analysis. Prioritized A-16 data theme business activity patterns. 36 2007 Level of Investment SubTotal, Data, FY 2007 Geospatial Data Call Results for Selected Data sets Total Reported Investments $1.26 B Total in 2007 and 2008 SubTotal, $660
BY 2008 Services $110.43 $129.61 Data $491.50 $530.33 SubTotal $601.93 $659.94 $- BY 2009
37 2007 Key Findings The level of geospatial investment was relatively consistent for the three year reporting period. Fifty two percent (52%) of agencies reported a three year average of less than one million ($1M) per year in selected geospatial data and services investments As in 2006, a high degree of redundant investment types was not readily apparent in comparison with other LoB initiatives 38 2007 Key Findings A-16 Lead federal agencies are the majority investor in their respective data themes 50% of the time. When the A-16 lead federal agency is not the majority investor, 50% of the time USDA is the majority investor. DHS, DOC, DOI, and USDA investments, when combined, total over 90% of total reported selected federal geospatial data and services investments, and these agencies are lead federal agencies for 87% of the
data themes within the scope of the 2007 geospatial investment reporting request. 39 Cost Data Issues Gathering data on geospatial investment relies almost completely on agency self reporting. Additionally, there are few geospatial investment mechanisms in federal financial and acquisition systems that allow for a reliable and accurate automated accounting of geospatial investment. The current designation of a geospatial investment as either Information Technology (IT) or Non-IT can have variable and arbitrary impact on whether the investment is included in a data call exercise such as this one. 40 Qualitative Data Call The Geospatial Data and Services Priorities Survey was designed to obtain a better understanding of agency business activities and how agencies use selected OMB Circular A-16 data to meet their business and/or mission requirements. Data sets selected for review were believed to potentially yield the highest
opportunity for better coordination and collaboration toward satisfying agency requirements. Each agency was asked to identify specific data themes as Mission Critical, Very Important, Important, Somewhat Important or Not Important in meeting their business requirements in 2009. 41 Qualitative Data Call Government Units (State, County, Municipal, Tribal and/or Congressional Boundaries) received the most Mission Critical responses with eight agencies; Transportation (Street/Road Network) received seven Mission Critical responses. Eleven agencies ranked Near Shore Bathymetry as Not Important to meeting their business requirements much to the dismay of Bathymetry enthusiasts. Additional handout on qualitative data results by theme is available. 42 Lessons Learned DHS, DOC, DOI, and USDA account for the majority of federal civilian investments in geospatial products and services. Agencies
who are majority investors in geospatial data and services should coordinate and align NSDI execution strategies and strive to find commonality across data acquisition and collection investment types. Lead federal agency assignments and framework data classifications should be re-evaluated. Several agencies have data theme lead assignments that are disproportionate to their level of funding to support those assignments. 43 Lessons Learned There is a clear need to implement geospatial investment coding mechanisms in federal financial and acquisition systems that allow for a reliable and accurate automated accounting of geospatial investment. It may be more effective to work on influencing lead federal agency NSDI Strategic Plans and promoting a more developed portfolio management capability than to conduct further investment
analyses of agency reported investments until further investment coding mechanisms are in place. 44 45 Lifecycle Management Work Group A presentation on A-16 Themes for NGAC by Wendy Blake-Coleman US EPA 46 Briefing Purpose Summarize challenges/opportunities with existing OMB Circular A-16 document and processes Review issues being addressed by the Geospatial LOB Lifecycle Management Work Group
Discuss Work Group products and timeline Discuss NGAC feedback on selected Work Group products in Fall 2008 47 Concerns with Current A-16 Processes and Requirements Critical data often are not available for business processes in timeframe necessary, or not available at all Geographic data approach in A-16 should be better aligned with business process approaches (e.g. FEA) which have emerged since 2002 Long timeframes to complete national data sets can lead to duplicative efforts, decreased performance, and increased costs Inconsistent A-16 portfolio management and reporting limits the ability to evaluate completion schedules and cost of A-16 themes and datasets Need for improved communication and coordination across
multiple programs, initiatives, and stakeholders 48 Lifecycle Management Work Group Activities Evaluating as-is state of OMB Circular A-16 and impact on theme/dataset portfolio management Definitions Management and reporting requirements Scope Developing strategy to improve A-16 portfolio management Providing more precise operational definitions Defining nationally significant themes/datasets Creating criteria to add, delete, or consolidate themes/datasets Incorporating lifecycle management practices into portfolio management Identifying opportunities for efficient data development 49
Lifecycle Management Work Group Activities Developing recommendations for supplemental guidance for implementation of A-16 portfolio management and reporting More robust definitions Clearer roles and responsibilities More consistent reporting process As appropriate, changes to Appendix E: NSDI Data Themes, Definitions, and Lead Agencies Recommending to FGDC Coordination Group a set of procedures to: Track and evaluate progress for completing the NSDI Make recommendations on: Priorities for cross government partnerships Management or composition of themes/data sets under OMB Circular A-16 More efficient data development 50 Lifecycle Management Work Group Structure Lifecycle Management Work Group 30 members from 10 Federal Departments and Independent Agencies Work Group Lead: Wendy Blake-Coleman, EPA
Includes representatives from agencies that are both geospatial data-producers and geospatial data-users Work Group includes three sub-groups OMB Circular A-16 Definitions: Dennis Crow, USDA, Lead Lifecycle: Jeff Booth, DOE, Co-lead Theme Content: Michael Lee, USGS/DHS, and David LaBranche, DOD, Co-Leads 51 Process Flow for Lifecycle Management Work Group 2008 Deliverables & Activities 52 52 OMB Circular A-16 Subgroup Products 2008 Common geospatial terms lexicon Provides subgroups with a common terminology Needed due to definitional inconsistencies across
federal efforts/agencies Consolidates commonly used terms from key Federal initiatives Derived from: OMB Circular A-16, OMB Circular A-130, Homeland Security Sector Plans, FEA Geospatial Profile, Geospatial One-Stop Updated definitions of OMB Circular A-16 terms, roles, and responsibilities 53 OMB Circular A-16 Subgroup Products OMB A-16 Circular portfolio management flow chart Description of linkages between OMB Circular A-16 themes and key federal program activities e.g., FGDC working groups and subcommittees Geospatial One-Stop channels Sector Plans mandated by 12/17/03 Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-7) Federal Enterprise Architecture Models and Profiles Recommendations for improved agency annual reporting processes 54 Example of As Is Analysis
Linkage of OMB Circular A-16 Themes to FGDC Committees and GOS Channels 55 Lifecycle Subgroup Products 2008 Comprehensive definition of geospatial data lifecycle phases Identification of candidate data lifecycle best management practices 2009 and out-years Use data lifecycle model to: Assess potential for more efficient data development Evaluate common services for data access and production 56 Theme Content Subgroup Products
2008 Recommendation on best practice for aligning Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7) geospatial data requirements with OMB Circular A-16 geospatial data themes and theme leadership roles and responsibilities Recommendation for criteria to assess designation of nationally significant themes/data sets, and determine authoritative data sources and clarify stewardship roles 2008/2009 Develop a documented process to add, delete, or modify OMB circular A-16 themes 2009 and Beyond Develop recommendations to FGDC Coordination Group for specific theme changes to OMB Circular A-16 57
Next Steps in 2008 June/July 2008 - Complete first round of draft products Summer 2008- Geo LOB will convene an A-16 theme lead meeting to review draft recommendations and products Summer 2008 Provide products to FGDC Coordination Group for review Summer 2008- Provide products to FGDC Steering Committee for review Late Summer 2008 - Provide input on annual agency A-16 Theme Status Report to FGDC Secretariat
Fall 2008- Solicit Feedback from NGAC on selected workgroup products December 2008 Complete supplemental OMB Circular A-16 Guidance 58 Summary of Lifecycle Management Workgroup Products in the Fall of 2008 Common Geospatial Terms Lexicon Updated definitions of OMB Circular A-16 terms, roles, and responsibilities
Criteria to assess designation of nationally significant themes/data sets Comprehensive definition of geospatial data lifecycle phases Candidate data lifecycle best management practices Documented process to add, delete, or modify OMB circular A-16 themes Best practice for aligning HSPD-7 geospatial data requirements with OMB Circular A-16 geospatial data themes and theme leadership roles and responsibilities 59 60
Toto točivé magnetické pole statoru protíná vodiče v drážkách magnetického obvodu rotoru a indukuje v nich napětí. Vinutím rotoru začne procházet proud, a působením magnetického pole statoru na vodiče rotoru, kterými protéká proud, jsou jednotlivé vodiče z magnetického pole vytlačovány...
Arial MS Pゴシック Symbol Wingdings Default Design Visio 2000 Drawing Slide 1 Manchester carry adder Manchester carry chains Equivalence circuits for Manchester carry chain Carry skip adder Carry-skip adder Carry-lookahead adder Carry-select adder II.
Previous Research. Modernisation theory (Inglehart 1977, 1990) suggests that each younger cohort should be more liberal than previous cothorts . However, Curtice (2009) argues that the Thatcherite project was actually completed by Blair; there is a lot of evidence on...
Other funders include the United States, Canada, UK, Japan, the European Union, Kuwait's Arab Fund and the Islamic Development Bank Education_050627_part1_Revision Source: Ministry of Education; ERfKE Draft Aide Memoire, March 2005, World Bank Jordan Education Initiative (JEI) Education_050627_part1_Revision Source: Social...
Income and Expense Analysis When converting periodic income into a lump-sum value estimate, you can estimate value from: 1. PGI using a PGI multiplier 2. EGI using an EGI multiplier 3. NOI using a capitalization rate 4. Equity income using...
Card Stacking (Semantic Slanting) Advertisers change the way they say something to make it sound more positive. They may twist their language so that their message is said in a way that puts them in a better light. On this...
Types of Energy mechanical chemical electrical heat nuclear radiant The heat released when gasoline burns is associated with a decrease in its chemical potential energy. The new substances formed by burning have less chemical potential energy than the gasoline and...
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!