Hi Mark,   
      
   On Sun 2012-Jan-01 09:53, Mark Hofmann (1:261/1304) wrote to Richard Webb:   
      
      
      
   RW> Maybe  but then, I've seen the opposite being the case too.   
   RW> The independent for profit folks want to keep a study going   
   RW> because that's more dough rolling in.  One of those damned   
   RW> if ya do damned if ya don't type of things.  Either way, the key to me is   
   RW> peer review.   
      
      
   MH> Peer review is a good thing.     
      
   MH> Often the government awards contracts that seem to go on forever.    
   MH> They have that luxury to do these things when you don't have to   
   MH> worry about a budget like the rest of us.     
   MH> I would have an outline with strict requirements, goals, timeline,   
   MH> and results.  Failure to meet those would result in a forfeit of   
   MH> payment.   
      
   Indeed, timetables, performance goals defined, all that good stuff.  They're   
   part of the process imho.  .   
      
   Regards,   
              Richard   
   ---   
    * Origin:  (1:116/901)