Ranking process

The ranking process is an important part of deciding an appraisal programme, since the activities should aim to reduce the uncertainty in those parameters which have the most impact on the range of uncertainty in HCIIP or UR. 

The issue identification and ranking process was conducted for all of the firms in the study, and an individual firm report was prepared for each Quad for all industry groupings. Each Quad report contained results for the four firm types (Winner, Tumbler, Climber, and Eoser) summarized in eight tables, where tables 1 and 2 refer to firm type 1, 3 and 4 to firm type 2, and so on. Each table was followed by a brief summary of the conclusions that could be drawn concerning the... 

Strict numerical site rankings should be considered only as approximations of site characteristics and geologic expertise should be substituted where appropriate. The system described here requires knowledgeable decisions to be made for each of the "presumed effects" and the ranking process should be done by an individual with hydrogeologic background. 

Goal Rank process factors (main effects)... 

RSM is able to capture the knowledge that the decision-maker has of his/her process in a very straightforward manner. However, the main limitation of RSM is its reliance on the decision-maker s ranking of a very small set of solutions selected from the Pareto domain. Some of the issues associated with the generation of ranking rules and the subsequent ranking process are summarized below. 

When the values of a particular criterion associated with two solutions contained in the expert s ranked data set are close to each other, ranking of the two solutions will invariably not be based on this particular criterion. This situation may lead to a rule that will not be significant for that criterion and which may subsequently bias the final ranking process. There exist a few approaches to partly alleviate this problem ... 

In Table 12.6-1, nine statements are given that can be used to characterize [he seperaiion desired. The numbers of the statements that are true are then used in the matrix given in Table 12.6-2. Encountering a "No1 for any true statement under a given process eliminates that process from consideration a process having all "Yeses" woold deserve stroag consideration. Entries other than "Yes" or "No provide a way of ranking processes if more than ona process seems to be a possibility, Below are several examples to illustrate the use of [he tables. 

Implementation of control measures and further studies on selected chemicals as indicated by the ranking process. 

The Panel believes that process safety in BP s refining operations would benefit from BP s designation of a high-ranking process safety leader who will participate consistently in important refining decision-making that affects process safety performance. 

To sum up this peer comparison and percentile ranking process (the BASIC Score), the higher this number, the worse the carrier or driver looks when compared to the peers. The worse a carrier or driver looks, the more likely they are to see an intervention. 

Separate from the Tenure process is the Promotion process. Most TT faculty members go through three large rank processes Assistant Professor (first 6 years before tenure). Associate Professor (years 6-12 after tenure), and Full Professor (years 12 and beyond). Relatively few professors make... 

The result of an SLRA is a list of potential hazardous events that could occur at that facility, aU ranked using a risk matrix (made up of frequency and consequence components), based on the experience and knowledge of the analysts undertaking the assessment. The ranking process involves assigning each hazardous event to an appropriate frequency and consequence elass. 

To use the JSA/JHA program effectively, a method must be established to select and prioritize the jobs to be analyzed. The jobs mnst be ranked in the order of greatest accident potential. Jobs with the highest risks shonld be analyzed first. Workers and supervisors may or may not be involved with the ranking process, but if asked to rank or prioritize jobs to be analyzed, the following criteria shonld be used ... 

Tciitiet profile (quality, safety, efficacy) COA riefiliitioii (critical quality attributes) Risk assessment (rank process parameters)... 

Where the ranking process, described above, identifies facilihes that warrant an assessment in greater depth, one of the techniques described below should be used ... 

Factor Weightings, FWx. Each factor that emerges from the ranking process is calibrated by assigning values from one (1) to one hundred (100), as seen in Fig. 19.9d.The 1 factors are easy to manufacture, and the 100 factors are impossible today but may only be very difficult in a few years. 

Often it is helpful to assess current and future states graphically. As can be seen in Chart 2.8, the current state is in red (a ranking of 3.9) and the future state is in yellow (a ranking of 7.1) (See web version to view colors.). This ranking process clearly delineates where we are now and where we project ourselves to be in the future. We are now ready to develop a strategy for the future, which will be covered in the next section of this chapter. 

Tables A15-A19 report the first to fifth ranked processes and Tables A20-A24 report the sixth to tenth ranked processes. These repeat the format of the major injury tables.

---