Some reflections about P2M : the place of the mirror

The purpose of this paper is to provide some insights about P2M, and more specifically, to develop some thoughts about Project Management seen as a Mirror, a place for reflection…, between the Mission of organisation and its actual creation of Values (with s: a source of value for people, organisations and society). This place is the realm of complexity, of interactions between multiple variables, each of them having a specific time horizon and occupying a specific place, playing a specific role. Before developing this paper I would like to borrow to my colleague and friend, Professor Ohara, the following, part of a paper going to be presented at IPMA World Congress, in New Delhi later this year in November 2005. “P2M is the Japanese version of project & program management, which is the first standard guide for education and certification developed in 2001. A specific finding of P2M is characterized by “mission driven management of projects” or a program which harness complexity of problem solving observed in the interface between technical system and business model.” (Ohara, 2005, IPMA Conference, New Delhi) “The term of “mission” is a key word in the field of corporate strategy, where it expresses raison d’être or “value of business”. It is more specifically used for expressing “the client needs” in terms of a strategic business unit. The concept of mission is deemed to be a useful tool to share essential content of value and needs in message for complex project.” (Ohara, 2005, IPMA Conference, New Delhi) “Mission is considered as a significant “metamodel representation” by several reasons. First, it represents multiple values for aspiration. The central objective of mission initiative is profiling of ideality in the future from reality, which all stakeholders are glad to accept and share. Second, it shall be within a stretch of efforts, and not beyond or outside of the realization. Though it looks like unique, it has to depict a solid foundation. The pragmatic sense of equilibrium between innovation and adaptation is required for the mission. Third, it shall imply a rough sketch for solution to critical issues for problems in reality.” (Ohara, 2005, IPMA Conference, New Delhi) “Project modeling” idea has been introduced in P2M program management. A package of three project models of “scheme”, “system” and “service” are given as a reference type program. (Ohara, 2005, IPMA Conference, New Delhi) If these quotes apply to P2M, they are fully congruent with the results of the research undertaken and the resulting meta-model & meta-method developed by the CIMAP, ESC Lille Research Centre in Project & Program Management, since the 80’s. The paper starts by questioning the common Project Management (PM) paradigm. Then discussing the concept of Project, it argues that an alternative epistemological position should be taken to capture Page 2 / 11 the very nature of the PM field. Based on this, a development about “the need of modelling to understand” is proposed grounded on two theoretical roots. This leads to the conclusion that, in order to enables this modelling, a standard approach is necessary, but should be understood under the perspective of the Theory of Convention in order to facilitate a situational and contextual application.

Envisaging alternatives for practice : a study into the way concepts of sustain-ability can be explored within an interactive media arts practice

This practice-led study explores different ways the subject of sustain-ability can be addressed within an Interactive Media Arts practice. The exploration encompasses three creative projects, Charmed, Distracted and e. Menura superba. Grounded in an ecological philosophy inspired by vegetarianism and the critical design philosophy of defuturing, the work shows how such a philosophical position can guide the redirection of practice. The concern for sustain-ability within my practice, and more generally the question of Interactive Media Arts and sustain-ability, I refer to as a problématique. The objective of this study is not one of finding an answer or a truth to an instrumentally posed question, but to explore the complexities of the problématique through a program of practice and intellectual investigation. The aim being to redirect my practice and to find a renewed raison d’être for practice through a process of opening up, encountering, and discovering otherwise unknown possibilities for practice. In the context of sustain-ability, this opening up of possibilities can be considered a form of futuring. A futuring I argue is only possible if the things we take for granted as integral aspects of our being, practices and life worlds, are revealed in ways that estrange them, rendering them visible in ways that allow questioning and change.

Sensors for missions

An onboard payload may be seen in most instances as the “Raison d’Etre” for a UAV. It will define its capabilities, usability and hence market value. Large and medium UAV payloads exhibit significant differences in size and computing capability when compared with small UAVs. The latter have stringent size, weight, and power requirements, typically referred as SWaP, while the former still exhibit endless appetite for compute capability. The tendency for this type of UAVs (Global Hawk, Hunter, Fire Scout, etc.) is to increase payload density and hence processing capability. An example of this approach is the Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout helicopter, which has a modular payload architecture that incorporates off-the-shelf components. Regardless of the UAV size and capabilities, advances in miniaturization of electronics are enabling the replacement of multiprocessing, power-hungry general-purpose processors for more integrated and compact electronics (e.g., FPGAs). Payloads play a significant role in the quality of ISR (intelligent, surveillance, and reconnaissance) data, and also in how quick that information can be delivered to the end user. At a high level, payloads are important enablers of greater mission autonomy, which is the ultimate aim in every UAV. This section describes common payload sensors and introduces two examples cases in which onboard payloads were used to solve real-world problems. A collision avoidance payload based on electro optical (EO) sensors is first introduced, followed by a remote sensing application for power line inspection and vegetation management.

Free-riding, cooperation, and 'peaceful revolutions' in copyright

Modern copyright law is based on the inescapable assumption that users, given the choice, will free-ride rather than pay for access. In fact, many consumers of cultural works – music, books, films, games, and other works – fundamentally want to support their production. It turns out that humans are motivated to support cultural production not only by extrinsic incentives, but also by social norms of fairness and reciprocity. This article explains how producers across the creative industries have used this insight to develop increasingly sophisticated business models that rely on voluntary payments (including pay-what-you-want schemes) to fund their costs of production. The recognition that users are not always free-riders suggests that current policy approaches to copyright are fundamentally flawed. Because social norms are so important in consumer motivations, the perceived unfairness of the current copyright system undermines the willingness of people to pay for access to cultural goods. While recent copyright reform debate has focused on creating stronger deterrence through enforcement, increasing the perceived fairness and legitimacy of copyright law is likely to be much more effective. The fact that users will sometimes willingly support cultural production also challenges the economic raison d'être of copyright law. This article demonstrates how 'peaceful revolutions' are flipping conventional copyright models and encouraging free-riding through combining incentives and prosocial norms. Because they provide a means to support production without limiting the dissemination of knowledge and culture, there is good reason to believe that these commons-based systems of cultural production can be more efficient, more fair, and more conducive to human flourishing than conventional copyright systems. This article explains what we know about free-riding so far and what work remains to be done to understand the viability and importance of cooperative systems in funding cultural production.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.