Feedback group

We recruited eight participants for the research. Four were assigned to the observation group and four to the feedback group. The setting and procedures for this study were identical to those of the study described above, with the exception... 

Figure 27.5. Safety performance for feedback group participant.

The seminar was attended by the secretary of CEN/TC138. Tlie representativity of the working groups was satisfactory, since 6 out of 8 were represented. Feedback was received from several working groups and taken into account in the final draft. 

The R D function itself will be organized from company to company in very different ways. In some firms, the responsibiUty for innovation will be broadly shared and a distinct R D unit may cease to exist. In others, technical developments from an R D lab will be the principal source of innovation for the business. In still others, the primary task of the R D or technology group will be to obtain technology from outside the firm. Those involved in R D will need to make certain that their knowledge and talents impact the business irrespective of their precise function. The innovation process will become less linear (Fig. 8) as more feedback loops, technology transfer, and cooperative efforts are involved. 

Some effective team structures distinguish between a core group and a standing advisory group. This can be helpful in assuring consistent feedback from key people (such as facility-based safety experts) who may be unable to participate in regular working sessions but whose input and endorsement will be critical to success. 

The first stage is to group together operations that are likely to be influenced by the same PIFs. The four operations in the above set all involve physical actions for which there is no immediate feedback when incorrectly performed. Two of the operations, 4.1.3 and 4.4.2 are noted in Figure 5.8 as having significant consequences if they occur. It is legitimate to assume therefore, that the error probability will be determined by the same set of PIFs for all the operations in this set. 

A third reason is that Gibbs made no effort to promote or popularize his results. He seems to have been a solitary, self-contained, and self-sufficient thinker, confident in his ability, who worked at his own unhurried pace, neither needing nor wanting feedback from others. An attitude of detachment from the work of his students plus his own solitary habit of work is undoubtedly responsible for the fact that Gibbs founded no school or group of students to develop his ideas and exploit his discoveries. 

The primary indicator of acceptable performance is the quality of the product delivered by the mixer. Although there is no direct way to measure this indicator, feedback from the quality assurance group should be used to verify that acceptable performance levels are attained. 

Independent facilitators also have a role to play in conducting review sessions where groups of menfors (and somefimes menfees) meef fogefher to consider the feedback. The sessions help parficipanfs fo develop fheir menforing competence, and gafher suggesfions for improvemenfs fo fhe program. 

A further insight is that the best workflow depends on a combination of factors that can in many cases be expressed in closed mathematical form, allowing very rapid graphical feedback to users of what then becomes a visualization rather than a stochastic simulation tool. This particular approach is effective for simple binary comparisons of methods (e.g., use of in vitro alone vs. in silico as prefilter to in vitro). It can also be extended to evaluation of conditional sequencing for groups of compounds, using an extension of the sentinel approach [24]. 

I have reported this last example not for the sake of completeness in our discussion, but to underline a different point. Quantum chemistry, in the work of CTOup 1 and even more in the work of group II, put the emphasis on some properties which by tradition are not object of direct experimental determination. Electron charge distribution and MEP arejust two examples. The use of these quantities by theoreticians has spurred the elaboration of experimental methods able to measure them. This positive feedback between theory and experiment is an indication that quantum and experimental chemistry do not live in separate worlds. 

The effectiveness of interventions of an educational nature, with requisites such as group discussion and ongoing feedback has been demonstrated in such a wide range of countries as Australia, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, the UK and the USA. 

---