The implementation and growth of Health & Wellness programs has become a very hot topic for companies seeking to obtain maximum returns on their health investment dollars. According to a 2011 PwC Health and Well-being Touchstone Survey of approximately 1,700 companies, 73% reported offering wellness programs to eligible employees. 1 However, the big question in this platform is not figuring out what to implement, but how to measure what has been implemented. According to a National Business Group on Health and Fidelity Investments survey, “only one-third of employers have measurablegoals/targets for their health improvement programs, and 59% of employers don’t know their return on investment (ROI).” 2 In order to ensure an effective design and implementation of health and wellness programs, it is important to establish a practical measuring system that can accurately track its performance and evaluate its results.
Achievement of Personal Development Goals During Prior Period – These are the measurablegoals and targets agreed upon during the last performance evaluation and a comparison to actual results. Examples of personal development goals could include completion of an education/training program, becoming a member of a professional association or increasing the number of association meetings attended, improvement of an evaluation rating for a particular “ personal trait/behavior, ” etc. Personal Development Goals for Next Period – These are the goals, measures and
Effective goals and objectives are written in measurable terms. This means that someone else could read this goal and know specifically what the learning team wanted a student to achieve or demonstrate. Measuring something means performing an action of some type. For example, to measure someone’s weight, that person must stand on a scale; to measure how fast an individual can run means having the individual actually run a certain distance and time that individual’s performance. Two important questions to keep in mind when writing measurablegoals and objectives are “What do we want this student to be able to do?” and “How will we know that the student has accomplished this?”
He considered strategy formulation as a key for strategy implementation. In his case, managers of the company do not have much intention to change strategy because their strategy is way too long, more visionary formulated and abstract so that employees do not even know where to start. Therefore the company focuses on making the best of their core competencies, which works really well. But when they feel the need for changing strategy, the first thing he would do is “making strategy short-term oriented and setting measurablegoals”. “People have to get concrete aims and action plans to follow and they have to be able to see progress,” he added. Going on to his companies’ approach to strategy formulation he would outline it like this: “A team of managers regularly analyses the market to recognize changes and trends, which results in a creation of an action plan and a set of measurable aims. Then the action plan needs to be realized. While implementing the new strategy, managers review the outcomes and adjust actions in order to reduce the number of errors in strategic change.”
Goal setting theory asserts that people with specific and challenging goals perform better than those without clear and measurablegoals which will improve performance. An agency theory relationship exists when individuals/stakeholders (principals) hire others (agents) to delegate responsibilities to them where incentives play a fundamental role in terms of self- interest/utility function in wealth and leisure. Thus, public administrators tend to use this framework which are imposed on them from the hierarchy within their systems.
The proof of Theorem 1.1 by Laczkovich directly relies on the Axiom of Choice in a crucial way. Thus the pieces that he obtains need not be mea- surable. Laczkovich [15, Section 10] writes: “The problem whether or not the circle can be squared with measurable pieces seems to be the most interesting.” This problem remained open until now, although some modifications of it were resolved. Henle and Wagon (see [38, Theorem 9.3]) showed that, for any ε > 0, one can square a circle with Borel pieces if one is allowed to use similarities of the plane with scaling factor between 1 − ε and 1 + ε. Pieces can be made even more regular if some larger class of maps can be used (such as arbitrary similarities or affine maps), see e.g. [11, 31, 32, 33]. Also, if countably many pieces are allowed, then a simple measure exhaustion argument shows that, up to a nullset, one can square a circle with measurable pieces (see [3, Theorem 41] or [38, Theorem 11.26]); the error nullset can be then eliminated by e.g. applying Theorem 1.1.
It is interesting to compare the proofs and results in the current paper and  as both give, for example, a Lebesgue measurable version of Hilbert’s third problem. In terms of methods, both papers share the same general ap- proach of reducing the problem to finding a measurable matching in a certain infinite bipartite graph G = (A, B, E), once we have agreed on the exact set of isometries to be used. Like here, the paper  constructs a sequence of measurable matchings (M i ) i∈ N satisfying (13) and (14), and then defines M
Status: Complete. The Measurable Goal was met through modification of standard County contract language. Three major contract terms were revised during Year 1. Each belongs to the County’s General Services Department, which provides broad services for all departments countywide.. They include (1) the contract for all janitorial related activities, (2) contract for fleet vehicle washing, and (3) general contract terms for all development managed by the County Architect. The General Services Department is committed to protecting water quality through the implementation of Best Management Practice standards in the construction and operations of county facilities.
As previously stated applying the balanced scorecard method requires alignment with the high-level organizational goals and strategies. Senior management at company XYZ has clearly articulated and disseminated these goals. Within these organizational goals, an effort was made to gather usage and impact measures available to the competitive intelligence department. Special care was made to select measurements that could be collected over time in order to glean cause and effect relationships. The CI department of this case study is relatively new and some measurements will serve as benchmark
is a space of real-valued measurable functions, defined on a nonempty set Ω, in which we can give a natural generalization of the topology of convergence in measure using a group pseudonorm which depends on a submeasure defined on the power set ᏼ(Ω) of Ω (see [6, 7] and the references given there). In the second section of this note we study rearrangements of functions of the space L 0 . The rearrangements belong to the space
At present there is no conclusive explanation of 3D perception in the absence of measurable stereo-acuity. However, we observe three key differences between 3D entertainment media and clinical stereotests. First, the artistic/monocular/pictorial cues in the image can cause monocular stereopsis, the illusion of depth from a flat image. Second, moving images provide additional monocular and stereoscopic motion cues. Third, the 3D display technology itself, the methods of 3D presenta- tion, generate both supraliminal and subliminal artefacts. Depth can be identified through a number of pictorial cues such as linear perspective, relative size, texture gradient, height in the visual field, aerial perspective (blur), occlusion, lighting and shadow. 16 While pictorial
For the rest of the paper, (Ω, Σ, µ) is assumed to be a finite measure space, E is a order continuous K¨ othe function space over (Ω, Σ, µ). At first we introduce the kind of measurable bundles of Banach spaces, which we need. Liftable mea- surable bundle of Banach spaces X over (Ω, Σ, µ) is said to have a Generalized M-basis or GM-basis for short if there is a family (ϕ i , ϕ ⋆ i ) i∈I measurable section,
Recall that a line field µ is a measurable Beltrami differential on C ˆ such that | µ | = 1 on a set E of positive measure and µ vanishes elsewhere. The set E is the support of µ. A line field is holomorphic on an open set U if µ = ¯ φ/ | φ | a.e. for φ a holomorphic quadratic differential on U. A line field µ is called (f-)invariant if f ∗ (µ) = µ a.e. We say that f carries an invariant line field on the Julia set if there is an f -invariant line field µ with a support contained in its Julia set (up to a set of measure zero).