WSP09344 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e ll.l Li.5'i ~ ::; / Take the third (or next) area and compare it to the one at the bottom of the list. If the new one has a higher priority than the bottom one, move up the list and compare it with the next higher one. Continue this process until the new one has a lesser priority than the one it is being compared with. It is then inserted in the list just below the one to which it lost. Continue step 2 until all areas appear on the list. Ties are allowed and should be so noted. T his is just one suggested process. There are many others that could be used. This process is called a rank ordering process and gives a different priority to each area (except in the case of a tie). A:IClther approach is that of priority grouping. In this process three priority levels are selected and then by comparison or some criteria process, each of the areas is assigned to either the first, second, or third priority group. The areas assigned to each group take on the priority of that group. In this process, it is usually necessary to fix some ground rule to force an approximately equal nUITlber. of areas to each group. It is important to remember that the priorities established in each region are strictly internal and will not be compared to the priorities of any other region. There will be a National Priority Analysis, but this will be done by a national team using the basic effects information developed for each problem and groups of problems comprising level B area. Sub -activity 17 - During this sub-activity a report of the Regional Sponsors' involvement in the 1975 Water Assessment will be written and prepared for regionwide review. A general annotated outline is prodded in Appendix D for Regio,nl Sponsor consideration. The Sbldy Director, assisted by his staff Dr a small work group (part of Group A) should be respo!lsible [')r thi" sub-o.ctivity.