ccs mag - issue 23

ISSUE 23 | JULY 2012 | www.pliroforiki.org

ŒÎ‰ÔÛË ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˘ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Publication of the Cyprus Computer Society

ISSN 1450-152X

REPROTOOL - RE-ENGINEERINGACADEMIC CURRICULUM USINGLEARNING OUTCOMES, ECTSAND BOLOGNA PROCESSCONCEPTS p.21

AGAIN FROM THE SCRATCH:DIALOGUE AND GENUINEINTERACTION IN ONLINE (ANDOFFLINE) LEARNINGCOMMUNITIES p.30

THE POSITIVE EFFECTOF CO-LOCATINGPROJECT TEAMS FORSOFTWAREDEVELOPMENT p.13

π‰ÈÔÎÙ‹ÙË˜∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi˜ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜

¢ÈÂ‡ı˘ÓÛË:ºÏˆÚ›ÓË˜ 11, City Forum, 3Ô˜ fiÚÔÊÔ˜,°Ú. 303, 1065 §Â˘ÎˆÛ›·

Δ£ 270381641 §Â˘ÎˆÛ›·∫‡ÚÔ˜

ΔËÏ.: 22 460680º·Í: 22 [email protected]

™˘ÓÙ·ÎÙÈÎ‹ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹°È¿ÓÓÔ˜ ∞ÏÂÙÚ¿ÚË˜∫˘ÚÈ¿ÎÔ˜ E. °ÂˆÚÁ›Ô˘∫ˆÓÛÙ·ÓÙ›ÓÔ˜ º·ÓÔ˘Ú›Ô˘ª›Óˆ˜ °ÂˆÚÁ¿ÎË˜¶·Ó›ÎÔ˜ ª·ÛÔ‡Ú·˜º›ÏÈÔ˜ ¶ÂÏÂÙÈ¤˜

ÀÔ‚ÔÏ¤˜ ÕÚıÚˆÓwww.pliroforiki.org

∂ÈÌ¤ÏÂÈ· - ¢È·ÊËÌ›ÛÂÈ˜ÃÚÈÛÙ›Ó· ¶··ÌÈÏÙÈ¿‰Ô˘ΔËÏ.: 22 [email protected]

∂ÈÌ¤ÏÂÈ· - ™ÂÏ›‰ˆÛË - ∂ÍÒÊ˘ÏÏÔ[email protected]

∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi˜ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ISSN 1450-152X

ΠΕΡΙΕΧΟΜΕΝΑCONTENTS

ISSUE 23 - JULY 2012Δ∂ÀÃ√™ 23 - π√À§π√™ 2012

02 ªH¡Àª∞ ™À¡Δ∞∫Δπ∫H™ ∂¶πΔƒ√¶H™

07 Δ∞ ¡E∞ ª∞™

10 Stu – Fi∞ÓÙÚ¤·˜ ¶·ÓÙÂÏ‹

13 THE POSITIVE EFFECT OF CO-LOCATING PROJECT TEAMS FORSOFTWARE DEVELOPMENTDinos Konis

21 REPROTOOL - RE-ENGINEERING ACADEMIC CURRICULUM USINGLEARNING OUTCOMES, ECTS AND BOLOGNA PROCESS CONCEPTSPouyioutas, P., Gjermundrød, H., and Dionysiou, I.

30 AGAIN FROM THE SCRATCH: DIALOGUE AND GENUINEINTERACTION IN ONLINE (AND OFFLINE) LEARNING COMMUNITIESOrestis Tringides

36 A SEMI-AUTOMATED PATIENT SPECIFIC COMPUTATIONAL FLUIDAND PARTICLE DYNAMICS ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK FOR BIOFLUIDSIMULATIONSMakris E., Pilou M., Neofytou P.,Tsangaris S. & Housiadas C.

52 DO YOU KNOW THIS PLACE?Dr Philippos Peleties

www.pliroforiki.org | 1

46 A SUBJECT-SPECIFIC COMPUTER SIMULATION MODEL OFTHE ONE-HANDED BACKHAND GROUNDSTROKE INTENNISMark A. King, Jonathan A. Glynn & Sean R. Mitchell

ªH¡Àª∞ ™À¡Δ∞∫Δπ∫H™ ∂¶πΔƒ√¶H™

Είναι δύσκολο να πιστέψω πως µας τους έφερε η θάλασσα τηςΚερύνειας είναι δύσκολο να πιστέψω,πως µας τους έφερε η αγαπηµένη θάλασσατης Κερύνειας...

Ανασήκωσε την πλάτηκι απόσεισέ τους Πενταδάχτυλέ µου,ανασήκωσε την πλάτη κι απόσεισέ τους.

Κώστας Μόντης, "Πικραινόµενος εν εαυτώ"1975

∞Á·ËÙÔ› Ê›ÏÔÈ Î·È Ê›ÏÂ˜,

∂π™∞°ø°∏ªÈ· ∫ÈÓ¤˙ÈÎË ·ÚÔÈÌ›· / Â˘¯‹ Ï¤ÂÈ «Ì·Î¿ÚÈ Ó· ÌËÓ ˙‹ÛÂÈ˜ ÛÂÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓÙÂ˜ Î·ÈÚÔ‡˜» ÁÈ·Ù› ÔÈ ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓÙÂ˜ Î·ÈÚÔ›ÂÌÂÚÈ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÚÔÎÏ‹ÛÂÈ˜ ÙˆÓ ÔÔ›ˆÓ Ë ¤Î‚·ÛË˜ ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·ÈÚÔ‰È·ÁÚ·ÌÌ¤ÓË. Œ¯Ô˘ÌÂ ÙÔ ıÏÈ‚ÂÚfi ÚÔÓfiÌÈÔ Ó·ÚÔÂ‰ÚÂ‡Ô˘ÌÂ ÁÈ· ÚÒÙË ÊÔÚ¿ ÙË˜ ∂∂ ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ ÂÍ¿ÌËÓÔ Î·È Ó·¤¯Ô˘ÌÂ Ù·˘Ùfi¯ÚÔÓ· Î·Ù·Ê‡ÁÂÈ ÛÙËÓ ΔÚfiÈÎ· ( ∂˘Úˆ·˚Î‹∂ÈÙÚÔ‹, ∂˘Úˆ·˚Î‹ ∫ÂÓÙÚÈÎ‹ ΔÚ¿Â˙· Î·È ¢ÈÂıÓ¤˜¡ÔÌÈÛÌ·ÙÈÎfi Δ·ÌÂ›Ô) ÁÈ· Ó· Ì·˜ ¯ÚËÌ·ÙÔ‰ÔÙ‹ÛÂÈ Î·È Ó· ÂÈÏ‡ÛÂÈ,ˆ˜ ·fi ÌË¯·Ó‹˜ ıÂfi˜, Ù· ‰È·¯ÚÔÓÈÎ¿ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ÙË˜ ∫˘ÚÈ·Î‹˜ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜. ΔÔ ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚÔ Úfi‚ÏËÌ· ·fi ·˘Ù‹Ó ÙËÓ ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍËÂ›Ó·È fiÙÈ Ë ∫‡ÚÔ˜ ı· ˘Ô¯ÚÂˆıÂ› Ó· ·Ú·‰ÒÛÂÈ Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÙË˜Î˘ÚÈ·Ú¯›·˜ ÙË˜ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ·fi ÌË¯·Ó‹˜ ıÂÔ‡˜, ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÂÙ·›ÚÔ˘˜ Î·ÈÊ˘ÛÈÎ¿ ÛÙÔ ¢ÈÂıÓ¤˜ ¡ÔÌÈÛÌ·ÙÈÎfi Δ·ÌÂ›Ô.

∂Î ÙÔ˘ ·ÔÙÂÏ¤ÛÌ·ÙÔ˜ Ô‡ÙÂ Î·È ÙÔ ∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ÌÔÓÙ¤ÏÔ ‰Ô˘ÏÂ‡ÂÈÁÈ· ·˘Ùfi Î·È Ù· ÙÂÚ¿ÛÙÈ· ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¿ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· Ô˘·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›˙Ô˘Ó ÔÈ ¯ÒÚÂ˜ Ì¤ÏË ÙË˜ ∂˘Úˆ˙ÒÓË˜. ∂ÍÂÏÈÎÙÈÎ¿ ÔÈËÁ¤ÙÂ˜ ÙË˜ ∂∂ ı· Û˘ÓÂÈ‰ËÙÔÔÈ‹ÛÔ˘Ó fiÙÈ ÁÈ· Ó· ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ‹ÛÂÈ Ë∂∂ ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ¿ÚÍÂÈ ÂÌ‚¿ı˘ÓÛË, ÌÂ ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚË ÂÓÔÔ›ËÛË

Î·È ÂÓ›Û¯˘ÛË ÙˆÓ ıÂÛÌÒÓ, ÂÓÈ·›· ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹, ÓÔÌÈÛÌ·ÙÈÎ‹ Î·È‰ËÌÔÛÈÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹ Î·È ÂÓÈ·›· ÂÔÙÂ›· ÙˆÓ ÙÚ·Â˙ÒÓ, ÁÈ·Ù›ÔÈ ÙÚ¿Â˙Â˜ Â›Ó·È ¤Ó·˜ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfi˜ ·Ú¿ÁÔÓÙ·˜ ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ÁÈ· Ó· ·Ê‹ÓÂÙ·È ÛÙÈ˜ ‰˘Ó¿ÌÂÈ˜ ÙË˜ ·ÁÔÚ¿˜. μÂ‚·›ˆ˜ ÌÈ· ÈÔ·ÈÚÂÙÈÎ‹ ¿Ô„Ë Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Î·Ù·ÚÁËıÂ› ÙÔ ∂˘ÚÒ, ÙÔÔÔ›Ô ‹Ù·Ó ¤Ó· Ï¿ıÔ˜ ÂÍ’ ·Ú¯‹˜ Î·ıÒ˜ ‰ÂÓ ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈÓÔÌÈÛÌ·ÙÈÎ‹ ¤ÓˆÛË ¯ˆÚ›˜ ‰ËÌÔÛÈÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ¤ÓˆÛË Î·È ÔÈ ¯ÒÚÂ˜Ì¤ÏË ÙË˜ ∂˘Úˆ˙ÒÓË˜ Ó· Â·Ó¤ÏıÔ˘Ó ÛÙ· ÂıÓÈÎ¿ ÙÔ˘˜ ÓÔÌ›ÛÌ·Ù·.ªÂ ÙÔ ¤Ó· ‹ ÙÔÓ ¿ÏÏÔ ÙÚfiÔ Ë ∂∂ ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ·ÎÔÏÔ˘ı‹ÛÂÈÙËÓ ÔÚÂ›· ÙË˜ ∏¶∞ ÒÛÙÂ Ë suis generis Û˘ÓÔÌÔÛÔÓ‰›· Ó·ÌÂÙ·ÙÚ·Â› ÛÂ ÌÈ·˜ ÌÔÚÊ‹˜ ÔÌÔÛÔÓ‰›·.

¶¤Ú·Ó ·˘ÙÒÓ ÙˆÓ ·Ú¯ÈÎÒÓ ÛÎ¤„ÂˆÓ ÙÔ ·ÚfiÓ Ì‹Ó˘Ì· ı··Û¯ÔÏËıÂ› (·) ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›· Ë ÔÚÂ›· ÙË˜ ÔÔ›·˜ ÂËÚÂ¿˙ÂÈ·ÚÓËÙÈÎ¿ fiÏÔ˘˜ Ì·˜, (‚) ÙËÓ ÂÊ·ÚÌÔÁ‹ ÙË˜ ·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ·˜Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›·˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ACTA (Á) ÙËÓ ÎÔÈÏ¿‰· ÛÈÏÈÎfiÓË˜ ÛÙÈ˜ ∏¶∞ Î·ÈÊ˘ÛÈÎ¿ (‰) ÙË ıÂÌ·ÙÔÏÔÁ›· ÙË˜ ¤Î‰ÔÛË˜.

IT IS THE ECONOMY STUPID Δ· ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ÙË˜ ∫˘ÚÈ·Î‹˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ Ù· ÔÔ›· ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó·Û˘ÓÔ„ÈÛıÔ‡Ó ÛÙ· ·ÎfiÏÔ˘ı·: (·) ‰ËÌÔÛÈÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ·ÓÈÛÔÚÚÔ›·ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÂÛfi‰ˆÓ Î·È ÂÍfi‰ˆÓ, (‚) ÂÈÙ·ÎÙÈÎ‹ ·Ó¿ÁÎË ÁÈ·‰È·ÚıÚˆÙÈÎ¤˜ ·ÏÏ·Á¤˜ ÛÙËÓ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·, ÛÙËÓ ÂÚÁ·Û›· Î·È ÛÙÈ˜·ÌÔÈ‚¤˜, (Á) ¯·ÌËÏ‹ ·Ú·ÁˆÁÈÎfiÙËÙ· Î·È Î·Ù’ Â¤ÎÙ·ÛË·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· Î·È (‰) ‰ËÌÔÁÚ·ÊÈÎfi Î·È Û˘ÓÙ·ÍÈÔ‰ÔÙÈÎfi, Â›Ó·ÈÂ˘Ú¤ˆ˜ ÁÓˆÛÙ¿ Î·È ÂÓÒ ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ ÔÌÔÊˆÓ›· ˆ˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙË‰È¿ÁÓˆÛË, ÔÈ ÚÔÙÂÈÓfiÌÂÓÂ˜ ıÂÚ·Â›Â˜ Â›Ó·È ‰ÈÈÛÙ¿ÌÂÓÂ˜ Î·È‰ÂÓ ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎ‹ ı¤ÏËÛË ÁÈ· ÙË Ï‹„Ë ‰ÈÔÚıˆÙÈÎÒÓÌ¤ÙÚˆÓ ÂÎ Ì¤ÚÔ˘˜ ÙˆÓ ÔÏÈÙÈÎÒÓ ËÁÂÛÈÒÓ Î·È ÙˆÓ ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎÒÓÂÙ·›ÚˆÓ.

ΔÔ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎfi ÌÔÓÙ¤ÏÔ ÙË˜ ∫‡ÚÔ˘ fiˆ˜ ÎÙ›ÛÙËÎÂ ÙËÓ ‰ÂÎ·ÂÙ›·ÙÔ˘ 1960 Î·È ·¤‰ˆÛÂ Ù· Ì¤ÁÈÛÙ· ¤¯ÂÈ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ Î·ÈÚfi ÍÂÂÚ·ÛÙÂ›·ÏÏ¿ ÂÌÂ›˜ ÚÔÙÈÌÔ‡Û·ÌÂ Ó· ÈÛÙÂ‡Ô˘ÌÂ fiÙÈ ı· ‹Ù·Ó ÁÈ· ¿ÓÙ·ÂÎÂ›, ÙÔ Â›¯·ÌÂ ‰Â‰ÔÌ¤ÓÔ Î·È ·ÁÓÔÔ‡Û·ÌÂ fiÙÈ Ô‡ÌÂ ÛÂ ¤Ó· ¤ÓÙÔÓ·

πÔ‡ÏÈÔ˜ 2012

2 | www.pliroforiki.org

‰˘Ó·ÌÈÎfi, ·ÁÎfiÛÌÈÔ ÂÚÈ‚¿ÏÏÔÓ fiÔ˘ ÙÔ ÎÔ˘ÎÔ‡ÏÈ ÛÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô˙Ô‡Û·ÌÂ ‰ÂÓ ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡ÛÂ Ó· Ì·˜ ÚÔÛÙ·ÙÂ‡ÂÈ ÂÛ·Â›. ŒÙÛÈ ÙÂÏÈÎ¿Û˘Ó·ıÚÔÈÛÙ‹Î·ÌÂ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙˆÓ ¿ÏÏˆÓ ÎÚ·ÙÒÓ ÌÂÏÒÓ ÙÔ˘∂˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡ ÓfiÙÔ˘ ÙË˜ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜, ÙË˜ ¶ÔÚÙÔÁ·Ï›·˜, ÙË˜ πÛ·Ó›·˜,ÂÓ Ì¤ÚÂÈ ÙË˜ πÙ·Ï›·˜ (Î·È ÙË˜ πÚÏ·Ó‰›·˜, ÌÂ ¤ÓÙÔÓ· ÓfiÙÈ·¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎ¿) Ô˘ ÂÈ‚Â‚·ÈÒÛ·ÌÂ Ù· ‚fiÚÂÈ· ÛÙÂÚÂfiÙ˘· ÁÈ·ÙÔ˘˜ ÙÂÌ¤ÏË‰Â˜ ÙÔ˘ ÓfiÙÔ˘ Ô˘ Í¤ÚÔ˘Ó ÌfiÓÔ Ó· ‰È·ÛÎÂ‰¿˙Ô˘Ó,Ó· ·ÔÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ ÛÈ¤ÛÙ· ÙÔ˘˜ ÌÂÙ¿ ·fi ¤Ó· ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔÌÂÛËÌÂÚÈ·Ófi Î·È Ó· ˙Ô˘Ó ¤Ú· ·fi ÙÈ˜ ‰˘Ó·ÙfiÙËÙÂ˜ ÙÔ˘˜.

¶·Ú·ÛÙ·ÙÈÎ¿ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÔ˘ÌÂ fiÙÈ Ù· ÓÔÈÎÔÎ˘ÚÈ¿ ÛÙËÓ ∫‡ÚÔ¯ÚˆÛÙÔ‡Ó ÛÙÈ˜ ΔÚ¿Â˙Â˜ ÂÚ›Ô˘ 23,5 ‰ÈÛ. Â˘ÚÒ Î·È ÔÈÂÈ¯ÂÈÚ‹ÛÂÈ˜ ¿ÏÏ· 27,5 ‰ÈÛ. ™Â fiÙÈ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÛÙ· ÓÔÈÎÔÎ˘ÚÈ¿, Ù·Û˘ÓÔÏÈÎ¿ ÙÔ˘˜ ‰¿ÓÂÈ· ·ÁÁ›˙Ô˘Ó ÙÔ 132% ÙÔ˘ ∞∂¶ ÙË˜ ¯ÒÚ·˜,ÂÓÒ ÛÙËÓ ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË ÙˆÓ ÂÈ¯ÂÈÚ‹ÛÂˆÓ, ÙÔ ·ÓÙ›ÛÙÔÈ¯Ô ÔÛÔÛÙfi,ÍÂÂÚÓ¿ ÙÔ 150%. √ Û˘ÓÔÏÈÎfi˜ ‰·ÓÂÈÛÌfi˜ ÙÔ˘ È‰ÈˆÙÈÎÔ‡ ÙÔÌ¤·,Â›Ó·È Û¯Â‰fiÓ ÙÚÈÏ¿ÛÈÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ∞∂¶. √ ÏÂÏÔÁÈÛÌ¤ÓÔ˜ ‰·ÓÂÈÛÌfi˜Â›Ó·È Î·Ïfi˜ Î·È ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· Û˘Ì‚¿ÏÂÈ ÛÙËÓ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË Î·È Â˘ËÌÂÚ›·ÌÈ·˜ ¯ÒÚ·˜. øÛÙfiÛÔ, fiÙ·Ó Ù· ÏÔÁÈÎ¿ fiÚÈ· ÍÂÂÚÓÈÔ‡ÓÙ·È, ÙfiÙÂ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡ÓÙ·È ÙÂÚ¿ÛÙÈÔÈ Î›Ó‰˘ÓÔÈ. ∫·È ÂÌÂ›˜, ‰˘ÛÙ˘¯Ò˜, ¤¯Ô˘ÌÂÍÂÂÚ¿ÛÂÈ Î·Ù¿ ÔÏ‡, Ù· ÏÔÁÈÎ¿ fiÚÈ·. ¶·Ú·‰fiÍˆ˜ ÔÈ ·ÓÙ›ÛÙÔÈ¯ÔÈ·ÚÈıÌÔ› ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ∂ÏÏ¿‰· Â›Ó·È ÔÏ‡ ÈÔ ¯·ÌËÏÔ› Î·È ÛÂ ÏÔÁÈÎ¿Â›Â‰·. ΔÔ Úfi‚ÏËÌ· ÂÎÂ› ·Ú·Ì¤ÓÂÈ Ë ‰˘Ó·ÙfiÙËÙ· ÙÔ˘ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜ Ó· ‰È·¯ÂÈÚÈÛÙÂ› ÙÔÓ ∫˘‚ÂÚÓËÙÈÎfi ‰·ÓÂÈÛÌfi ·Ú¿ ÙÔ ‡„Ô˜ÙÔ˘ ¯Ú¤Ô˘˜. ∞ÓÙ›ÛÙÔÈ¯Ô Úfi‚ÏËÌ· ·ÍÈÔÈÛÙ›·˜ ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›˙ÂÈ Î·ÈË ∫‡ÚÔ˜ Î·È ÁÈ· ·˘Ùfi ¤¯ÂÈ ‚ÚÂıÂ› ÂÎÙfi˜ ·ÁÔÚÒÓ..

™Ù· ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ Ô˘ ¤¯Ô˘ÌÂ ‹‰Ë ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÈ ¤¯ÂÈÚÔÛÙÂıÂ› ˜ ·fiÚÚÔÈ· ÙË˜ ·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ·˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹˜ ÎÚ›ÛË˜ Î·ÈË ·ÓÙ›ÛÙÔÈ¯Ë ÙÚ·Â˙ÈÎ‹, ˆ˜ ·fiÙÔÎÔ ÙË˜ ¤ÎÚËÍË˜ ÙË˜ ÊÔ‡ÛÎ·˜ÛÙÔÓ ÔÈÎÔ‰ÔÌÈÎfi ÙÔÌ¤· ÛÙÈ˜ ∏¶∞ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙËÓ ∂˘ÚÒË, Ô˘ÍÂÎ›ÓËÛÂ ÛÙËÓ ¿ÏÏË ÏÂ˘Ú¿ ÙË˜ Ï›ÌÓË˜. ∏ ÎÚ›ÛË ·˘Ù‹ ¤¯ÂÈ ‰˘ÔÁÂÓÂÛÈÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡˜ ·ÈÙ›Â˜ (·) ÙÔÓ ÂÏÏÈ‹ ¤ÏÂÁ¯Ô ·fi ÙÈ˜ ÂÔÙÈÎ¤˜·Ú¯¤˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙÈ˜ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎ¤˜ ˘ËÚÂÛ›Â˜ ÂÏ¤Á¯Ô˘ Î·È (‚) ÙËÓ·ÓıÚÒÈÓË ·ÏËÛÙ›· Î·È ÙËÓ ÂÈÎ¤ÓÙÚˆÛË ÛÂ ‚Ú·¯‡‚ÈÔ˘˜ÛÙfi¯Ô˘˜. μÂ‚·›ˆ˜ Ë ÂÈÎfiÓ· Â›Ó·È Ï›ÁÔ ÈÔ Û‡ÓıÂÙË ÁÈ·Ù› ËÌÂÁ¤ı˘ÓÛË ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔ‰ÔÌÈÎ‹˜ ‚ÈÔÌË¯·Ó›·˜ Û˘Ó·ÚÙ¿Ù·È Î·È ÌÂ ÙËÓÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹ ·fiÊ·ÛË ÙË˜ ∫˘‚¤ÚÓËÛË˜ Clinton ÁÈ· Ó· ‰ÔıÂ› ËÂ˘Î·ÈÚ›· ÛÂ Î¿ıÂ ∞ÌÂÚÈÎ¿ÓÔ ÔÏ›ÙË Ó· ¤¯ÂÈ È‰ÈfiÎÙËÙË Î·ÙÔÈÎ›·ÌÂ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· Ó· È¤ÛÂÈ Ó· ¯·Ï·ÚÒÛÔ˘Ó Ù· ÎÚÈÙ‹ÚÈ· ‰·ÓÂÈÛÌÔ‡ÁÈ· ÛÙÂÁ·ÛÙÈÎ¿ ‰¿ÓÂÈ·, ÔfiÙ·Ó Î·È ÔÈ ΔÚ¿Â˙Â˜ ÌÂ›ˆÛ·Ó ÙÔÎ›Ó‰˘ÓÔ ÌÂ “securitization” ÙˆÓ ‰·ÓÂ›ˆÓ Î·È ÌÂ “domino effect”fiÙ·Ó ˙‹ÙËÛ·Ó Ù· ÏÂÊÙ¿ ÙÔ˘˜ ·fi ÙËÓ AIG Î·È ÙÈ˜ ¿ÏÏÂ˜·ÛÊ·ÏÈÛÙÈÎ¤˜, ÂÊfiÛÔÓ ÔÏÏÔ› ·Ô ÙÔ˘˜ Î¿Ùˆ¯Ô˘˜ ‰·ÓÂ›ˆÓ ‰ÂÓÌÔÚÔ‡Û·Ó Ó· ÏËÚÒÓÔ˘Ó ÙÈ˜ ‰fiÛÂÈ˜ ÙÔ˘˜. ™Â ∂˘Úˆ·˚ÎfiÂ›Â‰Ô √È Ï·Óı·ÛÌ¤ÓÔÈ ¯ÂÈÚÈÛÌÔ› ÂÎ Ì¤ÚÔ˘˜ ÙˆÓ ÙÚ·Â˙ÒÓ Î·ÈÔÈ Ï·Óı·ÛÌ¤ÓÂ˜ ·ÔÊ¿ÛÂÈ˜ ÛÙÔ ·ÓÒÙ·ÙÔ ‰˘Ó·ÙfiÓ Â›Â‰Ô ÙË˜∂∂ ¤¯Ô˘Ó Ô‰ËÁ‹ÛÂÈ ÛÙËÓ ÌÂÚÈÎ‹ ÎÚ·ÙÈÎÔÔ›ËÛË ·ÚÎÂÙÒÓÙÚ·Â˙ÒÓ ÛÙËÓ ∂∂ Î·È ÙˆÓ ‰‡Ô ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚˆÓ ÙÚ·Â˙ÈÎÒÓÔÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌÒÓ ÙË˜ ∫‡ÚÔ˘ ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô ÛÂ Û˘Ó¿ÚÙËÛË ÌÂ ÙËÓ Û¯¤ÛË

ÙÔ˘ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·ÙÈÛÌÔ‡ ÌÂ ÙÔ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙËÓ ¿ÌÂÛË ·Ó¿ÁÎË ÙÔ˘ÁÈ· ·Ó·¯ÚËÌ·ÙÔ‰fiÙËÛË ‰ÂÓ ÚÔ‰È·ı¤ÙÂÈ ÁÈ· ıÂÙÈÎ¤˜ ÂÍÂÏ›ÍÂÈ˜.

√ ¯ÚËÌ·ÙÔÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎfi˜ ÙÔÌ¤·˜ ÙË˜ ∫‡ÚÔ˘ Â›Ó·È fiÓÙˆ˜˘ÂÚÌÂÁ¤ıË˜ ÛÂ Û¯¤ÛË ÌÂ ÙËÓ ˘fiÏÔÈË ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›· ·ÏÏ¿ Â›Ó·ÈÎ·È Ô ÌfiÓÔ˜ ÙÔÌ¤·˜ Ô ÔÔ›Ô˜ ¤¯ÂÈ ÙÔ ‰˘Ó·ÌÈÛÌfi Î·È ÙÔ Ì¤ÁÂıÔ˜Ó· ·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÙÂ› ‰ÈÂıÓÒ˜. √È ¿ÏÏÔÈ ‰‡Ô ÙÔÌÂ›˜ Ô˘ ÛÙÔ ·ÚÂÏıfiÓÂ›¯·Ó ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ‹ Û˘ÓÂÈÛÊÔÚ¿ ÛÙÔ ∞∂¶, Ô ÔÈÎÔ‰ÔÌÈÎfi˜ Î·ÈÙÔ˘ÚÈÛÙÈÎfi˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÏËÁÂ› ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¿ ·fi ÙËÓ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ÎÚ›ÛË.°È· ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ· Ë Û˘ÓÂÈÛÊÔÚ¿ ÙÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ÚÈÛÙÈÎÔ‡ ÙÔÌ¤· ÛÙÔ ∞∂¶ÙÔ 1999 ¿ÁÁÈ˙Â ÙÔ 20% ÂÓÒ ÙÔ 2011 ¤¯ÂÈ Û˘ÚÚÈÎÓˆıÂ› Á‡Úˆ ÛÙÔ9%. ™ÙÔ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙÔ ∞∂¶ ¤¯ÂÈ ·˘ÍËıÂ› ·fi 9 ‰ÈÛÂÎ·ÙÔÌÌ‡ÚÈ·∂˘ÚÒ ÙÔ 1999 ÛÙ· 18 ‰ÈÛÂÎ·ÙÔÌÌ‡ÚÈ· ∂˘ÚÒ ÙÔ 2011. ¢‡Ô ¿ÏÏÔÈÙÔÌÂ›˜ Ô˘ ·ÚÔ˘Û›·˙·Ó ÚÔÔÙÈÎ¤˜ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË˜, ÌÂ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ‹ÚfiÛıÂÙË ·Í›· ÛÂ ÁÓÒÛË, Î·È ÔÈ ÔÔ›ÔÈ ÛÙÔ ·ÚÂÏıfiÓÚÔˆıÔ‡ÓÙÔ ˆ˜ ÔÈ ÌÂÏÏÔÓÙÈÎÔ› ÙÔÌÂ›˜ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË˜ ÔÂÎ·È‰Â˘ÙÈÎfi˜ Î·È Ô È·ÙÚÈÎfi˜ ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›˙Ô˘Ó ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¿ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· Î·È ¤Ó· Â¯ıÚÈÎfi ÂÚÈ‚¿ÏÏÔÓ ·fi ÙÔ Â›ÛËÌÔ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˜Ô˘ ıÂˆÚÂ› ÙÈ˜ ‰‡Ô ËÚÂÛ›Â˜ ˜ ‰ËÌfiÛÈ· ·Á·ı¿ Ô˘ ı· Ú¤ÂÈÓ· ·Ú·¯ˆÚÔ‡ÓÙ·È ÌfiÓÔ ·fi ‰ËÌfiÛÈÔ˘˜ ÊÔÚÂ›˜.

∏ ÌfiÓË ÚÂ·ÏÈÛÙÈÎ‹ ÂÏ›‰· ·˘Ù‹Ó ÙË ÛÙÈÁÌ‹ Â›Ó·È Ë ·ÍÈÔÔ›ËÛËÙˆÓ ÎÔÈÙ·ÛÌ¿ÙˆÓ Ê˘ÛÈÎÔ‡ ·ÂÚ›Ô˘ Î·È ÂÙÚÂÏ·›Ô˘ Ô˘ ¤¯Ô˘Ó·Ó·Î·Ï˘ÊıÂ› ÛÙ· fiÚÈ· ÙË˜ ∫˘ÚÈ·Î‹˜ ∞ÔÎÏÂÈÛÙÈÎ‹˜√ÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹˜ ∑ÒÓË˜ (∞√∑). ∞˘ÙÔÓfiËÙ· Ô ¯ÂÈÚÈÛÌfi˜ ÙÔ˘ ı¤Ì·ÙÔ˜·˘ÙÔ‡ ÛÂ Â›Â‰Ô ÙÂ¯ÓÈÎfi Î·È ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎfi Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Â›Ó·È Ù¤ÙÔÈÔ˜ÒÛÙÂ Ó· Á›ÓÂÈ Ë Î·Ï‡ÙÂÚË ‰˘Ó·Ù‹ ·ÍÈÔÔ›ËÛË ÙˆÓ ÎÔÈÙ·ÛÌ¿ÙˆÓ.™Â ÙÂ¯ÓÈÎfi Â›Â‰Ô ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ·ÍÈÔÏÔÁËıÔ‡Ó fiÏÂ˜ ÔÈ‰È·ı¤ÛÈÌÂ˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›Â˜ ÁÈ· ‰È¿ıÂÛË ÙÔ˘ Ê˘ÛÈÎÔ‡ ·ÂÚ›Ô˘ ÛÙËÓ·ÁÔÚ¿ ÛÂ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›· ÌÂ ÙÔ πÛÚ·‹Ï. ∏ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ‰È·¯Â›ÚÈÛË ı·Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Â›Ó·È Ù¤ÙÔÈ· Ô˘ Ó· ÂÈÙÚ¤„ÂÈ (·) ÙËÓ ·ÔÏËÚˆÌ‹ÙˆÓ ¯ÚÂÒÓ (‚) ÙËÓ ·Ú·¯ÒÚËÛË fiÚˆÓ ÁÈ· ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË Î·È (Á) ÙËÂÓ‰˘Ó¿ÌˆÛË ÙÔ˘ Δ·ÌÂ›Ô˘ ∫ÔÈÓˆÓÈÎÒÓ ∞ÛÊ·Ï›ÛÂˆÓ ÁÈ· Ó·‰È·ÛÊ·ÏÈÛÙÔ‡Ó ÔÈ Û˘ÓÙ¿ÍÂÈ˜ Î·È Ë ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ‹ ÚfiÓÔÈ·. Δ· ¤ÛÔ‰··fi ÙÔ Ê˘ÛÈÎfi ·¤ÚÈÔ ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ·Ú·ÌÂ›ÓÔ˘Ó Ì·ÎÚÈ¿ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ÔÏÈÙÈÎÔ‡˜ Î·È ÙËÓ ¿ÌÂÛË Î·Ù·Ó¿ÏˆÛË ˘fi ÙË ÌÔÚÊ‹ÂÈ‰ÔÌ¿ÙˆÓ, ·‡ÍËÛË ·ÌÔÈ‚ÒÓ Î·È ÌÂ›ˆÛË ÊfiÚˆÓ.

™ÙÔ ÚÔËÁÔ‡ÌÂÓÔ Ì‹Ó˘Ì· ( ¢ÂÎ¤Ì‚ÚÈÔ˜ 2012) Â›¯·ÌÂ ÚÔÊËÙÈÎ¿‰È·Ù˘ÒÛÂÈ ÙËÓ … «Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚË ·ÁˆÓ›· ÁÈ· ÙÔ Ì¤ÏÏÔÓ, ÙË Ê˘ÛÈÎ‹ÂÈ‚›ˆÛË Î·È ÙË ‰È·Ù‹ÚËÛË ÙÔ˘ ÂÈ¤‰Ô˘ ˙ˆ‹˜ Ô˘ ¤¯Ô˘ÌÂÛ˘ÓËı›ÛÂÈ. °È· ÙËÓ ¤ÁÓÔÈ· Ì‹ˆ˜ Ë ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô˜ ÙË˜ Â˘Ì¿ÚÂÈ·˜ Î·ÈÙË˜ ·ÛÊ¿ÏÂÈ·˜ ¤¯ÂÈ ·Ú¤ÏıÂÈ ÔÚÈÛÙÈÎ¿ Î·È Ë ÂfiÌÂÓË ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô˜ı· Â›Ó·È ÈÔ ‰‡ÛÎÔÏË Î·È ·‚¤‚·ÈË.

∏ Úfi‚ÏÂ„Ë ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ú·ÙÂÙ·Ì¤ÓË ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô ÎÚ›ÛË˜ Î·È·ÛÙ¿ıÂÈ·˜ ÛÂ fiÏ· Ù· Â›Â‰· ¤¯ÂÈ, ‰˘ÛÙ˘¯Ò˜, Â·ÏËıÂ˘ıÂ›.ƒÂ·ÏÈÛÙÈÎ¿ ÔÌÈÏÔ‡ÓÙÂ˜ Ù· ‰ËÌÔÛÈÔÓÔÌÈÎ¿ ‰Â‰ÔÌ¤Ó· ÙË˜ ∫‡ÚÔ˘‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ÛÂ Â›Â‰Ô Ô˘ Ó· ‰ÈÎ·ÈÔÏÔÁÔ‡Ó ÙËÓ ˘ÊÈÛÙ¿ÌÂÓËÎ·ÙËÁÔÚÈÔÔ›ËÛË ÙˆÓ ‰ÈÂıÓÒÓ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂÈÒÓ ·ÍÈÔÏfiÁËÛË˜ Î·È Î·Ù’


Â¤ÎÙ·ÛË ÙËÓ ·‰˘Ó·Ì›· ÙÔ˘ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜ Ó· ·Â˘ı˘ÓıÂ› ÛÙÈ˜‰ÈÂıÓÂ›˜ ·ÁÔÚ¤˜ ÁÈ· ‰·ÓÂÈÛÌfi. √È ·ÔÊ¿ÛÂÈ˜ Î·È Ù· ‰Ú·ÎfiÓÙÂÈ·ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¿ Ì¤ÙÚ· ÙË˜ ÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹˜ ËÁÂÛ›·˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ‰ÚÔÌÔÏÔÁËıÂ›ÙfiÛÔ ·fi ÙËÓ ÎÚ›ÛË ÙÔ˘ ∂˘ÚÒ Ô˘ Ù·Ï·Ó›˙ÂÈ ÙËÓ ∂˘ÚÒË fiÛÔ Î·È·fi ÙËÓ ·ÒÏÂÈ· ÂÌÈÛÙÔÛ‡ÓË˜ ÙˆÓ ·ÁÔÚÒÓ ÛÙË ‰˘Ó·ÙfiÙËÙ· ÙË˜∫‡ÚÔ˘ Ó· ‰È·¯ÂÈÚÈÛıÂ› Ù· ÙÔ˘ Ô›ÎÔ˘ ÙË˜ ÛÂ ÌÈ· ‰‡ÛÎÔÏËÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ Û˘ÁÎ˘Ú›·. ∞˘Ù¤˜ ÔÈ ÂÍÂÏ›ÍÂÈ˜ ÂÍ·Ó¤ÌÈÛ·Ó ÙÈ˜ fiÔÈÂ˜·Ì˘‰Ú¤˜ ÂÏ›‰Â˜ ÁÈ· ·Ó¿Î·Ì„Ë ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ ÙÔ 2012 Î·È ÙËÓÔ‰ËÁÔ‡Ó ›Ûˆ ÛÙËÓ ‡ÊÂÛË (recession) ·Ó fi¯È Î·È ÙËÓ ‚·ıÈ¿ Î·È·Ú·ÙÂÙ·Ì¤ÓË ‡ÊÂÛË (depression).

Δ· ÂÓ ÔÏÏÔ›˜ ·Ó·ÁÎ·›·, ‰Ú·ÎfiÓÙÂÈ· Ì¤ÙÚ· ÌÂ›ˆÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ÌÈÛıÔÏÔÁ›Ô˘ ÙÔ˘ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚÔ˘ ÎÚ·ÙÈÎÔ‡ ÙÔÌ¤· ÁÈ· Ù· ÂfiÌÂÓ· ‰‡Ô¤ÙË ı· Û˘ÓÙÂ›ÓÔ˘Ó ÛÙË ÌÂ›ˆÛË ÙÔ˘ ÂÏÏÂ›ÌÌ·ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ÚÔ¸ÔÏÔÁÈÛÌÔ‡. ∏ ·Ï‹ıÂÈ· Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ ÙÔ ÌÈÛıÔÏfiÁÈÔ ÛÙÔÓ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚÔ‰ËÌfiÛÈÔ ÙÔÌ¤· ·˘Í·ÓfiÙ·Ó Ù· ÚÔËÁÔ‡ÌÂÓ· ¯ÚfiÓÈ· Î·Ù¿ 10% ÛÂÂÙ‹ÛÈ· ‚¿ÛË. ∞˘Ù‹ Ë ·‡ÍËÛË Â›Ó·È ÔÏÏ·Ï¿ÛÈ· ÙË˜ ‚ÂÏÙ›ˆÛË˜ ÙË˜·Ú·ÁˆÁÈÎfiÙËÙ·˜ Î·È Î·Ù’ Â¤ÎÙ·ÛË ÌË ‚ÈÒÛÈÌË. ∞ÓÙ›ıÂÙ· Ë ·‡ÍËÛËÙÔ˘ º¶∞ ·fi ÙÔ ª¿ÚÙÈÔ ÙÔ˘ 2012 ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È Û›ÁÔ˘ÚÔ fiÙÈ ı· ·˘Í‹ÛÂÈÙ· ¤ÛÔ‰· ÙÔ˘ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜. À¿Ú¯ÂÈ ÌÈ· Î·Ï‹ Èı·ÓfiÙËÙ· Ô Û˘Ó‰˘·ÛÌfi˜ÙˆÓ ‰‡Ô ·˘ÙÒÓ Ì¤ÙÚˆÓ Ì·˙› ÌÂ ÙËÓ ·ÔÚÚfiÊËÛË ·fi ÙÔ ∫Ú¿ÙÔ˜ÙË˜ fiÔÈ·˜ ‰È·ı¤ÛÈÌË˜ ÙÔÈÎ‹˜ ÚÂ˘ÛÙfiÙËÙ·˜ ˘fi ÙË ÌÔÚÊ‹‰·ÓÂÈÛÌÔ‡ Ó· Ô‰ËÁ‹ÛÂÈ ÛÙË ÌÂ›ˆÛË ÙË˜ ‰È·ı¤ÛÈÌË˜ ÚÂ˘ÛÙfiÙËÙ·˜Î·È ÛÙË ÌÂ›ˆÛË ÙË˜ ‹ÙËÛË˜ ÛÙËÓ ·ÁÔÚ¿, fiˆ˜ ¤¯ÂÈ Û˘Ì‚Â› Î·È ÛÙËÓ∂ÏÏ¿‰·, Ô˘ ı· ¤¯ÂÈ ÔÏ‡ ·ÚÓËÙÈÎ¤˜ ÂÈÙÒÛÂÈ˜ ÛÙ· ¤ÛÔ‰· ÙÔ˘∫Ú¿ÙÔ˘˜ Î·È ÛÙËÓ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ÁÈ· ÙÔ 2012 Î·È Ù· ÂfiÌÂÓ· ¤ÙË. ∞fiÙËÓ ¿ÏÏË Ë ¶ÔÏÈÙÂ›· ÔÏ‡ Ï›Á· ¤¯ÂÈ Î¿ÓÂÈ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ÙË˜ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ Î·È ÙË˜ ··Û¯fiÏËÛË˜».

∞˘Ù¿ ÁÚ¿Ê·ÌÂ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ¿ÏÏˆÓ ÙfiÙÂ ÂÓÒ Û‹ÌÂÚ· ÌÂÙ¿ ·fi·ÓÂÈÙ˘¯Â›˜ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈÂ˜ Â·ÈÙÂ›·˜ ·fi Ê›ÏÂ˜ ¯ÒÚÂ˜ ¤¯Ô˘ÌÂ·Ô‰Â¯ıÂ› ÙËÓ ÛˆÙËÚ›· ÛÙ· ¯¤ÚÈ· ÙË˜ ÂÚ›ÊËÌË˜ ΔÚfiÈÎ·. ∞˘Ù¿Ô˘ ·‰˘Ó·ÙÔ‡Û·ÌÂ Ó· Î¿ÓÔ˘ÌÂ ÁÈ· Ó· ‰ÈÔÚıÒÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÂÍÂÏÈÎÙÈÎ¿ÙÔ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎfi Ì·˜ ÌÔÓÙ¤ÏÔ ı· ·Ó·ÁÎ·ÛÙÔ‡ÌÂ Ó· Î¿ÓÔ˘ÌÂ ÙÒÚ·ÌÂ ‰Ú·ÛÙÈÎ¿ Î·È ÂÒ‰˘Ó· Ì¤ÙÚ· Ô˘ ı· ·Ó·ÌÔÚÊÒÛÔ˘Ó ÌÂ ¤Ó·‚›·ÈÔ ÙÚfiÔ ÙËÓ ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›· Î·È ÙËÓ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·. ∞˜ ÂÏ›ÛÔ˘ÌÂ fiÙÈÙÈ˜ ‰‡ÛÎÔÏÂ˜ Ì¤ÚÂ˜ Ô˘ ·ÎÔÏÔ˘ıÔ‡Ó ı· ‰È·‰Â¯ıÔ‡Ó Î·Ï‡ÙÂÚÂ˜Ì¤ÚÂ˜ ·Ó fi¯È ÁÈ· Ì·˜ ÙÔ˘Ï¿¯ÈÛÙÔÓ ÁÈ· ÙÔ˘˜ ·ÔÁfiÓÔ˘˜ Ì·˜ ÛÙÔ˘˜ÔÔ›Ô˘˜ ·ÓÙ› Ó· ÎÏËÚÔ‰ÔÙ‹ÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÏÔ‡ÙÔ ÎÏËÚÔ‰ÔÙÔ‡ÌÂ ¯Ú¤Ô˜.

ACTA (ANTI-COUNTERFEITING TRADEAGREEMENT) ∏ ¶·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ· Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›· ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting TradeAgreement – ∂ÌÔÚÈÎ‹ ™˘ÌÊˆÓ›· ∂Ó·ÓÙ›ÔÓ ÙË˜ ¶Ï·ÛÙÔÁÚ·Ê›·˜),Â›Ó·È ÌÈ· ÔÏ˘ÌÂÚ‹˜ Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›· Ô˘ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙÈ˜ 27 ¯ÒÚÂ˜ ÙË˜ ∂.∂.Î·È 10 ·ÎfiÌ· ÎÚ¿ÙË (∏¶∞, ∫·Ó·‰¿, ªÂÍÈÎfi, π·ˆÓ›·,™ÈÁÎ·Ô‡ÚË, ∂Ï‚ÂÙ›·, ∞˘ÛÙÚ·Ï›·, ¡¤· ∑ËÏ·Ó‰›·, ª·ÚfiÎÔ, ¡.∫ÔÚ¤·), Ë ÔÔ›· ¤¯ÂÈ Û˘Ó·ÊıÂ› ÌÂ ÛÙfi¯Ô ÙËÓ ¿Ù·ÍË ÙË˜Ï·ÛÙÔÁÚ·Ê›·˜ ÚÔ˚fiÓÙˆÓ Î·È Ë ÔÔ›· Î·Ï‡ÙÂÈ ¤Ó· ÂÓÈ·›ÔÏ·›ÛÈÔ ·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ·˜ ÚÔÛÙ·Û›·˜ ÁÈ· ı¤Ì·Ù· ÓÂ˘Ì·ÙÈÎ‹˜

È‰ÈÔÎÙËÛ›·˜. ∏ ÓÂ˘Ì·ÙÈÎ‹ / ¿˘ÏË È‰ÈÔÎÙËÛ›· Î·Ï‡ÙÂÈ ¤Ó·Â˘Ú‡Ù·ÙÔ Ê¿ÛÌ· ÚÔ˚fiÓÙˆÓ Î·È ˘ËÚÂÛÈÒÓ ·fi ÙËÓ Û˘ÁÁÚ·Ê‹‚È‚Ï›ˆÓ, ÛÙËÓ ·Ú·ÁˆÁ‹ ÌÔ˘ÛÈÎ‹˜, ÛÙËÓ ÂÙÔÈÌ·Û›· ÏÔÁÈÛÌÈÎÒÓ,ÛÙ· ‰ÈÏÒÌ·Ù· Â˘ÚÂÛÈÙÂ¯Ó›·˜ Ì¤¯ÚÈ ÙËÓ ·Ú·ÁˆÁ‹ Ê·ÚÌ¿ÎˆÓ.. ΔÔ Û‡ÓÔÏÔ Û¯Â‰fiÓ ÙˆÓ ÎÚ·ÙÒÓ Ô˘ Û˘ÌÌÂÙ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÛÙË Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›·¤¯Ô˘Ó ÂÈÎ˘ÚÒÛÂÈ ‹ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ‰ËÏÒÛÂÈ ÙËÓ ÚfiıÂÛ‹ ÙÔ˘˜ Ó·ÂÈÎ˘ÚÒÛÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ ÂÓ ÏfiÁˆ Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›·. ∏ ∫‡ÚÔ˜, Ì·˙› ÌÂ 5 ¿ÏÏ·ÎÚ¿ÙË Ì¤ÏË ÙË˜ ∂.∂., ‰ÂÓ ¤¯ÂÈ (·ÎfiÌ·) ÂÁÎÚ›ÓÂÈ ÙË Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›· ·ÓÎ·È ÙÔ ÀÔ˘ÚÁÈÎfi ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ¤¯ÂÈ ÙÔÔıÂÙËıÂ› ıÂÙÈÎ¿.

∞˘Ù‹ fiÏË Ë ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· ¤¯ÂÈ fiÌˆ˜ ÂÚÈ¤ÏıÂÈ ÛÂ Ù¤ÏÌ· ÌÂÙ¿ ÙËÓ·fiÊ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ∂˘ÚˆÎÔÈÓÔ‚Ô˘Ï›Ô˘ ÛÙÈ˜ ·Ú¯¤˜ πÔ˘Ï›Ô˘ Ó··ÔÚÚ›„ÂÈ ÙË ™˘ÌÊˆÓ›·. ∏ ·fiÚÚÈ„Ë ÚÔ‹ÏıÂ ·fi ÙËÓ ÌÂÁ¿ÏË·ÓÙ›‰Ú·ÛË ÙˆÓ ÔÚÁ·ÓˆÌ¤ÓˆÓ ÔÏÈÙÒÓ ÛÂ fiÏÂ˜ ÙÈ˜ ¯ÒÚÂ˜ ÙË˜∂.∂. ÔÈ ÔÔ›ÔÈ ÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛ·Ó ‰È·‰ËÏÒÛÂÈ˜ ÊÔÚÒÓÙ·˜ ÙË¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎ‹ ÚÔÛˆ›‰· ÙÔ˘ Guy Fawkes. ∏ ™˘Óı‹ÎË, ¤Ú··fi ÙÈ˜ ·ÓËÛ˘¯›Â˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÚÔÛÙ·Û›· ‰Â‰ÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ Î·È ÙËÓÂÏÂ˘ıÂÚ›· ÛÙÔ ‰È·‰›ÎÙ˘Ô, ÚÔÎ·ÏÔ‡ÛÂ ÏÔÁÈÎ¿ ÂÚˆÙ‹Ì·Ù· fiÛÔÓ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙËÓ ‰È·Ê‡Ï·ÍË ‚·ÛÈÎÒÓ ·ÓıÚˆ›ÓˆÓ ‰ÈÎ·ÈˆÌ¿ÙˆÓ, ÙËÓÂÏÂ˘ıÂÚ›· ÂÁÎ·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË˜ Î·È ÙËÓ ÚfiÛ‚·ÛË ÛÂ ÚÔÛÈÙ‹Ê·ÚÌ·ÎÂ˘ÙÈÎ‹ ·ÁˆÁ‹.

™ÙÔÓ ˘Ú‹Ó· ÙË˜ ‰È·Ì¿¯Ë˜ ‚Ú›ÛÎÂÙ·È Ô ÙÚfiÔ˜ ‰È·¯Â›ÚÈÛË˜ ÙË˜ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›·˜, Î·È ÈÔ Û˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈÌ¤Ó· ÙË˜ ÓÂ˘Ì·ÙÈÎ‹˜‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›·˜. ∏ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›· fiˆ˜ Î·È Ë ÓÂ˘Ì·ÙÈÎ‹ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›·ÂÌÂÚÈ¤¯ÂÈ ·Í›· Î·È ·˘Ùfi˜ Ô˘ ÙËÓ ¤¯ÂÈ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ‹ÛÂÈ ‹ Î·Ù¤¯ÂÈ¤¯ÂÈ ·ÓÙ›ÛÙÔÈ¯· ‰ÈÎ·ÈÒÌ·Ù· ÁÈ· ¤Ó· Û˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈÌ¤ÓÔ ‰È¿ÛÙËÌ· Ù·ÔÔ›· ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· ·ÍÈÔÔÈ‹ÛÂÈ. √È ÓfiÌÔÈ ÂÚ› ÓÂ˘Ì·ÙÈÎ‹˜È‰ÈÔÎÙËÛ›·˜ ÂÈÛ‹¯ıËÛ·Ó-·Ú¯ÈÎ¿- ÛÙÈ˜ ‰˘ÙÈÎ¤˜ ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›Â˜ ÁÈ· ¤Ó·ÓÎ·È ÌfiÓÔ ÏfiÁÔ: ÁÈ· Ó· ‰ÒÛÔ˘Ó Î›ÓËÙÚÔ ÛÙÔÓ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁfi ‹ ÙÔÓÂÊÂ˘Ú¤ÙË ÛÙÔ Ó· Û˘ÓÂ¯›ÛÔ˘Ó Ó· ·Ú¿ÁÔ˘Ó È‰¤Â˜ ¯Ú‹ÛÈÌÂ˜ ÁÈ·ÙËÓ ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›· Î·È Ó· ÌËÓ ÙÈ˜ ÎÚ·Ù¿ÓÂ ÛÙ· Û˘ÚÙ¿ÚÈ· ÙÔ˘˜. ∞˘Ù¿ Ù··˘ÙÔÓfiËÙ· ‹ıÂÏÂ Ó· Î·ÙÔ¯˘ÚÒÛÂÈ Ë ACTA ·ÏÏ¿ Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Ó·ÚÔ¯ÒÚËÛÂ ÔÏ‡ ÈÔ ¤Ú· ·fi Ù· Â˘Ú¤ˆ˜ ·Ô‰ÂÎÙ¿ fiÚÈ· Î·ÈÓ· ÚÔÛ¿ıËÛÂ Ó· ÂÚÈÔÚ›ÛÂÈ Ù· ‰ÈÎ·ÈÒÌ·Ù· ÙˆÓ ¯ÚËÛÙÒÓ.

∏ Â·Ó¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ‰È·‰ÈÎÙ‡Ô˘ ‰ÂÓ ·¤ÙÚÂ„Â ÙÔ˘˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡˜·fi ÙÔ Ó· ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡Ó. ∞ÓÙ›ıÂÙ·, ÙÔ myspace Î·È ÙÔ youtubeÂÎÙfiÍÂ˘Û·Ó ÙËÓ ·Ú·ÁˆÁ‹ Ó¤·˜ ÌÔ˘ÛÈÎ‹˜, ‰È·‰ÈÎÙ˘·Î¤˜ ÛÂÈÚ¤˜ÂÂÈÛÔ‰›ˆÓ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡ÓÙ·È Î¿ıÂ Ì¤Ú· Î·È ÙÔ blogging ¤‰ˆÛÂÙÔ ‰ÈÎ·›ˆÌ· ÛÙÔÓ Î·ı¤Ó· Ó· ‰È·‚¿˙ÂÙ·È –Î·È ÙËÓ ·ÊÔÚÌ‹ Ó·ÁÚ¿ÊÂÈ. ∏ ™˘ÌÊˆÓ›· fiÌˆ˜ ÂÚÈ¤¯ÂÈ ÚfiÓÔÈÂ˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·ÓÙ·ÏÏ·Á‹·Ú¯Â›ˆÓ ‰È·‰ÈÎÙ˘·Î¿ Ì¤Ûˆ torrents, peer to peer Î·È ÂÈ‚¿ÏÏÂÈÛÙÔ˘˜ ¿ÚÔ¯Ô˘˜ ‰È·‰ÈÎÙ˘·ÎÒÓ ˘ËÚÂÛÈÒÓ Ó· ¤¯Ô˘Ó Â˘ı‡ÓË ÁÈ·ÙË ÌÂÙ·ÊÔÚ¿ ·Ú¯Â›ˆÓ Ì¤Ûˆ ÙˆÓ Û˘ÛÙËÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÙÔ˘˜.

∏ Î·Ù·„‹ÊÈÛË ·fi ÙÔ ∂˘ÚˆÎÔÈÓÔ‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ‚·Û›ÛÙËÎÂ ÛÂ ÌÈ· ÛÂÈÚ¿·fi ÏfiÁÔ˘˜ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙˆÓ ÔÔ›ˆÓ Î·È ÙÔ ÁÂÁÔÓfi˜ fiÙÈ Ë ™˘ÌÊˆÓ›·‰ÂÓ ¤Ù˘¯Â ‰È·‚Ô‡ÏÂ˘ÛË˜ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎÔ‡˜ ÂÙ·›ÚÔ˘˜ Î·È ‰ÂÓÏ‹ÊıËÎ·Ó ˘fi„Ë ÔÈ ı¤ÛÂÈ˜ ÙÔ˘ ∫ÔÈÓÔ‚Ô˘Ï›Ô˘. ∏ Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›·


Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Ó· ¤¯ÂÈ ÚÔˆıËıÂ› ·fi ÙÈ˜ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜ Î·Ùfi¯Ô˘˜ÓÂ˘Ì·ÙÈÎÒÓ ‰ÈÎ·ÈˆÌ¿ÙˆÓ Î·È ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ¿ÏÏˆÓ ÂÈ‚¿ÏÏÂÈ ÔÈÓÈÎ¤˜Î˘ÚÒÛÂÈ˜ Ô˘ ·Ú·Î¿ÌÙÔ˘Ó ÙÈ˜ ÓÔÌÔıÂÙÈÎ¤˜ ‰È·‰ÈÎ·Û›Â˜ Î·ÈÂÁÁ˘‹ÛÂÈ˜ ÙË˜ ∂.∂. Î·È ÙˆÓ ÎÚ·ÙÒÓ – ÌÂÏÒÓ, Î¿ÙÈ Ô˘ Î·ı›ÛÙ·Ù·È·ÎfiÌ· ÈÔ ÂÈÎ›Ó‰˘ÓÔ ÏfiÁˆ ÙË˜ ·Û¿ÊÂÈ·˜ ÙˆÓ ‰È·Ù˘ÒÛÂˆÓ Ô˘¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈÔ‡ÓÙ·È. ∂›ÛË˜ ÚÔ‚Ï¤ÂÈ fiÙÈ ÌÈ· ÂÈÙÚÔ‹ ÙË˜ ACTAı· ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· ÌÂÙ·‚¿ÏÏÂÈ ÙË Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›· Î·È ÌÂÙ¿ ÙËÓ ˘ÈÔı¤ÙËÛ‹ÙË˜, Î¿ÙÈ Ô˘ Ô˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈÎ¿ ÙËÓ Î·ıÈÛÙ¿ ÌË ÂÎÏÂÁÌ¤ÓÔ ÓÔÌÔı¤ÙË.™Â ÌÈ· ÚfiÛÊ·ÙË ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË Ë ∫˘ÚÈ·Î‹ ¶ÚÔÂ‰Ú›· ÙÔ˘ ™˘Ì‚Ô˘Ï›Ô˘ÙË˜ ∂∂ ·ÚÔ˘ÛÈ¿˙ÂÙ·È ¤ÙÔÈÌË Ó· Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·ÛÙÂ› ÛÙÂÓ¿ ÌÂ ÙÔ∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ∫ÔÈÓÔ‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ, ÁÈ· Ó· ÚÔˆıËıÔ‡Ó ÌÂ ÂÈÙ˘¯›· ÔÈÊ¿ÎÂÏÔÈ Ô˘ ·ÊÔÚÔ‡Ó ÛÙÔ ¢›Î·ÈÔ ¶ÓÂ˘Ì·ÙÈÎ‹˜ π‰ÈÔÎÙËÛ›·˜Î·ıÒ˜ Î·È ÙÔ ∂Ù·ÈÚÈÎfi ¢›Î·ÈÔ.

ΔÔ ı¤Ì· ÚÔ‚¿ÏÏÂÈ ÁÈ· ·ÎfiÌË ÌÈ· ÊÔÚ¿ ÙËÓ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ‹Û˘ÓÂÈÛÊÔÚ¿ ÙË˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÛÙË ‰È·ÌfiÚÊˆÛË ÙÔ˘ ÎfiÛÌÔ˘ Ô˘Ì·˜ ÂÚÈ‚¿ÏÏÂÈ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙË ‰‡Ó·ÌË ÙÔ˘ ∂˘ÚˆÎÔÈÓÔ‚Ô˘Ï›Ô˘ Ó··ÊÔ˘ÁÎÚ¿˙ÂÙ·È ÙÈ˜ ¤ÁÓÔÈÂ˜ ÙˆÓ Ï·ÒÓ ÙˆÓ ÎÚ·ÙÒÓ ÌÂÏÒÓ Î·È Ó·ÙÈ˜ ÌÂÙÔ˘ÛÈÒÓÂÈ ÛÂ ÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹ Ú¿ÍË. ∂›Ó·È Ê·ÓÂÚfi fiÙÈ ÔÈÔÚÁ·ÓˆÌ¤ÓÔÈ ÔÏ›ÙÂ˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ‰‡Ó·ÌË ÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó··ÍÈÔÔÈ‹ÛÔ˘Ó Û˘ÏÏÔÁÈÎ¿ Î·È ÏÂÏÔÁÈÛÌ¤Ó·. ∏ ÂÏ›‰· Â›Ó·È fiÙÈÌ¤Û· ·fi ·˘Ù‹Ó ÙËÓ ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË ı· ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁËıÂ› ÌÈ· Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›· Ô˘ı· Ï·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ ˘fi„Ë Ù· ÓfiÌÈÌ· ‰ÈÎ·ÈÒÌ·Ù· ÙˆÓ ÓÂ˘Ì·ÙÈÎÒÓ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÒÓ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È Ù· ·ÓÙ›ÛÙÔÈ¯· ‰ÈÎ·ÈÒÌ·Ù· ÙˆÓ ÔÏÈÙÒÓ.

DO YOU KNOW THIS MAN (WOMAN) – PLACE –TECHNOLOGY ∏ ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË Â›Ó·È Ì¤Û· ÛÙË Ê‡ÛË ÙÔ˘ ·ÓıÚÒÔ˘ ÔÏ‡ ‰ÂÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÔ ÛÙËÓ ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË ÙˆÓ ÌÂÏÒÓ ÙË˜ ÌÈÎÚ‹˜ Ì·˜ ÔÌ¿‰·˜fiˆ˜ ÁÈ· ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ· Ô ¢Ú. º›ÏÈÔ˜ ¶ÂÏÂÙÈ¤ Ô ÔÔ›Ô˜ ¤¯ÔÓÙ·˜·Û¯ÔÏËıÂ› ÌÂ ÙÔ˘˜ ÏÂ›ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÙfiÛÔ˘˜ ÚˆÙÔfiÚÔ˘˜ ¿Ó‰ÚÂ˜ Î·ÈÁ˘Ó·›ÎÂ˜ Ô˘ Û˘Ó¤‚·Ï·Ó ÛÙËÓ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ÙË˜ ÂÈÛÙ‹ÌË˜ Î·È ÙË˜Ù¤¯ÓË˜ ÙË˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ÙˆÓ ËÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎÒÓ ˘ÔÏÔÁÈÛÙÒÓÂÈÎÂÓÙÚÒÓÂÈ ÙÒÚ· ÙËÓ ÚÔÛÔ¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ ÂÚ›ÊËÌË ∫ÔÈÏ¿‰· ÙË˜™ÈÏÈÎfiÓË˜ ÛÙËÓ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚË ÂÚÈÔ¯‹ ÙÔ˘ San Francisco.

ø˜ ÁÓˆÛÙfi Û’ ·˘Ù‹Ó ÙËÓ ÂÚÈÔ¯‹ ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡Ó ¤Ó·˜ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ˜·ÚÈıÌfi˜ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂÈÒÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜ ·fi ·Ú·‰ÔÛÈ·Î¤˜ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜fiˆ˜ ÙËÓ HP Î·È ÙËÓ Apple ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÓÂÒÙÂÚÂ˜ fiˆ˜ ÙÔFacebook Î·È ÙÔ Google Î·È ·fi ÓÂÔÛ‡ÛÙ·ÙÂ˜ ÂÙ·ÈÚ›Â˜ ÔÈ ÔÔ›Â˜‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ·ÎfiÌË ÁÓˆÛÙ¤˜. °È· ÙËÓ ÂÈÙ˘¯›· ÙË˜ ÎÔÈÏ¿‰·˜ ¤¯Ô˘ÓÛ˘ÓÂÈÛÊ¤ÚÂÈ ÌÈ· ÛÂÈÚ¿ ·fi ·Ú¿ÁÔÓÙÂ˜ fiˆ˜ Ë ÛÙÂÓ‹Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›· ÌÂ ÙÔ ÂÊˆÙÈÛÌ¤ÓÔ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ ÙÔ˘ Stanford ÙÔÔÔ›Ô ¤¯ÂÈ ·fi ÙË˜ ›‰Ú˘ÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ ı¤ÛÂÈ ˆ˜ ÛÙfi¯Ô ÙËÓ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍËÙË˜ ‚ÈÔÌË¯·Ó›·˜ Î·È ÙË ÛÙÂÓ‹ Û¯¤ÛË ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙˆÓ ·ÓÂÈÛÙËÌ›ˆÓÎ·È ÙË˜ ·ÁÔÚ¿˜ . ∂›ÛË˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó Û˘ÚÚÂ‡ÛÂÈ ÛÙËÓ ÂÚÈÔ¯‹ÂÍÂÈ‰ÈÎÂ˘Ì¤ÓÔÈ ÂÂÓ‰˘Ù¤˜ (venture capitalists) Ô˘ ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó··ÍÈÔÏÔÁ‹ÛÔ˘Ó ÂÂÓ‰˘ÙÈÎ¤˜ Â˘Î·ÈÚ›Â˜ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÙÔÌÂ›˜ ÙË˜ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜, ‰È·ı¤ÙÔ˘Ó ÙÔ˘˜ ··ÈÙÔ‡ÌÂÓÔ˘˜ fiÚÔ˘˜ Î·ÈÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ÛÙËÚ›ÍÔ˘Ó ÌÂ ÂÌÂÈÚ›· Î·È ÁÓÒÛË ÙÈ˜ ˘fi ÂÎÎfiÏ·„Ë

ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜. Δ¤ÏÔ˜ ‰ÂÓ ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ·ÁÓÔËıÂ› Ë ÎÔ˘ÏÙÔ‡Ú· ÙË˜¯ÒÚ·˜ Ô˘ ÂÓı·ÚÚ‡ÓÂÈ ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÏË„Ë ÎÈÓ‰‡ÓÔ˘ Î·È ÂÈ‚Ú·‚Â‡ÂÈÙÔ˘˜ ÓÈÎËÙ¤˜ ¯ˆÚ›˜ Ó· ÂÍÔÏÔıÚÂ‡ÂÈ ÙÔ˘˜ ËÙÙËÌ¤ÓÔ˘˜, ‰›ÓÔÓÙ·˜ÙÔ˘˜ Î·È Ó¤Â˜ Â˘Î·ÈÚ›Â˜.

∫·Ù·ÏËÎÙÈÎ¿ ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ÛËÌÂÈˆıÂ› fiÙÈ Ë ∫ÔÈÏ¿‰· ÙË˜™ÈÏÈÎfiÓË˜ ‰ÂÓ ·ÔÙÂÏÂ› ÙÔ ÌfiÓÔ Ù¤ÙÔÈÔ ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ· ÛÙÈ˜ ∏¶∞.∞ÓÙ›ÛÙÔÈ¯Â˜ ÂÚÈÔ¯¤˜ ˘¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó Î·È ÛÙËÓ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚË ÂÚÈÔ¯‹ ÙÔ˘Austin ÛÙÔ Texas Á‡Úˆ ·fi ÙÔ University of Texas ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙËÓÂ˘Ú‡ÙÂÚË ÂÚÈÔ¯‹ ÙË˜ μÔÛÙÒÓË˜ (Massachusetts Route 128)fiÔ˘ ÊÈÏÔÍÂÓÔ‡ÓÙ·È ÂÚ›ÊËÌ· ·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈ· fiˆ˜ ÙÔ HarvardÎ·È ÙÔ ªπΔ.

™Â ·ÓÙ›ıÂÛË ÌÂ ·˘Ù¿ Ë ∫‡ÚÔ˜ Î·È ÛÂ ¤Ó· ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ‚·ıÌfi Ë˘fiÏÔÈË ∂˘Úˆ·˚Î‹ ŒÓˆÛË ÚÔÛ·ıÔ‡Ó Ó· ‚ÚÔ˘Ó ÙÔ˘˜ÌË¯·ÓÈÛÌÔ‡˜ Ì¤Û· ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ÔÔ›Ô˘˜ ı· ÚÔˆı‹ÛÔ˘Ó ÙËÓÎ·ÈÓÔÙÔÌ›· Î·È ÙËÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁÈÎ‹ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË. À¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó fiÌˆ˜ÛÔ‚·Ú¿ ıÂÛÌÈÎ¿ ÂÌfi‰È· ÚÔ˜ Û’ ·˘Ù‹Ó ÙËÓ Î·ÙÂ‡ı˘ÓÛË. ΔÔÂÚÈ‚¿ÏÏÔÓ ‰ÂÓ Â˘ÓÔÂ› ÙËÓ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ‰ÂÛÌÒÓ Î·È Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·ÛÈÒÓÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙˆÓ ·ÓÂÈÛÙËÌ›ˆÓ Î·È ÙË˜ ·ÁÔÚ¿˜, ‰ÂÓ Â˘ÓÔÂ› ÙËÓÂÈ¯ÂÈÚËÌ·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· Î·È ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÏË„Ë ÎÈÓ‰‡ÓÔ˘, ‰ÂÓ ÂÈ‚Ú·‚Â‡ÂÈÙËÓ ÂÈÙ˘¯›· Î·È Î·Ù·‰ÈÎ¿˙ÂÈ ÙÂÏÂÛ›‰ÈÎ· ÙËÓ ·ÔÙ˘¯›·. ø˜·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙË˜ ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ‹˜ Ú·ÎÙÈÎ‹˜ ÔÈ Ó¤ÔÈ ¿ÓıÚˆÔÈ·Ó·˙ËÙÔ‡Û·Ó ÌÈ· ı¤ÛË ÛÙÔ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚÔ ‰ËÌfiÛÈÔ ÁÈ· Ó·‰È·ÛÊ·Ï›ÛÔ˘Ó ÌÈ· ·ÍÈÔÚÂ‹ ÂÈ‚›ˆÛË.

∏ ‰È·¯ÚÔÓÈÎ‹ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎ‹ ÙË˜ ÔÏÈÙÂ›·˜ ÛÙ· ı¤Ì·Ù· ¤ÚÂ˘Ó·˜ Î·È·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË˜ ‹Ù·Ó ·ÔÛ·ÛÌ·ÙÈÎ‹, Û˘ÓÙËÚËÙÈÎ‹ Î·È Ì˘ˆÈÎ‹ Î·ÈÂÍ·ÓÙÏÂ›Ù·È ÛÙËÓ ÈÎ·ÓÔÔ›ËÛË ÙˆÓ ÂÏ·¯›ÛÙˆÓ ÔÚ›ˆÓ Ô˘ ı¤ÙÂÈ Ë∂∂. ™ÙËÓ ·Ô˘Û›· ÔÚ¿Ì·ÙÔ˜ Î·È ÛÙfi¯ˆÓ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Ô˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈÎ‹·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ÙË˜ ¤ÚÂ˘Ó·˜ Î·È ÙË˜ ÂÈ¯ÂÈÚËÌ·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ·˜ ¤¯ÂÈÚÔÛÙÂıÂ› Ë ‰‡ÛÎÔÏË ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ Û˘ÁÎ˘Ú›· ÌÂ ÙËÓ ∫˘‚¤ÚÓËÛË Ó·¤¯ÂÈ ÛÙ·Ì·Ù‹ÛÂÈ ÙË ¯ÚËÌ·ÙÔ‰fiÙËÛË Î·È Ó· ¤¯ÂÈ ·ÔÚÚÔÊ‹ÛÂÈfiÏÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ‰È·ı¤ÛÈÌÔ˘˜ fiÚÔ˘˜ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ÔÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌÔ‡˜ ÙÔ˘Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚÔ˘ ‰ËÌfiÛÈÔ˘ ÙÔÌ¤·. ΔÔ ÙÚ·ÁÈÎfi Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ ÙÔ 85% ÙˆÓfiÚˆÓ Ô˘ ·Ó·ÏÒÓÔÓÙ·È ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ¤ÚÂ˘Ó· ÚÔ¤Ú¯ÔÓÙ·È ·fiÎÔÈÓÔÙÈÎÔ‡˜ fiÚÔ˘˜ Î·È ÂÂÈ‰‹ Ë ∫˘‚¤ÚÓËÛË ‰ÂÓ ÌÔÚÂ› Ó·‰È·ı¤ÛÂÈ ÙÔ ˘fiÏÔÈÔ 15% Ë ∫‡ÚÔ˜ ÛÙÂÚÂ›Ù·È ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎÒÓfiÚˆÓ Ô˘ ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡Û·Ó Ó· ··Ï‡ÓÔ˘Ó ÌÂÚÈÎÒ˜ ÙË ‰‡ÛÎÔÏËÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ Î·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË. ∏ ∫˘‚¤ÚÓËÛË ÛÙ· Ï·›ÛÈ· ÙË˜ ÊÈÏÔÏ·˚Î‹˜ÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹˜ ÙË˜ ÚÔÙÈÌ¿ Ó· ‰›ÓÂÈ «·Û¯·ÏÈÓ¿ ÂÈ‰fiÌ·Ù·» Î·ÈÂÈ‰fiÌ·Ù· ÛÂ ÊÈÏÔÍÂÓÔ‡ÌÂÓÔ˘˜ ·ÓÙ› Ó· ‰È·ı¤ÙÂÈ ÙÔ˘˜··ÈÙÔ‡ÌÂÓÔ˘˜ fiÚÔ˘˜ ÁÈ· ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÏÔÁÈÎ‹ fiÙÈ Ù·«·Û¯·ÏÈÓ¿ ÂÈ‰fiÌ·Ù·» „ËÊ›˙Ô˘Ó! ∏ ÙÔÈÎ‹ ÂÚÂ˘ÓËÙÈÎ‹ÎÔÈÓfiÙËÙ· ¤¯ÂÈ ‰‡Ô ÍÂÎ¿ı·ÚÂ˜ ÂÈÏÔÁ¤˜ Â›ÙÂ Ó· ·Ó·ÛÙÂ›ÏÂÈ ÙÈ˜‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙÂ˜ ÙË˜ Â›ÙÂ Ó· ·Ó·˙ËÙ‹ÛÂÈ ÚÔÁÚ¿ÌÌ·Ù· Î·ÈÛ˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›Â˜ ÛÙÔ ÂÍˆÙÂÚÈÎfi ÂÓÒ ·Ú¿ÏÏËÏ· ı· ÚÔÛ·ıÂ› Ó·Â›ÛÂÈ ÙËÓ ÔÏÈÙÂ›· Î·È ÙËÓ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚË ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›· ÁÈ· ÙËÔÏÏ·Ï·ÛÈ·ÛÙÈÎ‹ ·Í›· ÙË˜ ¤ÚÂ˘Ó·˜ Î·È ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜˜. Go westyoung man (woman) go west.



£∂ª∞Δ√§√°π∞H ıÂÌ·ÙÔÏÔÁ›· ÙË˜ ¤Î‰ÔÛË˜ ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ ÌÈ· ÛÂÈÚ¿ ·fiÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓÙ· Î·È ÔÈÎ›Ï· ¿ÚıÚ· Ô˘ Î·Ï‡ÙÔ˘Ó ¤Ó· Â˘Ú‡ Ê¿ÛÌ·ıÂÌ¿ÙˆÓ. π‰È·›ÙÂÚË ÌÓÂ›· Á›ÓÂÙ·È ÛÙ· Û‡ÓÙÔÌ· ÎÂ›ÌÂÓ· ÙˆÓÊÔÈÙËÙÒÓ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Ô˘ Î¿ÓÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ ÚˆÙfiÏÂÈ· ÂÌÊ¿ÓÈÛËÙÔ˘˜ ÛÂ ·˘Ù‹Ó ÙËÓ ¤Î‰ÔÛË. ¶ÚÔÛ‚Ï¤Ô˘ÌÂ ÛÂ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚËÛ˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›· ÌÂ ÙÔ˘˜ ÊÔÈÙËÙ¤˜ fiÏˆÓ ÙˆÓ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙËÌ›ˆÓ ÛÙÔ¿ÌÂÛÔ Ì¤ÏÏÔÓ. ∏ ˘fiÏÔÈË ıÂÌ·ÙÔÏÔÁ›· ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ Ù··ÎfiÏÔ˘ı· ÎÂ›ÌÂÓ·:

O ¡Ù›ÓÔ˜ ∫ÔÓ‹˜ Ì¤ÏÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ¢™ ÙÔ˘ ™˘Ó‰¤ÛÌÔ˘ ÛÙÔ ¿ÚıÚÔ ÙÔ˘ÌÂ Ù›ÙÏÔ “The Positive Effect of Co-Locating Project Teams forSoftware Development” ÁÚ¿ÊÂÈ Ì¤Û· ·fi ÙËÓ ÂÌÂÈÚ›· ÙÔ˘ ÌÂ‰‡Ô ÚfiÛÊ·Ù· ¤ÚÁ· Î·È ÂÎÙÂÓ‹ ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿ ÛÙË ‚È‚ÏÈÔÁÚ·Ê›· ÁÈ·Ù· ıÂÙÈÎ¿ Î·È ·ÚÓËÙÈÎ¿ ÛËÌÂ›· ·fi ÙËÓ ·ÚÔ˘Û›· ÙˆÓ ÔÌ¿‰ˆÓÂÚÁ·Û›·˜ ÛÙÔÓ ›‰ÈÔ ¯ÒÚÔ.

√ Î·ı. º›ÏÈÔ˜ ¶Ô˘ÁÈÔ‡Ù·˜ Î·È ÔÈ Dr. Harald Gjermundrød and

¢Ú. πˆ¿ÓÓ· ¢ÈÔÓ˘Û›Ô˘ ÛÙÔ ¿ÚıÚÔ ÙÔ˘˜ “ReProTool - Re-engineering Academic Curriculum Using Learning Outcomes,ECTS and Bologna Process Concepts” ·ÚÔ˘ÛÈ¿˙Ô˘Ó ¤Ó·ÂÚÁ·ÏÂ›Ô ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ó·‰ÈÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛË (process re-engineering) ÙË˜‰È·‰ÈÎ·Û›·˜ ÙË˜ Bologna Î·È ÙˆÓ ·Î·‰ËÌ·˚ÎÒÓ ÚÔÁÚ·ÌÌ¿ÙˆÓ.

√ √Ú¤ÛÙË˜ ΔÚÈÁÎ›‰Ë˜ ÛÙÔ ¿ÚıÚÔ ÙÔ˘ ÌÂ Ù›ÙÏÔ “Again from theScratch: Dialogue and Genuine Interaction in Online (andOffline) Learning Communities” ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È ÛÙ· ı¤Ì·Ù· Ô˘ÚÔÎ‡ÙÔ˘Ó ·fi ÙËÓ ÂÊ·ÚÌÔÁ‹ ‰È·‰Ú·ÛÙÈÎÒÓ ÂÎ·È‰Â˘ÙÈÎÒÓÚÔÁÚ·ÌÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÛÂ ˙ˆÓÙ·Ófi (online) Î·È ÌË (offline) ¯ÚfiÓÔ.

√È ∂‡·ÁÁÂÏÔ˜ ª·ÎÚ‹˜, Ë ª·Ú›Î· ¶‡ÏÔ˘, Ô ™ˆÎÚ¿ÙË˜ΔÛ·ÁÁ¿ÚË˜, Ô ¶·Ó·ÁÈÒÙË˜ ¡ÂÔÊ‡ÙÔ˘ Î·È Ô ÃÚ›ÛÙÔ˜ ÃÔ˘ÛÈ¿‰·˜ÛÙÔ ¿ÚıÚÔ ÙÔ˘˜ “A Semi-Automated Patient SpecificComputational Fluid and Particle Dynamics AnalysisFramework for Biofluid Simulations” ÁÚ¿ÊÔ˘Ó ÁÈ· ¤Ó·ËÌÈ·˘ÙfiÌ·ÙÔ Ï·›ÛÈÔ ·Ó¿Ï˘ÛË˜ Ô˘ ‚·Û›˙ÂÙ·È ¿Óˆ ÛÂ Î¿ıÂ·ÛıÂÓ‹ ÍÂ¯ˆÚÈÛÙ¿ ÌÂ ÛÙfi¯Ô ÙËÓ ˘Ô‚Ô‹ıËÛË ÙË˜ È·ÙÚÈÎ‹˜‰È¿ÁÓˆÛË˜ Î·È ÚfiÁÓˆÛË˜.

√È Mark A. King, Jonathan A. Glynn and Sean R. Mitchell ÛÙÔ¿ÚıÚÔ ÙÔ˘˜ ÌÂ Ù›ÙÏÔ “A Subject-Specific Computer SimulationModel of the One-Handed Backhand Groundstroke in Tennis”·Û¯ÔÏÔ‡ÓÙ·È ÌÂ ‰‡Ô ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¿ Î·È ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓÙ· ı¤Ì·Ù· ÙÔ Ù¤ÓÈ˜Î·È ÙËÓ ÂÍÔÌÔ›ˆÛË ÌÂ ÙË ¯Ú‹ÛË ÙË˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜.

∏ ¤Î‰ÔÛË Û˘ÌÏËÚÒÓÂÙ·È ÌÂ ÙË ÌfiÓÈÌË ÛÙ‹ÏË ÙÔ˘ ¢Ú·. º›ÏÈÔ¶ÂÏÂÙÈ¤ “Do you know this place”, ÌÂ ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿ ÛÙËÓ ∫ÔÈÏ¿‰·ÙË˜ ™ÈÏÈÎfiÓË˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ fiÔÈ· ¤¯ÂÈ Á›ÓÂÈ ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿ ÈÔ ¿Óˆ.

∂¶π§√°√™√ Â›ÏÔÁÔ˜ Û’ ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ Ì‹Ó˘Ì· ‰ÂÓ ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· Â›Ó·È ¿ÏÏÔ˜ ·fiÂ˘¯¤˜ ÁÈ· ¤Ó· ‰ÚÔÛÂÚfi Î·È Â˘¯¿ÚÈÛÙÔ Î·ÏÔÎ·›ÚÈ ÌÂ ÙËÓÚÔÛ‰ÔÎ›· fiÙÈ ı· ·Ó·ÙÂ›ÏÔ˘Ó Û‡ÓÙÔÌ· Î·Ï‡ÙÂÚÂ˜ Ì¤ÚÂ˜. √πÔ‡ÏÈÔ˜ ¤Ú·Ó ·fi ÙÔ Â›Ó·È Ô ÈÔ ıÂÚÌfi˜ Ì‹Ó·˜ ÙÔ˘ ÚfiÓÔ˘ Â›Ó·ÈÎ·È Ô ÈÔ ÈÎÚfi˜ ÌÂ ÂıÓÈÎ¤˜ ÙÚ·Áˆ‰›Â˜ Î·È ÂÎ·ÙfiÌ‚Â˜ ı˘Ì¿ÙˆÓ.√ Î·Ù¿ÏÔÁÔ˜ Â›Ó·È ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ˜ Î·È ÔÈ ÛËÌ·‰È·Î¤˜ Ì¤ÚÂ˜ ÔÏÏ¤˜: 9πÔ˘Ï›Ô˘ 1821, 15 πÔ˘Ï›Ô˘ 1974, 20 πÔ˘Ï›Ô˘ 1974, 11 πÔ˘Ï›Ô˘2002 Î·È 11 πÔ˘Ï›Ô˘ 2011.

™Â Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ· ÙË˜ Û˘˙‹ÙËÛË˜ ÁÈ· Ù· ı¤Ì·Ù· ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ ·ÏÏ¿Î·È ÙË˜ ∂∂ ÌÈ· Î·Ï‹ ÂÈÛ‹ÁËÛË ÁÈ· Î·ÏÔÎ·ÈÚÈÓfi ‰È¿‚·ÛÌ· Â›Ó·È Ù·“Federalist Papers”http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html Ù· ÔÔ›··ÔÙÂÏÔ‡Ó ÙË Û˘ÏÏÔÁÈÎ‹ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· ÙˆÓ ÂÊˆÙÈÛÌ¤ÓˆÓ·Ú¯ÈÎÒÓ ËÁÂÙÒÓ (founding fathers) ÙˆÓ ∏ÓˆÌ¤ÓˆÓ ¶ÔÏÈÙÂÈÒÓ∞ÌÂÚÈÎ‹˜ Ó· ‰È·ÌÔÚÊÒÛÔ˘Ó ÙÔ ÔÏÈÙÈÎfi, ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎfi Î·ÈÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎfi ÂÚÈ‚¿ÏÏÔÓ ÙË˜ ¯ÒÚ·˜ ÙÔ˘˜. Δ· ¿ÚıÚ· ·˘Ù¿ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· Ì·˜ ‰È·ÊˆÙ›ÛÔ˘Ó Î·È Ó· Ì·˜ ÚÔ‚ÏËÌ·Ù›ÛÔ˘Ó ÂÓfi„ÂÈÙË˜ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ·˜ ÁÈ· Â›Ï˘ÛË ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ Î·È ÙˆÓ ‰È·ÊfiÚˆÓ‰ÈÏËÌÌ¿ÙˆÓ Ô˘ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡ÓÙ·È.

§ÔÁ·ÚÈ¿Û·ÙÂ Ï¿ıÔ˜ ÌÂ ÙÔ ÓÔ˘ Û·˜ ÂÌfiÚÔÈ‰Â ÌÂÙÚÈ¤Ù·È ·ÙÚ›‰· ÏÂ˘ÙÂÚÈ¿ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ‹¯ËÎÈ ·Ó ÌÈÎÚfi˜ Â›Ó·È Ô ÙfiÔ˜ Î·È ÙÔ ı¤ÏÂÈ Î·È ÌÔÚÂ›ÙÔÓ ·Û‹ÎˆÙÔ ‚Ú¿¯Ô Ó· ÙÔÓ Ê¿ÂÈ ÌÂ ÙÔ Ó‡¯ÈΔÔ‡ÙË Ë ‰›„· ‰Â Û‚‹ÓÂÈ ÙÔ‡ÙË Ë Ì¿¯Ë ‰Â ·‡ÂÈ¯›ÏÈ· ¯ÚfiÓÈ· ·Ó ÂÚ¿ÛÔ˘Ó ‰ÂÓ Âı·›ÓÔ˘ÌÂ ÛÎÏ¿‚ÔÈ

§ÔÁ·ÚÈ¿Û·ÙÂ Ï¿ıÔ˜, £ÂÔ‰fiÛË˜ ¶ÈÂÚ›‰Ë˜.


Δ∞ ¡∂∞ ª∞™

CCS

∏ª∂ƒπ¢∞ ¶§∏ƒ√º√ƒπ∫∏™ °π∞ ª∞£∏Δ∂™ §À∫∂π√À°È· 3Ë Û˘ÓÂ¯‹ ¯ÚÔÓÈ¿ ÙÔ ΔÌ‹Ì· ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶·Ó/ÌÈÔ˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘,ÌÂ ÙËÓ ˘ÔÛÙ‹ÚÈÍË ÙÔ˘ ∫˘.™˘.¶., ‰ÈÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛÂ ∏ÌÂÚ›‰· ÂÓËÌ¤ÚˆÛË˜ÁÈ· ÙÔ Â¿ÁÁÂÏÌ· ÙË˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜, Ô˘ ·Â˘ı˘ÓfiÙ·Ó ÛÂ Ì·ıËÙ¤˜μ’ Î·È °’ Ù¿ÍË˜ ÙÔ˘ §˘ÎÂ›Ô˘ Î·È ΔÂ¯ÓÈÎÒÓ ™¯ÔÏÒÓ. ∞ÓÙÈÚfiÛˆÔ˜ ·fiÙÔ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ Ì·˜ ·Ú¤‰ˆÛÂ ‰È¿ÏÂÍË ÁÈ· ÙÔ Â¿ÁÁÂÏÌ·, ÂÓÒ fiÏÔÈ ÔÈÌ·ıËÙ¤˜ ¤Ï·‚·Ó ‰ˆÚ¿ÎÈ· Î·È ÂÓËÌÂÚˆÙÈÎfi ˘ÏÈÎfi ÁÈ· ÙË ‰Ú¿ÛË ÙÔ˘™˘Ó‰¤ÛÌÔ˘.

™À¡∂¢ƒπ√ ¶§∏ƒ√º√ƒπ∫∏™ ∫∞π Δ∂Ã¡√§√°π∞™ΔÔÓ ª¿ÈÔ ÔÏÔÎÏËÚÒıËÎÂ ÌÂ ÂÈÙ˘¯›· ÙÔ 3Ô ™˘Ó¤‰ÚÈÔ Î·È ŒÎıÂÛË¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ΔÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜ (ICT SUMMIT) Ô˘ ‰ÈÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛÂ ËIMH ÌÂ ÙËÓ ˘ÔÛÙ‹ÚÈÍË ÙÔ˘ ∫˘.™˘.¶. ΔÔ ™˘Ó¤‰ÚÈÔ ·Ú·ÎÔÏÔ‡ıËÛ·Ó¿Óˆ ·fi 400 ¿ÙÔÌ· ·fi fiÏÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÎÏ¿‰Ô˘˜ ÙË˜ Î˘ÚÈ·Î‹˜ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜, Ô˘ ÂÓËÌÂÚÒıËÎ·Ó ÁÈ· ÙË ÛËÌ·Û›· ÙË˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ÛÙÔÓ È‰ÈˆÙÈÎfi Î·È ‰ËÌfiÛÈÔ ÙÔÌ¤·, ÂÈ‰ÈÎ¿ ÛÂ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô˘˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹˜ÛÙÂÓfiÙËÙ·˜. √ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜ Ì·˜ Â›¯Â ·ÚÔ˘Û›· ÛÙËÓ ŒÎıÂÛË ÌÂÂÚ›ÙÂÚÔ fiÔ˘ ÌÔÈÚ·˙fiÙ·Ó ÂÓËÌÂÚˆÙÈÎfi ˘ÏÈÎfi.

™À¡∂¢ƒπ√ InfoCom.cy√ ∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi˜ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÛÙ‹ÚÈÍÂ Î·È Ê¤ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚÔ Û˘Ó¤‰ÚÈÔ ÙËÏÂÈÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÒÓ ÛÙËÓ ∫‡ÚÔ Ô˘ ‰ÈÔÚÁ·ÓÒÓÂÙ·È·fi ÙË Smart Com Ltd Î·È ÙÔ ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎfi ∫ÈÓËÙ‹ ΔËÏÂÊˆÓ›·. ΔÔ 4Ô ™˘Ó¤‰ÚÈÔ InfoCom.cy ÌÂ Ù›ÙÏÔ «∏ ¤ÍÔ‰Ô˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ÎÚ›ÛË Â›Ó·È„ËÊÈ·Î‹» ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÂ ÊfiÚÔ˘Ì Û˘Ó¿ÓÙËÛË˜ Î˘‚ÂÚÓËÙÈÎÒÓ ÛÙÂÏÂ¯ÒÓ, ÙˆÓ Ú˘ıÌÈÛÙÈÎÒÓ ·Ú¯ÒÓ, ÙË˜ ·ÁÔÚ¿˜, Î·È ÙˆÓ ¯ÚËÛÙÒÓ Î·È·ÓÙ·ÏÏ¿¯ÙËÎ·Ó ·fi„ÂÈ˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ Ì¤ÏÏÔÓ ÙˆÓ ËÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎÒÓ ÂÈÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÒÓ ÛÙËÓ ∫‡ÚÔ. ΔÔ ™˘Ó¤‰ÚÈÔ ¯·ÈÚ¤ÙÈÛÂ Î·È Ô ¶ÚfiÂ‰ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ CCSÎÔ˜ ∫ÒÛÙ·˜ ∞ÁÚfiÙË˜.

CCS-GARTNER EVENT 2012√ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜ Ì·˜ ÛÂ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›· ÌÂ ÙÔ ¢ÈÂıÓ‹ √ÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌfi Gartner, Î·È ÙËÓ ÂÙ·ÈÚ›· Infosystems, ‰ÈÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛ·Ó ÛÂÌÈÓ¿ÚÈÔ ÌÂ ı¤Ì· ÙËÓ·‡ÍËÛË ÙÔ˘ Î¤Ú‰Ô˘˜ ÌÂ ÙË Î·Ù¿ÏÏËÏË ¯Ú‹ÛË ¯·ÌËÏÔ‡ ÎfiÛÙÔ˘˜ ˘ËÚÂÛÈÒÓ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜. ™ÙÔ «Gartner Briefing: Optimize Cost byUsing Industrialized Low Cost Services Well», Ô˘ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÔÔÔÈ‹ıËÎÂ ÙÔ ª¿ÈÔ ÛÙË §Â˘ÎˆÛ›·, ‰È·ÎÂÎÚÈÌ¤ÓÔÈ ·Ó·Ï˘Ù¤˜ ÙÔ˘ Ô›ÎÔ˘Gartner ÁÈ· ∞ÓÂÍ¿ÚÙËÙË ŒÚÂ˘Ó· Î·È ∞Ó¿Ï˘ÛË ÛÙÔÓ ÙÔÌ¤· ÙˆÓ Δ¶∂ Ì›ÏËÛ·Ó ÁÈ· ÙÈ˜ Ó¤Â˜ Ù¿ÛÂÈ˜ fiˆ˜ Cloud & Virtualization Î·È ˆ˜ı· ÂËÚÂ¿ÛÂÈ ÙÔ ÎfiÛÙÔ˜ Î·È ÙÈ˜ Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›Â˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜.


ItSMF LAUNCH EVENTø˜ È‰Ú˘ÙÈÎfi Ì¤ÏÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ÓÂÔÛ‡ÛÙ·ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ ·Ú·ÚÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ itSMF (IT Service Management Forum), Ô ∫˘.™˘.¶. ˘ÔÛÙ‹ÚÈÍÂ ÙËÓÂÓ·ÚÎÙ‹ÚÈ· ÂÎ‰‹ÏˆÛË. ∏ ÂÈÙ˘¯ËÌ¤ÓË ËÌÂÚ›‰· Ô˘ Â›¯Â ˆ˜ ÛÙfi¯Ô ÙËÓ ÚÔÒıËÛË ÙˆÓ ‚¤ÏÙÈÛÙˆÓ Ú·ÎÙÈÎÒÓ ‰È·¯Â›ÚÈÛË˜ ˘ËÚÂÛÈÒÓÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÂÚÈÏ¿Ì‚·ÓÂ ÂÚÁ·ÛÙ‹ÚÈ Î·È Û˘Ó¤‰ÚÈÔ Ô˘ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÔÔÈ‹ıËÎ·Ó ÙÔ ª¿ÈÔ, ÛÙÔ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ §Â˘ÎˆÛ›·˜.

ECDL

¢π∂£¡∏™ ∂∫¶∞π¢∂ÀΔπ∫∏ ∂∫£∂™∏Ÿˆ˜ Î¿ıÂ ¯ÚfiÓÔ ¤ÙÛÈ Î·È Ê¤ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ ECDL Û˘ÌÌÂÙÂ›¯Â ÛÙË ¢ÈÂıÓ‹∂Î·È‰Â˘ÙÈÎ‹ ŒÎıÂÛË Ô˘ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÔÔÈ‹ıËÎÂ ÙÔÓ ºÂ‚ÚÔ˘¿ÚÈÔ ÛÙÔ˘˜¯ÒÚÔ˘˜ ÙË˜ ∫Ú·ÙÈÎ‹˜ ŒÎıÂÛË˜ ∫‡ÚÔ˘. ΔÔ ÂÚ›ÙÂÚÔ ÙÔ˘ ECDLÊ¤ÙÔ˜ ·Ó·Ó¤ˆÛÂ ÙÔ Û¯Â‰È·ÛÌfi ÙÔ˘, Î·È ˘Ô‰¤¯ÙËÎÂ ÙÔ˘˜ ¯ÈÏÈ¿‰Â˜Ì·ıËÙ¤˜ Ô˘ ÂÈÛÎ¤ÊÙËÎ·Ó ÙËÓ ŒÎıÂÛË. ΔÔ ÂÚ›ÙÂÚÔ ¤ÁÈÓÂ fiÏÔ˜¤ÏÍË˜ Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ ÓÂ·ÓÈÎfi ÎÔÈÓfi Ô˘ Â›¯Â ÙËÓ Â˘Î·ÈÚ›· Ó·‰ÈÂÎ‰ÈÎ‹ÛÂÈ ‰ÒÚ· Î·È Ó· ‰ÔÎÈÌ¿ÛÂÈ Ù· ËÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎ¿ ·È¯Ó›‰È· Ô˘·ÓÙÈÛÙÔÈ¯Ô‡Ó ÛÂ ‰‡Ô ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎÔ‡˜ ‰È·‰ÈÎÙ˘·ÎÔ‡˜ ‰È·ÁˆÓÈÛÌÔ‡˜.

¢π∞¢π∫ΔÀ∞∫√π ¢π∞°ø¡π™ª√π º¤ÙÔ˜ ÂÈ Â˘Î·ÈÚ›· ÙË˜ Û˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹˜ ÛÙËÓ ŒÎıÂÛË, ÙÔ ECDLÔÏÔÎÏ‹ÚˆÛÂ ÌÂ ÂÈÙ˘¯›· ‰‡Ô ¢È·‰ÈÎÙ˘·ÎÔ‡˜ ¢È·ÁˆÓÈÛÌÔ‡˜, ÔÈÙ˘¯ÂÚÔ› ÓÈÎËÙ¤˜ ÙˆÓ ÔÔ›ˆÓ ·Ú¤Ï·‚·Ó ipad tablets Î·È ¿ÏÏ· ÏÔ‡ÛÈ·‰ÒÚ· ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜.

∫Ô˘›˙ æËÊÈ·ÎÒÓ ¢ÂÍÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ (ECDL Contest)™Â ÌÈ· ÂÈ‰ÈÎ‹ ‰È·‰ÈÎÙ˘·Î‹ Ï·ÙÊfiÚÌ· ÙÔ ÎÔÈÓfi Â›¯Â ÙËÓ Â˘Î·ÈÚ›· Ó·Ï‡ÛÂÈ ¤Ó· ÚˆÙfiÙ˘Ô ÎÔ˘›˙ ÌÂ ÂÚˆÙ‹ÛÂÈ˜ Î·È ·ÛÎ‹ÛÂÈ˜ Ô˘ ¤¯Ô˘Ó¿ÌÂÛË Û¯¤ÛË ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹ Î·È Û˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈÌ¤Ó· ÌÂ ÙÈ˜ „ËÊÈ·Î¤˜‰ÂÍÈfiÙËÙÂ˜ Ô˘ ··ÈÙÂ› Ë ÈÛÙÔÔ›ËÛË ECDL. ™ÙÔ ‰È·ÁˆÓÈÛÌfiÛ˘ÌÌÂÙÂ›¯·Ó 1500 ¿ÙÔÌ· Î·È ÓÈÎËÙ‹˜ ·Ó·‰Â›¯ÙËÎÂ ÙÔ ¿ÙÔÌÔ ÌÂ ÙËÓ˘„ËÏfiÙÂÚË ‚·ıÌÔÏÔÁ›·.


EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY’S STRESS RELEASE DAYΔÔ ∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ ∫‡ÚÔ˘, Û˘ÓÂÚÁ¿ÛÙËÎÂ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÂÙ·ÈÚ›·‰ÈÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛË˜ ÂÎ‰ËÏÒÛÂˆÓ Amaaze, ÌÂ ÛÙfi¯Ô Ó· ÚÔÛÊ¤ÚÂÈ„˘¯·ÁˆÁ›· ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÊÔÈÙËÙ¤˜ Ô˘ ˘ÔÊ¤ÚÔ˘Ó ·fi ÙÔ ¿Á¯Ô˜ ÙˆÓÂÍÂÙ¿ÛÂˆÓ. ŒÙÛÈ, ·Ú¯¤˜ ª·˝Ô˘, ‰ÈÔÚÁ·ÓÒıËÎÂ ÛÙÔ ÒÚÔ ÛÙ¿ıÌÂ˘ÛË˜ÙÔ˘ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙËÌ›Ô˘ Ì›· ËÌÂÚ›‰· ÌÂ ‰È·ÛÎÂ‰·ÛÙÈÎ¿ ·È¯Ó›‰È· fiˆ˜·ÓıÚÒÈÓÔ Ô‰ÔÛÊ·ÈÚ¿ÎÈ Î·È ÁÈÁ¿ÓÙÈÔ ·È¯Ó›‰È Jenga. ΔÔ ECDL ˆ˜˘ÔÛÙËÚÈÎÙ‹˜ ÙˆÓ Ó¤ˆÓ Î·È ÙˆÓ ÊÔÈÙËÙÈÎÒÓ ÂÎ‰ËÏÒÛÂˆÓ ¯ÔÚ‹ÁËÛÂÙËÓ ËÌÂÚ›‰· Î·È ÚÔÛ¤ÊÂÚÂ ‰ÒÚ· ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÓÈÎËÙ¤˜ ÙˆÓ ·È¯ÓÈ‰ÈÒÓ.

¢È·ÛÎÂ‰·ÛÙÈÎfi ·È¯Ó›‰È ÛÙÔ Facebook™ÙËÓ ÈÛÙÔÛÂÏ›‰· ÙÔ˘ ECDL ÛÙÔ Facebook, ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ‹ıËÎÂ ÌÈ·ÚˆÙÔÔÚÈ·Î‹ ÂÊ·ÚÌÔÁ‹-·È¯Ó›‰È ÌÂ „˘¯·ÁˆÁÈÎfi ÁÈ· ÙÔ ÓÂ·ÓÈÎfiÎÔÈÓfi ‡ÊÔ˜. ΔÔ ·È¯Ó›‰È ÚÔÛ¤ÏÎ˘ÛÂ ¿Óˆ ·fi 1500 ¿ÙÔÌ· ÛÙËÓÈÛÙÔÛÂÏ›‰· ·˘Ù‹, ÁÂÁÔÓfi˜ Ô˘ ¤¯ÂÈ ÍÂÂÚ¿ÛÂÈ Î¿ıÂ ÚÔÛ‰ÔÎ›· ÙÔ˘ECDL & CCS ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÂÌÏÔÎ‹ ÛÙ· ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ¿ ‰›ÎÙ˘·.

CCS / ECDL

∏ª∂ƒπ¢∂™ ∫∞ƒπ∂ƒ∞™ ™Δ∞ ¶∞¡∂¶π™Δ∏ªπ∞∫¿ıÂ ÚÔÓÈ¿ Ô ∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi˜ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Ï·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ Ì¤ÚÔ˜ÛÂ ∏ÌÂÚ›‰Â˜ ∫·ÚÈ¤Ú·˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ˘˜ ÊÔÈÙËÙ¤˜ Ô˘ ‰ÈÔÚÁ·ÓÒÓÔ˘Ó ‰ËÌfiÛÈ·Î·È È‰ÈˆÙÈÎ¿ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈ·, ÒÛÙÂ Ó· ÂÓËÌÂÚÒÛÂÈ ÁÈ· ÙÔ Â¿ÁÁÂÏÌ·ÙË˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Î·ıÒ˜ Î·È Ó· ÚÔˆı‹ÛÂÈ ÙÔ ¶ÈÛÙÔÔÈËÙÈÎfi‰ÂÍÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ECDL ˆ˜ Ì¤ÛÔ ÁÈ· ÂÌÏÔ˘ÙÈÛÌfi ÙÔ˘μÈÔÁÚ·ÊÈÎÔ‡ Î·È ÂÊfi‰ÈÔ ÙË˜ Â·ÁÁÂÏÌ·ÙÈÎ‹˜ ÛÙ·‰ÈÔ‰ÚÔÌ›·˜. º¤ÙÔ˜ÙÔ CCS Î·È ÙÔ ECDL Û˘ÌÌÂÙÂ›¯·Ó ÛÙËÓ ∏Ì¤Ú· ™Ù·‰ÈÔ‰ÚÔÌ›·˜ ÙÔ˘¶·Ó/ÌÈÔ˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘, ÛÙËÓ ∏Ì¤Ú· ∫·ÚÈ¤Ú·˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙËÌ›Ô˘§Â˘ÎˆÛ›·˜ Î·È ÛÙËÓ ∂Ù‹ÛÈ· ŒÎıÂÛË ∂ÚÁÔ‰fiÙËÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡¶·ÓÂÈÛÙËÌ›Ô˘.

E-skills WEEK 2012∫¿ıÂ 2 ¯ÚfiÓÈ·, ÙÔ CCS/ECDL ÛÂ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›· ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ¶·ÁÎ‡ÚÈÔ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ ∂È¯ÂÈÚ‹ÛÂˆÓ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ (CITEA) Û˘ÌÌÂÙ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÛÙÔ∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ¤ÚÁÔ «E-Skills Week 2010» ÌÂ ÛÙfi¯Ô ÙËÓ ÚÔÒıËÛË ÙˆÓ„ËÊÈ·ÎÒÓ ‰ÂÍÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ ÛÙÔ˘˜ Ó¤Ô˘˜. º¤ÙÔ˜, ÙÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÂÚÈÏ¿Ì‚·ÓÂ ÙË‰ÈÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛË Î·È ÂÎÙ¤ÏÂÛË ÔÈÎ›ÏˆÓ ‰Ú¿ÛÂˆÓ Î·È ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓfiˆ˜ Û˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹ ÛÙËÓ ∂Î·È‰Â˘ÙÈÎ‹ ŒÎıÂÛË, ¤Î‰ÔÛË ÂÓËÌÂÚˆÙÈÎÔ‡Ê˘ÏÏ·‰›Ô˘ ÁÈ· Â·ÁÁ¤ÏÌ·Ù· ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜, ‰È¿ÛÎÂ„Ë Ù‡Ô˘, ‰È·Ï¤ÍÂÈ˜ÛÂ Î·ıËÁËÙ¤˜ Î·È Ì·ıËÙ¤˜ ª¤ÛË˜ ∂Î·›‰Â˘ÛË˜.


™·˜ Î·ÏˆÛÔÚ›˙ˆ fiÏÔ˘˜ÛÙËÓ ÛÙ‹ÏË ÙˆÓÊÔÈÙËÙÒÓ. ∂›Ó·È Ë ÚÒÙË ÊÔÚ¿ Ô˘‰ËÌÔÛÈÂ‡ÂÙ·È ·˘Ù‹ ËÛÙ‹ÏË Î·È Â˘¯‹ fiÏˆÓÂ›Ó·È Ó· Î·ıÈÂÚˆıÂ›.

∏ ÊˆÓ‹ ÙˆÓ ÊÔÈÙËÙÒÓ ÙË˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜‰ÂÓ ı· ·ÎÔ‡ÁÂÙ·È ·fi ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ÛÙ‹ÏË,·ÏÏ¿ ı· ‰È·‚¿˙ÂÙ·È. ∏ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ·, ÁÈ·Ó· ¤¯ÂÈ ·ÔÙÂÏ¤ÛÌ·Ù·, ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ¤¯ÂÈÛ˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ· Î·È Û˘Ó¤ÂÈ·. √È ··ÓÙ·¯Ô‡ÊÔÈÙËÙ¤˜ ÙË˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÙÔÏfiÁÔ Î·È ÙËÓ ¿Ô„Ë Î·È ÛÂ ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓÛÙ‹ÏË ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ÙËÓ ÂÎÊÚ¿ÛÔ˘Ó. ™Â·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ÚÒÙË ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· ÙÔ ı¤Ì·Â›Ó·È Ë ÊÔÈÙËÙÈÎ‹ ˙ˆ‹ Î·È ˆ˜ ÙËÓ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›˙Ô˘ÌÂ. ø˜ ÙÂÙ·ÚÙÔÂÙ‹˜ÊÔÈÙËÙ‹˜ ¤¯ˆ Ì¿ıÂÈ ˆ˜ Ù· ‰È¿ÊÔÚ·ÎÔÏÏ¤ÁÈ·, ·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈ·, Û¯ÔÏ¤˜ ı· ÛÔ˘‰È‰¿ÍÔ˘Ó Ù· ‚·ÛÈÎ¿ Ú¿ÁÌ·Ù· Ô˘Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Í¤ÚÂÈ˜ ÒÛÙÂ Ó· ÌÔÚÂ›˜ ·fiÌfiÓÔ˜ ÛÔ˘ Î·È ÌÂ ÙÔ ÌÂÚ¿ÎÈ Ô˘ ÛÂ‰È·ÎÚ›ÓÂÈ Ó· Ì¿ıÂÈ˜ ÙÔ Î¿ÙÈ ·Ú·¿Óˆ.∫¿ıÂ Î·ÏÔÎ·›ÚÈ Ì·ıËÙ¤˜ ÂÙ¿ÓÂ ·fi ÙËÓ¯·Ú¿ ÙÔ˘˜ fiÙ·Ó ·›ÚÓÔ˘Ó ÌÈ· ı¤ÛË ÛÂÙÌ‹Ì·Ù· ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ‚Ï¤Ô˘Ó fiÏÂ˜ÙÈ˜ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈÂ˜ ÙÔ˘˜ Ó· ·›ÚÓÔ˘ÓÛ¿ÚÎ· Î·È ÔÛÙ¿. ÕÚ·ÁÂ ¤ÙÛÈ Â›Ó·È; ‹ Â›Ó·ÈÌfiÓÔ Ù· ÔÛÙ¿; ÃÚÂÈ¿˙ÂÙ·È ÔÏ‡ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· ÁÈ· Ó· ÂÙ‡¯ÂÈ Î¿ÔÈÔ˜ ÙÔ˘˜ÛÙfi¯Ô˘˜ Ô˘ ı¤ÙÂÈ Ô ÎÏ¿‰Ô˜ ÙË˜¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜.

◊ ¯ÚÂÈ¿˙ÂÙ·È ·ÏÒ˜ ÌÈ· È‰¤· Î·È Ï›Á·ÏÂÊÙ¿ ÁÈ· Ó· ÙËÓ ˘ÏÔÔÈ‹ÛÂÈ; ¶ÚfiÛÊ·Ù·ÁÓˆÛÙ‹ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›· ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ‹˜ ‰ÈÎÙ‡ˆÛË˜·ÁfiÚ·ÛÂ ÌÈ· ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›· Ô˘ Â›¯Â 13˘·ÏÏ‹ÏÔ˘˜ Î·È ıÂˆÚÂ›Ù·È ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ˜·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÙ‹˜. ∏ ·ÁÔÚ¿ ÎfiÛÙÈÛÂ 1‰ÈÛÂÎ·ÙÔÌÌ‡ÚÈÔ ‰ÔÏÏ¿ÚÈ·, Ó·È ÌÂ ÂÓÓ¤·ÌË‰ÂÓÈÎ¿. ∞Ó fiÌˆ˜, ·fi ÙËÓ ¿ÏÏË ‰ÂÓ¤¯ÂÈ˜ ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ÂÍ·ÈÚÂÙÈÎ‹ È‰¤· Î·È·Ó·ÁÎ¿˙ÂÛ·È Ó· ‚ÚÂÈ˜ ‰Ô˘ÏÂÈ¿ ÛÂ Î¿ÔÈ·ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›· Ù· Ú¿ÁÌ·Ù· ·ÏÏ¿˙Ô˘Ó. Œ¯ˆÙ˘¯›Ô ÙÔ˘˜ ÏÂ˜, ¤¯ˆ Î·È ÌÂÙ·Ù˘¯È·Îfi.∂ÎÂ›ÓÔÈ fiÌˆ˜ ı¤ÏÔ˘Ó ÂÌÂÈÚ›·, ı¤ÏÔ˘ÓÈÛÙÔÔÈËÙÈÎ¿ (ˆ˜ ı· Ê¤ÚÔ˘Ó Û›ÁÔ˘ÚÔreturn ÌÂÙ¿ ÔÈ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÂ˜ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜ Ô˘ÂÎ‰›‰Ô˘Ó ·˘Ù¿ Ù· ÈÛÙÔÔÈËÙÈÎ¿). Ÿˆ˜Î·È Ó· ¤¯ÂÈ, ÙÔ Ù·Í›‰È ÛÙËÓ ·fiÎÙËÛË ÂÓfi˜Ù˘¯›Ô˘ ÛÙËÓ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹ Â›Ó·È Î¿ÙÈ Ô˘Ì¤ÓÂÈ ·Í¤¯·ÛÙÔ (¤ÙÛÈ Ï¤ÓÂ ÔÈ ·ÏÈÔ› Ô˘¤ÊÙ·Û·Ó ÙÈ˜ Ï·Î¤ÙÂ˜ ÁÈ· Ó·ÚÔÁÚ·ÌÌ·Ù›ÛÔ˘Ó) Î·È ·˘Ùfi Ô˘ Â›Ó·ÈÔ˘ ÚÔÛ·ıÂ› ÙÔ ı¤Ì· ·˘ÙÔ‡ ÙË˜ÛÙ‹ÏË˜ Ó· ·Ó·‰Â›ÍÂÈ.

Stu - Fi... ÙÔ˘ ∞ÓÙÚ¤· ¶·ÓÙÂÏ‹

Logo explanation:like Wi-Fi Wireless FidelityStu - Fi Student Fidelity

Fidelity:fi·del·i·ty [fi-del-i-tee, fahy-] noun, plural -ties.1. strict observance of promises,

duties, etc.: a servant's fidelity.2. loyalty: fidelity to one's country.3. conjugal faithfulness.4. adherence to fact or detail.5. accuracy; exactness: The speech

was transcribed with great fidelity.

Origin: 1375–1425; late Middle English fidelite

(< Middle French ) < Latin fidelitas,equivalent to fideli- (stem of fidelisloyal, equivalent to fide ( s ) faith +-lis adj. suffix) + -tas -ty2

Synonyms:2. loyalty. 5. precision, faithfulness,

rigor, meticulousness.

ŒÓ·˜ «·ÓıÈÛÌ¤ÓÔ˜°ÔÏÁÔı¿˜»°Ú¿ÊÂÈ Ô ∫ˆÓÛÙ·ÓÙ›ÓÔ˜ º·ÛÔ˘Ï‹˜¶ÚÔÙ˘¯È·Îfi˜ ÊÔÈÙËÙ‹˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÛÙÔ

¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ ∫‡ÚÔ˘

ΔÈ ı· ÛÔ˘‰¿ÛÂÈ˜ ·ÏÈÎ¿ÚÈ ÌÔ˘;ÀÔÏÔÁÈÛÙ¤˜! ∞˘Ù‹ ‹Ù·Ó Ë ·¿ÓÙËÛË Ô˘ÌÂ Ï·¯Ù¿Ú· ‰›Ó·ÌÂ ÚÈÓ ·fi ÌÂÚÈÎ¿¯ÚfiÓÈ·, fiÙ·Ó, ÙÂÏÂÈfiÊÔÈÙÔÈ §˘ÎÂ›Ô˘ ÙfiÙÂ,Ì·˜ ÚˆÙÔ‡Û·Ó ÙÈ ÔÓÂÈÚÂ˘fiÌ·ÛÙ·Ó Ó··ÎÔÏÔ˘ı‹ÛÔ˘ÌÂ. ∫·È fiÙ·Ó ÂÍ·ÛÊ·Ï›Û·ÌÂÌÈ· ı¤ÛË ÛÙÔ ΔÌ‹Ì· ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÙÔ˘¶·ÓÂÈÛÙËÌ›Ô˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘, ÂÙÔ‡Û·ÌÂ ·fiÙË ¯·Ú¿ Ì·˜, Ô‰Â‡ÔÓÙ·˜ fiÌˆ˜, ÛÙÔ¿ÁÓˆÛÙÔ ÌÂ ‚¿ÚÎ· ÙËÓ ÂÏ›‰·!

ΔÔ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ ∫‡ÚÔ˘, fiÓÙ·˜ ÙÔÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚÔ ∞ÓÒÙ·ÙÔ ∂Î·È‰Â˘ÙÈÎfiÿ‰Ú˘Ì· ÙË˜ ¯ÒÚ·˜, ‰ÂÓ ¤¯ÙÈÛÂ ÙË Ê‹ÌËÙÔ˘, Ô‡ÙÂ ·fi ÙÈ˜ Í¤ÁÓÔÈ·ÛÙÂ˜ ÛÙÈÁÌ¤˜ÛÙËÓ Î·ÊÂÙ¤ÚÈ·, Ô‡ÙÂ ·fi Ù· ¯·Ï·ÚˆÙÈÎ¿

·ÔÁÂ‡Ì·Ù· ÛÙËÓ ·˘Ï‹, fiˆ˜ ·˘Ù¿ÔÏ˘‰È·ÊËÌ›˙ÔÓÙ·È ÛÙ· ªª∂. ∞ÓÙÈı¤Ùˆ˜,·Ó ÙÔ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ ‰È·ÊËÌÈ˙fiÙ·Ó ÛÙ·ªª∂, Ì¿ÏÏÔÓ ı· Â›¯Â ÁÈ· ÛÏfiÁÎ·Ó «Δ·Î·Ï¿ ÎfiÔÈ˜ ÎÙÒÓÙ·È». ªÈ· ÊÚ¿ÛË Ô˘¯·Ú¿¯ÙËÎÂ ·ÓÂÍ›ÙËÏ· ÛÙË Û˘ÓÂ›‰ËÛË Ì·˜Î·È ¤ÁÈÓÂ ÙÚfiÔ˜ ˙ˆ‹˜ Ù· ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›·Ù¤ÛÛÂÚ· ¯ÚfiÓÈ·.

∞Ó·ÔÏÒÓÙ·˜ ÙÈ˜ ÛÙÈÁÌ¤˜ Ô˘ ¤Ú·Û·Ó,·Ó·Î·Ï‡Ùˆ fiÙÈ ÌÂ ÙË ÛˆÛÙ‹ ‰È·¯Â›ÚÈÛË¯ÚfiÓÔ˘, Ô Î·ı¤Ó·˜ ÌÔÚÂ› Ó··ÓÙÂÂÍ¤ÏıÂÈ ÈÎ·ÓÔÔÈËÙÈÎ¿ ÛÙÈ˜·Î·‰ËÌ·˚Î¤˜ ÙÔ˘ ˘Ô¯ÚÂÒÛÂÈ˜. ∫·È fiÙ·ÓÏ¤ˆ ‰È·¯Â›ÚÈÛË ¯ÚfiÓÔ˘, ‰ÂÓ ÂÓÓÔÒ ÙÈ˜·ÙÂÏÂ›ˆÙÂ˜ ÒÚÂ˜ ÌÂÏ¤ÙË˜, ·ÏÏ¿ ÙÔÛ˘Ó‰˘·ÛÌfi ÙË˜ ÌÂ ¿ÏÏÂ˜ ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙÂ˜Ô˘ ·Ó·Ù‡ÛÛÔ˘Ó ÙÔ ÓÂ‡Ì· Î·È ÙËÁÓÒÛË.

¶¤Ú·, fiÌˆ˜, ·fi ÙË ÁÓÒÛË ÙÔ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ ÚÔÛÊ¤ÚÂÈ ¤Ó· ÂÍ›ÛÔ˘ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfi ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎfi ¤ÚÁÔ. ΔËÓ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË·ÓıÚÒˆÓ. ΔËÓ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ‰ÂÍÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ,

¤Ú· ·fi ÙÈ˜ ·Î·‰ËÌ·˚Î¤˜. √ Î·ı¤Ó·˜¤¯ÂÈ ÙËÓ Â˘Î·ÈÚ›· Ó· ·Ó·Î·Ï‡„ÂÈ ÙÔ¯ÔÚÂ˘ÙÈÎfi ‹ ÙÔ ıÂ·ÙÚÈÎfi ÙÔ˘ Ù·Ï¤ÓÙÔ, Ó·Á›ÓÂÈ ·fi Ú·‰ÈÔÊˆÓÈÎfi˜ ·Ú·ÁˆÁfi˜Ì¤¯ÚÈ ÚˆÙ·ıÏËÙ‹˜ ÛÙÔ ÛÎ¿ÎÈ, Ì¤Û· ·fiÙË Û˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ‰È¿ÊÔÚÔ˘˜ÔÌ›ÏÔ˘˜ Ô˘ ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈÔÔÈÔ‡ÓÙ·È ÛÙÔ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ.

¶ÚÔÛˆÈÎ¿, ÔÙ¤ ‰ÂÓ Ê·ÓÙ·˙fiÌÔ˘Ó fiÙÈı· ¤ÁÚ·Ê· ·˘Ù¤˜ ÙÈ˜ ÁÚ·ÌÌ¤˜ Î·È Â›Ì·ÈÛ›ÁÔ˘ÚÔ˜ fiÙÈ ÔÏÏÔ› ·fi ÂÛ¿˜ ı· Î¿ÓÔ˘Ó‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙÂ˜ Ô˘ ‰ÂÓ ÙÔ˘˜ ¤Ú·Û·ÓÛÙÈÁÌ‹ ·fi ÙÔ Ì˘·Ïfi. ∫·È fiÏ· ·˘Ù¿ ÁÈ·Ù›ÔÏ‡ ·Ï¿ ı· ·Ó·Î·Ï‡„Ô˘Ó ÙÔÓ Â·˘ÙfiÙÔ˘˜.

°È’ ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ ÏfiÁÔ, Â›‰ÔÍÂ ÌÔ˘¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ¿ÚÈÂ, ¿‰Ú·ÍÂ ÙËÓ Â˘Î·ÈÚ›·Ô˘ ÛÔ˘ ·ÚÔ˘ÛÈ¿˙ÂÙ·È, Î·È Ó· Â‡¯ÂÛ·ÈÔ ‰ÚfiÌÔ˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ «πı¿ÎË» Ó· Â›Ó·ÈÌ·ÎÚ‡˜!

Δ· ıÂÙÈÎ¿ ÙˆÓÛÔ˘‰ÒÓ Ô˘·ÊÔÚÔ‡Ó ÙÔ˘˜ËÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎÔ‡˜˘ÔÏÔÁÈÛÙ¤˜°Ú¿ÊÂÈ Ô ¡¤ÛÙÔÚ·˜ °ÂˆÚÁ›Ô˘4 ŒÙÔ˜ BSc Computer Engineering, FrederickUniversity of Cyprus

∏ ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›· Î·È ÁÂÓÈÎfiÙÂÚ· Ô ÎfiÛÌÔ˜ ÛÙÔÓÔÔ›Ô ˙Ô‡ÌÂ ·Ó·Ù‡ÛÛÂÙ·È Î·ıËÌÂÚÈÓ¿.∞Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ÛËÌ·›ÓÂÈ Ë ·ÏÏ·Á‹ ÚÔ˜ ÙÔÎ·Ï‡ÙÂÚÔ, ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË ÏÂÙfi ÌÂ ÏÂÙfi. ∏·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË Î·È Ë ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË ÙË˜ ÂÔ¯‹˜ Ì·˜¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚ›˙ÂÙ·È ·fi ÙoÓ ÙÔÌ¤· ÙˆÓÂÈÛÙËÌÒÓ Î·È ¿Óˆ ·’ fiÏ· Ù· ¿ÏÏ·, ÙÔÓÙÔÌ¤· ÙË˜ ΔÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜ Î·È ÙÔ ÁÓˆÛÙÈÎfiÂ‰›Ô ÙË˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ÙˆÓ∏ÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎÒÓ ÀÔÏÔÁÈÛÙÒÓ. ΔÈ˜ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›Â˜ ‰ÂÎ·ÂÙ›Â˜ ÔÈ ∏/À ¯ÚfiÓÔ ÌÂ ÙÔ

¯ÚfiÓÔ ·Ó·Ù‡ÛÛÔÓÙ·È ÛÂ ÈÛ¯‡ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·ÈÛÂ ÚÔÁÚ¿ÌÌ·Ù·, ÁÈ· Ó· ÌÔÚ¤ÛÔ˘Ó Ó··ÓÙ·ÂÍ¤ÏıÔ˘Ó ÛÙÈ˜ ·Ó¿ÁÎÂ˜ ÙÔ˘ ÈÔ·ÏÔ‡ ¯Ú‹ÛÙË ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÛÙÈ˜ ÙÂÚ¿ÛÙÈÂ˜··ÈÙ‹ÛÂÈ˜ ÙˆÓ ÌÂÁ¿ÏˆÓ ÂÈ¯ÂÈÚ‹ÛÂˆÓ.∞ÎfiÌË ÈÔ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ‹ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ÛÙÔ ı¤Ì·ÙˆÓ ˘ÔÏÔÁÈÛÙÒÓ ÛËÌÂÈÒıËÎÂ ÛÙÔ˘˜ÙÔÌÂ›˜ Ô˘ ·ÊÔÚÔ‡Ó Ù· ¢›ÎÙ˘· Î·È ÙÈ˜ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›Â˜ ÙÔ˘ ¢È·‰ÈÎÙ‡Ô˘.

Δ· ‰‡Ô ÈÔ ¿Óˆ ı¤Ì·Ù· ıÂˆÚÔ‡ÓÙ·È›Ûˆ˜ Î·È Ù· ÈÔ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¿ ÛÙËÓÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›· ÙˆÓ ∏/À. ¶ÔÏÏ¤˜ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜Î·È ÂÈ¯ÂÈÚ‹ÛÂÈ˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡ÓÙ·ÈÛ˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ·. ªÈ· ·fi ÙÈ˜ ‚·ÛÈÎ¤˜ ÙÔ˘˜·Ó¿ÁÎÂ˜ Î·È ÂÈ‰ÈÒÍÂÈ˜ Â›Ó·È Ó·‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ‹ÛÔ˘Ó ¤Ó· ‰›ÎÙ˘Ô ÂÓÙfi˜ Î·ÈÂÎÙfi˜ ÙË˜ ÂÈ¯Â›ÚËÛ‹˜ ÙÔ˘˜, ÁÈ· Ó·ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ÂÈÎÔÈÓˆÓÔ‡Ó ÈÔ Â‡ÎÔÏ· ÌÂÙÔ˘˜ ›‰ÈÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ˘·ÏÏ‹ÏÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘˜, ÌÂ‰È¿ÊÔÚÔ˘˜ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ¿ÙÂ˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÌÂ ÙÔ˘˜ÂÏ¿ÙÂ˜ ÙÔ˘˜. ∏ ‰È·Ê‹ÌÈÛË ÁÈ· Ì›·ÂÈ¯Â›ÚËÛË Â›Ó·È ÔÏ‡ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ‹ ÁÈ· ÙËÓÚÔÒıËÛË ÂÓfi˜ Ó¤Ô˘ ÚÔ˚fiÓÙÔ˜ Î·ıÒ˜

Î·È ÙËÓ ÚÔÛ¤ÏÎ˘ÛË Ó¤ˆÓ ÂÏ·ÙÒÓ. ¶¤Ú··fi ÙÔ˘˜ ·Ú·‰ÔÛÈ·ÎÔ‡˜ ÙÚfiÔ˘˜‰È·Ê‹ÌÈÛË˜, Ù· ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›· ¯ÚfiÓÈ· ÙÔ¢È·‰›ÎÙ˘Ô Â›Ó·È ¤Ó·˜ ¯ÒÚÔ˜ Ô˘ÚÔÛÊ¤ÚÂÙ·È ¿Ú· ÔÏ‡ ÁÈ’ ·˘Ùfi ÙÔÙÔÌ¤·, ÁÈ·Ù› ÂÂÎÙÂ›ÓÂÈ Ù· ÁÂˆÁÚ·ÊÈÎ¿fiÚÈ· ÙË˜ ‰È·Ê‹ÌÈÛË˜ ¤Ú· ·fi Ù· ÛÙÂÓ¿Ï·›ÛÈ· ÌÈ·˜ ¯ÒÚ·˜ ÛÂ ÔÏfiÎÏËÚÔ ÙÔÓÎfiÛÌÔ. ŸÏ· ·˘Ù¿ ¤‰ˆÛ·Ó ÌÈ· ÙÂÚ¿ÛÙÈ·ÒıËÛË ÛÙËÓ ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË ÙˆÓ ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎÒÓ‰ÈÎÙ‡ˆÓ. ™ÙËÓ ÂÔ¯‹ Ì·˜ Û¯Â‰fiÓ Î¿ıÂÛ›ÙÈ ÛÙÔÓ ÂÍÂÏÈÁÌ¤ÓÔ ÎfiÛÌÔ ‰È·ı¤ÙÂÈ∏/À Î·È Û¯Â‰fiÓ fiÏÔÈ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÚfiÛ‚·ÛË ÛÙÔ¢È·‰›ÎÙ˘Ô ÌÂ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· Ó· ˘fiÎÂÈÓÙ·ÈÛÂ ÌÈÎÚfi ‹ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ‚·ıÌfi ÛÙËÓ Â›‰Ú·ÛË‰È·ÊËÌ›ÛÂˆÓ Ô˘ ÙÔ Î·Ù·ÎÏ‡˙Ô˘Ó.

ø˜ ÊÔÈÙËÙ‹˜ ÛÙÔÓ ÙÔÌ¤· ÙˆÓ˘ÔÏÔÁÈÛÙÒÓ ‚Ï¤ˆ ˆ˜ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÙfiÛËÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË Ô˘ ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ ÛÂ ·˘Ùfi ÙÔÓ ÙÔÌ¤·,·Í›˙ÂÈ ÙÔÓ ÎfiÔ Ó· ÛÔ˘‰¿ÛÂÈ Î¿ÔÈÔ˜ÙËÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›· ÙˆÓ ˘ÔÏÔÁÈÛÙÒÓ, ÁÈ·Ù›¤ÙÛÈ ı· ÌÔÚ¤ÛÂÈ Ó· ·Ó·Ù˘¯ıÂ› ÛÂ‰È¿ÊÔÚÔ˘˜ ÙÔÌÂ›˜ Î·È Ê˘ÛÈÎ¿ ÛÙË


Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ· Ó· ÂÚÁ·ÛÙÂ› ÛÂ ·˘Ùfi ÙÔÓ ÙÔÌ¤·.Ÿˆ˜ ·Ó¤ÊÂÚ· Î·È ÈÔ ¿Óˆ Ô ÎfiÛÌÔ˜ÙˆÓ ˘ÔÏÔÁÈÛÙÒÓ ·Ó·Ù‡ÛÛÂÙ·È Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ·Î·È Î·Ù¿ ÙËÓ ¿Ô„‹ ÌÔ˘, ÂÈ‰ÈÎ¿ fiÛÔÓ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÛÙ· ‰‡Ô ı¤Ì·Ù· ÙˆÓ ¢ÈÎÙ‡ˆÓ Î·ÈÙˆÓ ΔÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁÈÒÓ ÙÔ˘ ¢È·‰ÈÎÙ‡Ô˘ÛËÌÂÈÒÓÂÙ·È Ë ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚË Î·È Ù·¯‡ÙÂÚËÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË.

À¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó ·ÚÎÂÙ¤˜ Â˘Î·ÈÚ›Â˜ ÁÈ’··Û¯fiÏËÛË Û’ ·˘ÙÔ‡˜ ÙÔ˘ ‰‡ÔÂÍÂÏÈÛÛfiÌÂÓÔ˘˜ ÙÔÌÂ›˜. ªÂ Ù· ı¤Ì·Ù·Ô˘ ·Û¯ÔÏÂ›Û·È ÁÈ· Ó· ¿ÚÂÈ˜ ÙÔ ‚·ÛÈÎfiÙ˘¯›Ô ·fi ÙÔ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ ·›ÚÓÂÈ˜·ÏÒ˜ ÌÈ· ÁÂÓÈÎ‹ È‰¤· ÁÈ· Ù·ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚ· Ú¿ÁÌ·Ù· Ô˘ ·ÊÔÚÔ‡ÓÙÔ˘˜ ∏/À. ∞˘Ù¿ ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· Û¯ÂÙ›˙ÔÓÙ·ÈÌÂ ÙÔÓ ¶ÚÔÁÚ·ÌÌ·ÙÈÛÌfi, Ù· ¢›ÎÙ˘·, ÙÈ˜ΔÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›Â˜ ÙÔ˘ ¢È·‰ÈÎÙ‡Ô˘, ÙÈ˜ μ¿ÛÂÈ˜‰Â‰ÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ Î.¿. ¶·Ú·Ù‹ÚËÛ· ·fi ÌÂÚÈÎ¿Ì·ı‹Ì·Ù· Ô˘ Î¿Óˆ ÙÒÚ· ÛÙÔ·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ ÛÙÔÓ ÙÔÌ¤· ÙˆÓ ·Û‡ÚÌ·ÙˆÓ‰ÈÎÙ‡ˆÓ, fiÙÈ ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ ÌÂÁ¿ÏË ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË ÛÂ‰È¿ÊÔÚÂ˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›Â˜, fiˆ˜ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›Â˜ ÁÈ· ·Û‡ÚÌ·Ù· ‰›ÎÙ˘· ÛÂÙÔÈÎ¿ ‰›ÎÙ˘· ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÛÂ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›Â˜Ô˘ ·ÊÔÚÔ‡Ó ÙËÓ ÎÈÓËÙ‹ ÙËÏÂÊˆÓ›·. ŸÛÔÈ·ÔÊ·Û›ÛÔ˘Ó Ó· ·Û¯ÔÏËıÔ‡Ó ÌÂ ·˘Ùfi ÙÔÓÙÔÌ¤· Â›Ó·È Î¿ÙÈ ÛÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô ı· ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈÌ¿ÏÏÔÓ ÌÈ· Î·Ï‹ ÚÔÔÙÈÎ‹, ·ÊÔ‡˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ ÌÈ· Û˘ÓÂ¯‹˜ ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË ÛÙÈ˜

Î·ÈÓÔ‡ÚÁÈÂ˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›Â˜ Ô˘ ·ÊÔÚÔ‡ÓÎ·È ÙÔ˘˜ ‰‡Ô ÙÔÌÂ›˜ ÙˆÓ ·Û‡ÚÌ·ÙˆÓ‰ÈÎÙ‡ˆÓ ÛÂ Û˘Ó‰˘·ÛÌfi ·ÎfiÌË Î·È ÌÂ ÙËÓÚÔÛÙ·Û›· ÛÙ· ‰›ÎÙ˘·.

√ ÙÔÌ¤·˜ Ô˘ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙÈ˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›Â˜ ÙÔ˘¢È·‰ÈÎÙ‡Ô˘ Â›Ó·È Î·Ù¿ ÙËÓ ¿Ô„‹ ÌÔ˘ ÔÙÔÌ¤·˜ ÛÙÔÓ ÔÔ›Ô ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ ·ÚÎÂÙ‹˙‹ÙËÛË. √È ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÔÈ ÔÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌÔ›,ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜, ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ¿ ‰›ÎÙ˘·, ÙÔÌ¤·˜„˘¯·ÁˆÁ›·˜ (·È¯Ó›‰È· ÎÙÏ)¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈÔ‡Ó ÙÔ ¢È·‰›ÎÙ˘Ô ÁÈ· Ó·ÚÔ‚ÏËıÔ‡Ó Ì¤Ûˆ ·˘ÙÔ‡. Ÿˆ˜ÚÔ·Ó·Ê¤Ú·ÌÂ Ó¤Â˜ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜ ˙ËÙÔ‡ÓÂÈ‰ÈÎÔ‡˜ Ô˘ Ó· ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ÙÔ˘˜ÊÙÈ¿ÍÔ˘Ó ÛÂÏ›‰· ÛÙÔ ¢È·‰›ÎÙ˘Ô, Ô˘ Ó·ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ÚÔ‚¿ÏÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›· ÙÔ˘˜·ÎfiÌ· Î·È Ó· ÙËÓ ‰È·ÊËÌ›ÛÔ˘Ó ÛÂ‰È¿ÊÔÚ· ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ¿ ‰›ÎÙ˘· ÌÂÂÎ·ÙÔÌÌ‡ÚÈ· Ì¤ÏË ÁÈ· Ó· ÌÔÚ¤ÛÔ˘Ó ¤ÙÛÈÓ· ÎÂÚ‰›ÛÔ˘Ó Ó¤Ô˘˜ ÂÏ¿ÙÂ˜. Δ·ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ¿ ‰›ÎÙ˘· ˙ËÙÔ‡Ó ‰È¿ÊÔÚÔ˘˜ÚÔÁÚ·ÌÌ·ÙÈÛÙ¤˜ Ô˘ Ó· Í¤ÚÔ˘Ó ÙÈ˜ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›Â˜ ¢È·‰ÈÎÙ‡Ô˘, ÁÈ· Ó· ÌÔÚÔ‡ÓÓ· ·Ó·Ù‡ÍÔ˘Ó Î·È Ó· ÂÍÂÏ›ÍÔ˘Ó ÙËÓÂÊ·ÚÌÔÁ‹ ÙÔ˘ ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎÔ‡ ‰ÈÎÙ‡Ô˘ ÌÂÓ¤Â˜ ÂÊ·ÚÌÔÁ¤˜. ¶ÚfiÛÊ·Ù· ·fi ÌÈ·¤ÚÂ˘Ó· Ô˘ Â›¯· Î¿ÓÂÈ ÁÈ· Â˘Î·ÈÚ›Â˜··Û¯fiÏËÛË˜ ÛÙÔÓ ÙÔÌ¤· ÙˆÓ˘ÔÏÔÁÈÛÙÒÓ ‰È·›ÛÙˆÛ· fiÙÈ ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ·ÚÎÂÙ¿ ÌÂÁ¿ÏË ˙‹ÙËÛË ÛÙÔ ÙÔÌ¤· ÙÔ˘

Web Developer. ŒÓ· ÔÏ‡ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔÏÂÔÓ¤ÎÙËÌ· ·˘ÙÔ‡ ÙÔ˘ Â·ÁÁ¤ÏÌ·ÙÔ˜Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ ÌÔÚÂ›˜ Ó· ÂÚÁ·ÛÙÂ›˜ Î·È ·fiÙÔ Û›ÙÈ ÛÔ˘ ‰Ô˘ÏÂ‡ÔÓÙ·˜ ÁÈ··Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ· ·ÎfiÌ· Î·È ÁÈ· ÌÈ· ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›·Ô˘ ¤¯ÂÈ ÙËÓ ¤‰Ú· ÙË˜ Î·È‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈÔÔÈÂ›Ù·È ÛÂ ÌÈ· Í¤ÓË ¯ÒÚ·.

ΔÔ Ó· ·Û¯ÔÏËıÂ› Î¿ÔÈÔ˜ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ÙÔÌ¤·ÙˆÓ ˘ÔÏÔÁÈÛÙÒÓ Ì¿ÏÏÔÓ ı· ‚ÁÂÈÎÂÚ‰ÈÛÌ¤ÓÔ˜ ·Ó ÂÈ‰ÈÎÂ˘ÙÂ› ÛÂ ÙÔÌÂ›˜ Ô˘¤¯Ô˘Ó Û˘ÓÂ¯Ò˜ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË Î·È ˙‹ÙËÛË.∞Í›˙ÂÈ ÙÔÓ ÎfiÔ Î¿ÔÈÔ˜ ÊÔÈÙËÙ‹˜ Ó·ÂÂÓ‰‡ÛÂÈ Î·È Ó· ÛÔ˘‰¿ÛÂÈ ÛÙÔÓ ÙÔÌ¤·ÙË˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ÙˆÓ ˘ÔÏÔÁÈÛÙÒÓ,ÁÈ·Ù› Â›Ó·È ¤Ó·˜ ÙÔÌ¤·˜ ÌÂ ÌÂÁ¿ÏË ‹ÙËÛËÛ‹ÌÂÚ· ÛÙËÓ ·ÁÔÚ¿, ·Ó fi¯È Ô ÚÒÙÔ˜Â›Ó·È ¤Ó·˜ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ÚÒÙÔ˘˜.

¶Ú¤ÂÈ fiÌˆ˜ Ó· Á›ÓÂÈ Î¿Ùˆ ·fi ÌÈ·ÚÔ¸fiıÂÛË. ∞Ó ÂÈı˘ÌÂ› Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎ¿Ó· ·Û¯ÔÏËıÂ› ÌÂ ¤Ó· ÙÔÌ¤· Ô˘ ÙÔ˘·Ú¤ÛÂÈ ÔÏ‡, ÙfiÙÂ ıÂˆÚÒ ··Ú·›ÙËÙÔ Ó··ÎÔÏÔ˘ı‹ÛÂÈ ÌÂÙ·Ù˘¯È·Î¤˜ ÛÔ˘‰¤˜ÛÙÔ ı¤Ì· Ô˘ ÙÔÓ ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÂÈ, ÁÈ· Ó·ÌÔÚ¤ÛÂÈ Ó· ·ÔÎÙ‹ÛÂÈ ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÂ˜ÁÓÒÛÂÈ˜ ÎÈ ÂÌÂÈÚ›· ¿Óˆ ÛÙÔÓ ÎÏ¿‰Ô·˘Ùfi Î·È Ó· ÙÔÓ Î·Ù·ÎÙ‹ÛÂÈ ÛÂÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÔ ‚¿ıÔ˜.

¢π∞º∏ªπ™Δ∂πΔ∂ ™Δ∏¡ ¶§∏ƒ√º√ƒπ∫∏!¢È·ÊËÌ›˙ÔÓÙ·˜ ÛÙÔ ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎfi ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹ ÚÔˆıÂ›ÙÂ ÙÈ˜ ˘ËÚÂÛ›Â˜ Î·È Ù· ÚÔÈfiÓÙ· Û·˜ ÛÂ

ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÔ˘˜ ·fi 1000 ·Ó·ÁÓÒÛÙÂ˜, Â·ÁÁÂÏÌ·Ù›Â˜, ÂÈ‰ÈÎÔ› Î·È Ê›ÏÔÈ ÙÔ˘ ÙÔÌ¤· ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜,ΔÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜ Î·È ∂ÈÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÒÓ ÛÙËÓ ∫‡ÚÔ!

°È· ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›Â˜ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙÈÌ¤˜ Î·È ÎÚ·Ù‹ÛÂÈ˜ ÁÈ· Ù· ÂfiÌÂÓ· Ì·˜ ÙÂ‡¯Ë, ÂÈÎÔÈÓˆÓ‹ÛÙÂ ÌÂ ÙËÓÀÂ‡ı˘ÓË ¢ËÌÔÛ›ˆÓ ™¯¤ÛÂˆÓ ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ ™˘Ó‰¤ÛÌÔ˘ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÃÚÈÛÙ›Ó· ¶··ÌÈÏÙÈ¿‰Ô˘

ÙËÏ. 22460680email: [email protected] .

ADVERTISE IN PLIROFORIKI!By advertising in Pliroforiki you are promoting your services and products to more than 1000readers, professionals, specialists and friends of Computers, Information, Technology and

Communications Industry in Cyprus!For information regarding prices and reservations you can contact the Cyprus Computer Society

Public Relations Officer Christina Papamiltiadou at tel. 22460680, email: [email protected] .


THE POSITIVE EFFECTOF CO-LOCATINGPROJECT TEAMS FORSOFTWAREDEVELOPMENTDinos Konis

A review of the literature on the subject of co-locating project teams has shownthat there is a positive effect in almost all the aspects of the Teamwork Quality(TWQ) framework (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001) for teams working in closeproximity. Two case studies are examined in the field of software developmentwith teams from different, often competing companies, working together in ajoint project. The first case study is with teams co-located for the duration ofthe project and the second with two teams in the same city, but in locationsphysically separated by a few kilometres. The purpose of this investigation is tovalidate the observed effect of close proximity for teams from differentcompanies in high-pressure, short-duration projects of one year and less. The conclusion drawn is that at least in this type of software developmentprojects of short duration, it should be actively sought to co-locate the projectteams in a single physical work space that promotes interaction, overruling anyobjections from the sourcing companies and accepting the costs of the co-location as a necessary concession for a successful outcome to the project.

Keywords: Co-location, colocation, collocation, proximity, project teams, projectmanagement, interaction.


INTRODUCTION

Co-location1 of project teams for developing the products of aninformation technology project can sometimes be mandated bythe Project Owner e.g. in Government tenders or by the ProjectLeader/Prime Contractor from the supplier side who may wish tobetter control the development work at its own facilities. If multi-disciplinary project teams are sourced from a single suppliercompany, it is relatively straightforward to set up a projectdevelopment location and then have the appointed team membersreport to the location and remain there for as long as is necessarydepending on their role in the project.

The difficulty arises when the project teams are staffed fromparticipants from different companies working together on a singleproject. It is even more complex if these companies arecompeting in the same marketplace on other business.

The aim of this paper is to examine the dynamics of bringingtogether to work in close proximity, team members from differentcompanies with different work cultures and policies, oftenotherwise competing with each other. Is there a positive effect inco-locating such software development project teams?

PROXIMITY

Proximity in this context is “the physical distance between peoplemeasured in units such as inches, meters, or miles” (Kiesler &Cummings, 2002, p. 77). The Table 1: Proximity Graduationsbelow shows the graduations of proximity, the effects of distanceand the behaviours promoted by proximity.

The greatest benefits are observed at closer proximity whichfosters interpersonal relations and group functioning (Kiesler &Cummings, 2002, p. 78).

1. There are three terms used in the literature that can mean the placing of teams in the same location. Collocation has a double definition. The first pertaining tolinguistics “the habitual juxtaposition of a particular word with another word or words with a frequency greater than chance” and the second on position “theaction of placing things side by side or in position” (Oxford Dictionaries, no date). Colocation or co-location does not register in the Oxford Dictionaries or inthe Merriam-Webster dictionary. One can refer to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for a definition of the verb colocate which states that it is a newer word datingfrom 1965 and is defined as “to locate together; especially: to place (two or more units) close together so as to share common facilities” (Merriam-Webster,no date). This term has been widely adopted in modern times by the third-party hosting companies for ICT services such as web site hosting. Co-location isalso used for the same services and is the most common on the web (Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing, 2000). For the purposes of teams working in thesame location, the hyphenated word is unambiguous and will be widely interpreted correctly in international English, and so it has been chosen for this paper.

Distance Effect of Distance Behaviours promoted

At nearly zero distance People are very uncomfortable. Only suitable for people we are close to.

A few metres Team members are within earshot and can observethe other members of the team. It is not alwaysnecessary to have eye contact - interactions caneven happen behind cubicle walls of adjacentcubicles.

This is where people are most comfortable.Face-to-face conversation is possible and thesecan be started without planning.

Up to about 30 metres Direct observation may not be possible.Conversation requires moving away from one'sdesk, which still might be easier than using a phone.

Considered close enough for casual visits andinformal conversations. Face-to-faceconversations are possible and there isinteraction especially in common areas, ifpeople are not physically in the same room.

More than 30 metres away Need to make an effort to visit colleagues on sameor different floor. Conversations will many times beinitiated by a call or other electronic means ofcommunication (instant message, sms, e-mail).

The frequency of daily contact is significantlyreduced. Informal communication is alsoreduced. Meetings probably need to beplanned.

Different location Need to arrange a meeting and travel to location.The costs of getting together are markedlyincreased.

Mostly formal communication or throughelectronic means.

Table 1: Proximity Graduations. Source: Adapted from Kiesler & Cummings (2002)


A number of benefits are stated by Kiesler and Cummings (2002,pp. 80-81) including that the “presence of others seems toincrease a person's concern with what others think”, “people inface-to-face meetings command one another's attention and feelinvolved with group tasks”, “increases conformity”, “free ridingis minimized” and “improves people's feelings of familiarity”. Sothere are a number of social factors at play that are enhancedwhen working in close proximity with others.

OPEN WORK SPACE OR CUBICLE

Is proximity the overriding factor then and it is simply a matter ofbringing people close together to foster interactions, collaborationand problem resolution?

This discussion needs to consider the workplace where the co-located teams will perform their work, and this usually revolvesbetween an open work space and a cubicle layout. The projectowner must consider a number of factors when deciding the bestlayout for the project team to carry out its assigned work.

Two other factors apart from Proximity are necessary to fostercollaboration: Privacy and Permission. Together these form thethree Ps as suggested by Fayard and Weeks (2011). Privacy isimportant as people need to know that they can have an informalconversation with a colleague without being overheard, and sothe office space needs to cater for this in some way. Permissionrelates to the social aspect of the project environment lookingfavourably at these interactions in common areas (e.g. aphotocopy room) and this must be encouraged by management(Fayard & Weeks, 2011).

Kerner (2003) states that often claimed issues with cubicles arethat “they stifle creativity, they are bland and uninspiring,demeaning to humans” and do not “promote interaction”, but alsoputs forward some good reasons to use cubicles, as they providea “personal space”, there is “more space for shelves andmanuals”, “wall space for posting diagrams”, it is “easier toconcentrate” and there are “less distractions”.

On the other hand for open work spaces typical comments arethat there is a “lack of privacy”, “inability to concentrate”, “moredistractions” and “lack of wall and shelf space” (Kerner, 2003).In favour of open workspace is that it promotes “greatercollaboration, increased creativity, easier access to teammembers” and “less opportunity to slack of and surf or talk onthe phone aimlessly” (Kerner, 2003).

A decision has to be made on what works best depending on thetype of work to be carried out for a particular project or by acompany running a series of projects. Usually for more than 10

persons in a development team it is best to opt for cubicles. It isalso best to use cubicles when there is not much interactionbetween developers or there is a need for focus or privacy. But ifrapid collaboration and creativity is important and the team sizeis small, then an open workspace is preferable (Kerner, 2003).

When project teams are made up of employees from competingcompanies, then the overriding consideration must be interactionand collaboration that will promote team building, so open spacewill always work best. This is also more pronounced, if the projecthas short completion timeframes (less than a year) where you donot have the luxury of time to foster interaction and team bondingbetween the members of the team from different companies withdifferent cultures or work ethics if they are located in cubicles.

However, as identified by Fayard and Weeks (2011), care mustalso be taken to supplement this open space with areas that canfacilitate private conversations and the Project Manager mustactively permit and encourage casual conversations andinteractions between team members.

TEAMWORK QUALITY

The quality of interactions in teams has been conceptualised byHoegl and Gemuenden (2001) in their work on the success ofinnovative projects, in which they have stipulated six facets todetermine the Teamwork Quality (TWQ) as shown in Table 2:Teamwork Quality (TWQ) – the quality of interactions in teamsbelow.

The first three facets are about task-related interaction in a“technically oriented cluster”, while the last three form the“socially oriented cluster” (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). The mostimportant observation is, however, that “highly collaborativeteams display behaviors related to all six TWQ facets” (Hoegl &Gemuenden, 2001, p. 436).

Hoegl and Proserpio (2004) later investigated team proximity asit relates to teamwork in innovative projects to determine howproximity affects their 6 facets of TWQ. Even though their studyfocuses on “intra-organizational innovation projects”, it is relatedto this study as they also addressed the “collaboration of softwaredevelopment teams” operating as IT professionals with advancedtechnology (Hoegl & Proserpio, 2004, p.1154), and usefulexamples and comparisons are made in relation to the casestudies investigated below.


Cohesion This relates to the sense of togetherness and belonging, the desire ofteam members to be a part of the team and to work in collaboration.

Social interaction

CASE STUDIES

To investigate the effects of co-location of project teams, twocase studies are investigated. Both are similar in that they are inthe domain of development of software applications, the primecontractor was a multi-national IT corporation and the teams werefrom different companies. These case studies are projects thatwere run in Cyprus and are based on the first-hand observationof the author participating in the role of Project Manager.

Case Study 1: Financial Institution Middleware Implementation

The aim of the project was to implement middleware at a FinancialInstitution. The Lead Architect and the Project Manager were fromthe prime contractor, while the development team was made upof developers from 3 local partner companies of the primecontractor. These 3 companies usually compete for businessagainst each other. The development team was made up of twodevelopers from each company and they were co-located at theIT HQ of the customer from day one of the project, in an openworkspace project room. In the same project room were also co-located the customer Project Manager and three customer senioranalysts who provided the specifications. The prime contractorProject Manager was also at the same location for the majorityof the time. The project duration was set at 6 months.

It was noticed that in the beginning the developers from eachseparate company tended to work together and share workingareas. Developers from one company complained that theenvironment was too noisy and they could not perform there.Their management appealed to have them work from their ownoffices and to come to the project room once or twice a week,but this was not accepted by the prime contractor ProjectManager.

The progress of the project is analysed below it terms of the sixfacets of the Teamwork Quality Framework (Hoegl & Gemuenden,2001).

Communication

As time progressed company boundaries started to blur and ateam spirit was forming. There was increased communicationbetween all team members. To the dismay of the non-smokingProject Managers, the developers seemed to spend inappropriateamount of time on smoking breaks; initially by the smokers andthen by most of the team members. When challenged, thedevelopers were adamant that most of the time was spentdiscussing and resolving issues they were facing and that thisdiscussion was encouraged by the informal settings of steppingoutside the building. This also correlates with the need to have a

Teamwork Qu3ality Description Type of Interaction

Communication Communication refers to the quality of sharing of information amongst theteam. It is the most basic quality component and when it is high there isopen sharing of information.

Task-related interaction

Coordination Coordination is to do with the task coordination amongst team membersand how well work breakdown structures are divided and executed inparallel to achieve a common goal.


Balance of membercontributions

This is a measure to how members contribute to problem solving bybringing their diverse experience and expertise to the project and howbalanced this contribution is amongst the team.


Mutual support An essential component of TWQ is that there is a cooperative frame ofmind in the mode of collaboration of the team, with respect, providingassistance when needed and developing other team members’ ideasbeing the modus operandi.

Social interaction

Effort High TWQ requires that all in a team are pulling their weight and putcomparable amounts of effort to their work on the project based on theaccepted team norm for adequate effort.

Social interaction

Table 2: Teamwork Quality (TWQ) – the quality of interactions in teams. Source: Adapted from Hoegl & Gemuenden (2001)


private conversation that was not facilitated in the open space ofthe project room where conversations could be overhead; thesecond P of Privacy (Fayard & Weeks, 2011).

Communication was hampered in one area, as the Lead Architectfrom the prime contractor was located overseas. This wasalleviated by monthly visits and in between weekly multi-mediacalls using video, voice and instant messaging with the LeadArchitect to resolve issues as they occurred during development.The use of video was beneficial, as non-face-to-face contact isnot the same as it lacks “non-verbal” cues (Hoegl & Proserpio,2004).

Coordination

The project was highly technical in nature as it was developingthe middleware for a large number of applications and as suchrequired a lot of collaboration to resolve issues. The proximityallowed on-going coordination of task activities such assynchronising the development activities of team members (Hoegl& Proserpio, 2004, p. 1156). The use of a whiteboard for taskallocation allowed direct observation of the progress of teammembers and acted as an incentive for coordination.

Balance of member contributions

On the whole the observed member contributions especially inthe first stages were not forthcoming, which agrees with theobserved results in the study of 145 software developers workingfor 4 companies in Germany, which did not support thehypothesis that there would be a positive effect on membercontributions to problem solving in close proximity (Hoegl &Proserpio, 2004). It seems that team members still behave asindividuals and keep knowledge to themselves (if not askeddirectly), even at close proximity and within a small team size.

It was also noticed that there was little interaction with thecustomer analysts who were physically located on one side ofthe project room and they would only offer to help if directly askedfor assistance by a developer. These requests for help wereinfrequent at the beginning, but as social ties were formedamongst people this also increased in frequency.

An interesting observation can be made when later in the projectit was decided to hold Daily Scrum meetings, as the pressure tocomplete on time was increasing. Daily Scrum meetings are partof the Scrum framework, an agile software developmentmethodology created by Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland(2011). Daily Scrum meetings are meant to happen at the sameplace and time each day (usually first thing in the morning), arestanding meetings as they are time-boxed to last 15 minutes and

each developer needs to answer three questions: what I didyesterday; what I will do today; what is impeding me fromprogressing (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2011). The effect of DailyScrum meetings was to bring the Customer Analysts closer tothe team; they started offering suggestions and were contributingto problem resolution in a more active manner. Developers alsostarted offering more assistance to each other. The fact that theoffer for help was done in plain view of all the team, with instantteam recognition, seemed to encourage team members to comeforward and offer assistance to colleagues.

Mutual Support

When people are in the vicinity of one another it is easier for themto see first-hand where their assistance may be needed (Hoegl &Proserpio, 2004), which was the case in this project as manytimes developers would be asked for help on the spot or theywould observe others having problems and offer to help them out.

Effort

The effect of co-location in the effort was obvious as a norm forhigh effort was slowly established. Furthermore, team memberstended to also stay longer at work when one team member hadto stay after-hours to resolve an issue. The camaraderie thatdeveloped made people feel bad if they left a colleague alone thatwas struggling.

Cohesion

Human interaction in social and personal matters results instronger ties between the team members, which in turnstrengthened team cohesion (Hoegl & Proserpio, 2004, p.1157).

In this project a number of team building strategies wereemployed to strengthen team cohesion: a team T-shirt wasintroduced early on in the project and team members were askedto wear it on dress-down Fridays; the prime contractor tookeveryone out on a pub night and the customer reciprocated withdinner at a restaurant; the customer PM invited the whole teamto his house before Christmas. These activities contributed to thedevelopment of the team as a social unit and have to be takeninto account as contributing to the cohesion of the team.

Case Study 2: Financial Sector Oversight Agency InformationSystem

The second case study involves a development system for anagency overseeing the operation of specific financial sectorcompanies and their representatives. There were two developmentteams building separate modules of the solution, but these


modules had to inter-operate. One team belonged to the primecontractor who also developed the development environmenttoolset to be used in the project and the other was a local partnerof this multi-national IT company. The project duration was 1 year.

The project teams were located in two separate developmentlocations in the same city separated by less than 10 kilometres,and each had six or less team members.

Communication

Communication was mostly over the phone and via e-mail, withinfrequent face-to-face communication between the teams. Teammeetings were introduced on a weekly basis to discuss pendingissues. When problems started surfacing in the project, theseface-to-face meetings turned into finger-pointing sessions. Teammembers tried to allocate blame to the other team for theobserved delays. Some meetings eventually turned into shoutingmatches, with the Project Manager playing the arbitrator role totry to bring the two parties together to agree on the way forward.Co-location of the teams was not an option, and so the projectmanager eventually moved on a permanent basis to the partnerdevelopment site (co-located) and acted as a liaison with the otherdevelopment team to facilitate communication and resolve issuesbefore they blew out of proportion. This improved markedly thecommunication between team members and the project wasconcluded successfully, even though the two teams were notcollaborating effectively.

Coordination

Coordination of activities proved to be difficult as the two teamswere antagonising each other. It was left to the Project Managerto cajole team leaders to adhere strictly to the agreed projectschedule and work break down structure, but it was not a smoothprocess especially when inter-dependant issues caused delaysto the other team. Coordination requires some flexibility andcompromise and so it is difficult to achieve effectively when teammembers only do what they are told to.

Balance of member contributions

While within each team there was a good team spirit anddevelopers actively assisted each other, so that their team mettheir commitments and deadlines, a general reluctance of offeringhelp between the two teams was observed. So in comparisonwith the TWQ facet of member contributions it could not beclaimed that there was a balance in these contributions.

Mutual Support

In general there was no mutual support, with each team focusingon its own work, while having a competitive predispositiontowards the other team, rather than a collaborative one as requiredby this TWQ facet.

Effort

The antagonistic nature taken on in the project, resulted in anincrease in effort for project activities, as team members strivedto prove that they are better than the other team and that theirwork is superior in quality. This competition between teams to acertain extent can be claimed to be a positive outcome, but ingeneral this cannot be described as healthy competition. Overallproject effort, however, may also have been increased as due tothe lack of cooperation and coordination, some re-work neededto be done on modules that were progressing without taking intoaccount the work of others.

Cohesion

There was very little cohesion between the two teams. Inretrospective management could or should have used somestrategies to build some team cohesion as was done in the firstcase study, but at the time there was a lot of pressure to deliveras the project was three months behind schedule and this vitalarea of team cohesion was overlooked.

DISCUSSION

Co-location can be achieved by temporary re-location or by travel.Travel, however, can be costly and time consuming. Travel canalso have a further negative impact due to the resulting fatigue ofteam members doing the traveling (Hoegl & Proserpio, 2004,p.1160).

If the group parameters do not permit co-location, as in thesecond case study, then a coping strategy is to pay attention to“the more social aspects” of teamwork which are mutual support,effort and cohesion (Hoegl & Proserpio, 2004, p. 1156), by firsthaving an initial face-to-face kick-off meeting to establish bondsbetween team members, followed by “regular intensive face-to-face meetings” to reinforce the relationships formed and set arhythm for the team to work together on project activities and toresolve issues until the next meeting (Maznevski & Chudoba,2000, p. 489).

Another strategy is to use “computer mediated communicationtechnologies” to “help solve communication and coordinationproblems” (Hoegl & Proserpio, 2004, p. 1160), and today with


the advent of widespread availability of broadband, a richcommunication experience is available at reasonable cost thatcan cover video, voice, on-line document sharing and instantmessaging technologies in a single unified communicationssession.

As noted by Hoegl and Proserpio (2004, p. 1162) there are otherfactors involved, such as individual characteristics, teamcharacteristics and organization level characteristics.Nevertheless, the two case studies support the existing literaturefindings that there are positive effects to teams working in closeproximity. The case studies further expand these findings, to coverproject teams from competing companies on a joint project.

Individual characteristics relate to how each individual copes withthe stresses imposed by project requirements on their work andcareers in their organisations. At times this can causeconsiderable distress to individuals, thus affecting theirperformance within the project team (Asquin, Garel & Picq, 2010).These are negative effects on individuals which may offset anypositive effects from working in close proximity with colleagueson a project. Asquin, Garel and Picq (2010) go as far asdescribing these effects as “collateral”, an expression associatedwith military operations rather than projects, to emphasize thedamage that can be incurred to individuals.

Individuals also have different levels of motivation and differentreasons as to why they are involved in the project. Individuals willdiffer in what their aims are and what they expect to get out ofthe project. A number of factors are involved as perceived by theteam members, broadly grouped into: employee development,work climate, perceived equity, work objectivity and job security(Dwivedula & Bredillet, 2010).

Team characteristics will differ between projects. It has beenobserved that in group dynamics, group norms “often developunconsciously and gradually over time” as a result of interactionsand team members influencing one another (Levi, 2011, p. 49).

This is obviously facilitated by co-locating teams, which resultsin an increase in the number of interactions on a daily basis, bothrelated to the tasks assigned to the team, but also to the socialaspect of these interactions. Norms are not necessarily, however,always a positive effect, as it depends on whether the norms arehigh or low performance norms, as norms tend to enforceconformity (Levi, 2011, p. 49).

At the organisation level, its characteristics such as culture, workethics and values, also will have an impact on the project andmay positively or negatively offset, any positive effects from co-location. For example team members used to a more relaxedworking environment, with casual dress code, will find it difficultto co-locate in a more formal environment, with strict adherenceto set work hours and emphasis on attending meetings on time,which will result in reduced performance of the individuals andconsequently the team. So it is advisable to investigate suchissues before deciding on co-location as a project policy.

CONCLUSION

In general for software development projects with small teamsizes and short project duration, the positive effects of co-locationoutweigh its costs and co-location should be sought to alleviateall the negative effects of teams not working in close proximity (ifthe project parameters permit to do so).

The positive effects of close proximity are further amplified whenthe social side of human interaction and social bonding takesplace, strengthening team ties and relationships, with teammembers caring enough to offer to help their colleagues in need.

The decision of co-location should also pay careful attention tothe physical layout of the project location, to ensure that thefactors of privacy and permission are also addressed adequately.It is argued that for short duration IT development projects with asmall team size, an open work space is more desirable as itencourages interactions and quicker building of team cohesion.

REFERENCES

Asquin, A., Garel, G. & Picq, T. (2010) 'When project-basedmanagement causes distress at work', International Journal ofProject Management, 28(2), pp. 166-172.

Dwivedula, R. & Bredillet, C.N. (2010) 'Profiling work motivationof project workers', International Journal of Project Management,28(2), pp. 158-165.

Fayard, A. & Weeks, J. (2011) 'Who Moved My Cube?', HarvardBusiness Review, 89(7/8), Jul/Aug, pp. 102-110.

Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing (2000), 3 October.Available at: http://foldoc.org/co-location (Accessed: 9 March2012).

Hoegl, M. & Gemuenden, H.G. (2001) 'Teamwork quality and thesuccess of innovative projects: A theoretical concept andempirical evidence', Organization Science, 12(4), Jul/Aug, pp.435-449.


Hoegl, M. & Proserpio, L. (2004) 'Team member proximity andteamwork in innovative projects', Research Policy, 33(8), pp.1153-1165.

Kerner, S.M. (2003) Cubicles or open workspace: Here's how toselect the best plan for your shop. Available at:http://www.techrepublic.com/article/cubicles-or-open-workspace-heres-how-to-select-the-best-plan-for-your-shop/5054633(Accessed: 2 March 2012).

Kiesler, S. & Cummings, J.N. (2002) 'What Do We Know aboutProximity and Distance in Work Groups? A Legacy of Research',In Hinds, P. & Kiesler, S. Distributed Work. Cambridge: MIT Press,pp. 57-80.

Levi, D. (2011) Group Dynamics for Teams. 3rd edn. ThousandOaks: Sage Publications.

Maznevski, M. & Chudoba, K.M. (2000) 'Bridging Space OverTime: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness',Organization Science, 11(5), Sep/Oct, pp. 473-492.

Merriam-Webster (no date) Dictionary. Available at:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colocate (Accessed: 9 March 2012).

Oxford Dictionaries (no date). Available at:http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/collocation (Accessed: 9 March 2012).

Schwaber, K. & Sutherland, J. (2011) The Scrum Guide - TheDefinititve Guide to Scrum: The Rules of the Game, October.Available at:http://www.scrum.org/storage/scrumguides/Scrum_Guide.pdf(Accessed: 12 March 2102).

AUTHORS Dinos Konis is a Project Manager, ITConsultant and Managing Director of IthakiConsulting www.ithakiconsulting.com. Hehas over 20 years extensive experience inmanaging IT and Research projects ofvarious sizes for NCR, Microsoft, theCyprus Government and Ithaki Consulting.He is a full member of the Association ofProject Management (MAPM), a certified

PRINCE2 Practitioner and a Microsoft Services Practitioner.

He is an elected member of the Board of Directors of the CyprusComputer Society (2005-2012), a member of the ManagementBoard of the Cyprus Chapter of the IT Service Management Forum(itSMF) (2011-2012), a member of the Advisory Council for theCyprus National Digital Strategy (2011-2012) and a member ofthe organising committee for the Cyprus Infosec Conference(2003-2012).

SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLE AT PLIROFORIKI!The CCS invites articles from CCS Members, other IT and business Professionals, researchers, academics

and the IT Industry for the next issues!

Articles and papers may deal on any aspect of Information Technology and submitted on a continuous basis to the editorial committee who will acknowledge receipt of the paper or article and notify the author(s)

about the acceptance (or rejection) of the paper and the planned publication time.

Please review the details and instructions through our website www.pliroforiki.org and submit your articles/papers via email to [email protected] .


ReProTool - RE-ENGINEERINGACADEMICCURRICULUM USINGLEARNING OUTCOMES,ECTS AND BOLOGNAPROCESS CONCEPTS1

Pouyioutas, P., Gjermundrød, H., and Dionysiou, I.

This paper presents ReProTool, a software tool that is used for the ECTS andthe Bologna Process re-engineering of academic programmes. The tool is theresult of an eighteen months project (February 2012 - July 2013), co-financedby the European Regional Development Fund and the Republic of Cyprusthrough the Research Promotion Foundation (www.reprotool.com). The projectentails the development and pilot use of ReProTool, a software tool that willsupport the design and development of university academic programmes usingLearning Outcomes and the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) of theBologna Process. Various screenshots of the system are used to exemplify thefunctionality of the tool. The paper also discusses the features of the tool inrelation to e-learning environments and suggests how such environments canbe extended to conform to the Bologna Process guidelines and directives.

1. An extended version of this paper could be found in Interactive Technology and Smart Education, Volume 9, Issue 3, Emerald Publishers, 2012.


INTRODUCTION

The Bologna Process (European Commission Education andLearning, 2008) aims at developing a European EducationalFramework of standards, definitions and concepts so as toprovide the basis for European countries to transform theireducational system according to this framework. This will resultin comparability/compatibility of the various European educationalsystems, which will then result in collaborations amongsteducational institutions, exchanges of students and teacherswithin Europe and transparency and transferability ofqualifications, all being very important when looked from the pointof view of students, faculty, Erasmus coordinators, prospectiveemployers and ENIC/NARIC networks.

One of the first and most important concepts developed by theBologna process is the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)that provides the framework for measuring the student workloadin courses/modules/programmes and thus calculating the creditsof these courses/modules/programmes. Another importantconcept is Learning Outcomes (LOs) (Kennedy et al., 2006),which allows courses/programmes to be expressed in terms ofwhat a learner/student is expected to know by the end of thecourse/programme. Student input is very important for definingand reviewing LOs. The student workload calculated by bothstudents and teachers leading to the course/programme ECTS,and the development of the LOs of the courses/programmeviewed from the student perspective, ensure that the student hasan active role in the development and re-engineering of theacademic curriculum. Furthermore, a student-centeredenvironment requires that students provide input on regular basiswith regards to curriculum development, delivery and assessmentmethods and quality assurance of education. The Standards andGuidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher EducationArea require student participation in Internal Quality AssuranceCommittees, External Quality Assurance Evaluation Committeesand in the Boards of Quality Assurance Agencies.

Using Learning Outcomes, employers could identify what studentsare able (or at least should be able) of doing after completing theirprogrammes/courses. Furthermore, by studying descriptions ofstudies expressed in terms of LOs and thus comparing with whatthey expect graduates to be able to do, employers could provideinput for the re-engineering of programmes taking intoconsideration industry requirements. When it comes to Erasmuscoordinators, LOs assist in the comparison of programmes andcourses since they provide a common framework/platform forexpressing the programmes/courses aims and objectives lookedat from the student point of view. Last but not least, ENIC/NARICnetworks are also provided with a common framework/platformfor evaluating levels and degree qualifications.

Finally, the European Qualifications Framework (EQF 2010)provides the basis for mapping the National QualificationsFramework (NQF) of each European country to this framework,thus transitively, mapping each country’s educational system toanother country’s system. Examples of such NQFs are the IrishNQF (Irish 2010) and the UK NQF (UK 2010). EQF and NQFsdescribe in terms of LOs the various levels of education startingfrom the pre-primary level and reaching the doctorate level. EQFcaters for eight such levels, whereas NQFs may cater a differentnumber of levels.

THE NEED FOR AUTOMATION

When building the degree profile of an academic programme, oneneeds to define its LOs. Ideally, existing definitions could beutilized rather than reinventing the wheel. Thus, one could selectas many LOs (Knowledge, Skills, Competences) from a pool ofsuch resources and then modify and add new ones accordingly.This not only would reduce the effort needed for building theprogramme profile, but also and more importantly perhaps, itwould create programmes that are compatible to a certain extent(of course one may argue that this compatibility would have adrawback such as reducing creativity and innovation). There iscurrently no database of LOs that would allow downloading ofthese resources. The creation of such a database would allowone to select and use them as part of the programme profile underdevelopment, thus benefiting from the aforementionedadvantages.

Another time-consuming and tedious task one faces is theverification that the programme's LOs are met by at least onecourse of the programme. Matrices could be constructed andchecks could be made in order to accomplish this. Furthermore,if one needs to find the LOs achieved by a course or the coursesthat achieve a particular LO, s/he should consult the hard copyor electronic matrices and produce manually in both cases therequired information. This happens because there is no databaseto store the relationships between LOs and courses. A softwaretool based on such database could produce automatically therequired information.

Furthermore, the database could store for each course its ownLOs, its assessment methods, its learning methods, and theexpected student workload. This basically would automate thecompletion of the student forms that are used to calculate thestudent workload and thus the number of the ECTS of the course,reducing even more the time and effort needed for building furtherthe programme components. The automation would also allowwhat-if analysis and perform workload and ECTS recalculations


very fast and error-free. The system would also check thesemester breakdown of the programme of study in terms of the30/60 ECTS requirements per semester/year. When it comes tothe student calculations of their workload during a course andtherefore the course ECTS, the system would allow the fastprocessing of all student forms and would produce averageworkloads for each course and each LO of a course, and theaverage ECTS of the course, as estimated by the students.

All the aforementioned advantages of automating the applicationof the methodology used for designing/developing academicprogrammes clearly indicate the need for the tool. ReProTool is aweb application that will be freely available to any University thatwould like to use it. Hence, each university can have access toits own copy of the tool. The underlying database of the tool willbe loaded with data that can be exported from the University’sInformation System (UIS). These will be the data needed toperform the tasks provided by the tool. Data and information couldalso then be exported to the UIS, if needed. The format for thedata produced by the import/export script will be pure Comma-separated values (CVS) files. Each University will be responsiblefor providing the interface required between its UIS andReProTool.

ReProTool provides two access methods. The first is through aweb service that supports open access to a limited set of the data.Example of such data is information on programs and coursesalong with their associated information such as learning methods,learning outcomes, etc. Such data can be useful to otherUniversities who may want to use these resources in order tobuild their own programmes or compare their programmes withprogrammes of other Universities. The second access method isalso through the web service interface and is restricted to studentsand faculty affiliated with the specific University. This is anauthenticated access, hence the students and faculty need toprovide their credentials in order to log into the system. Throughthis interface the students could view all the courses that they arecurrently taking. In addition, they have write access to part of thedata in order to record the weekly number of hours that they arespending on the various courses per week. The faculty is able tomodify and add data to the back-end database for which they areauthorized. There could be multiple roles for the faculty such asprogram coordinator, course leader, and teacher. The expectedfunctionality of the tool is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The Expected Functionality of ReProTool


REPROTOOL VERSION 2.0

The development of the tool, being a software engineering project,has been following the standard software lifecycle stages. In orderto develop a sound and fully functioning tool, a long stage ofidentifying user requirements through various users had to befollowed. A comprehensive collection of correct requirementsforms a solid basis for the system design and implementation.This has been achieved through:

ñ interviews with international Bologna Experts and ECTS LabelEvaluators/Trainers

ñ interviews with academics who have applied the process ofECTS re-engineering of programmes

ñ questionnaire survey to academics and students

ñ iterated use of a prototype

ñ studying of the methodology itself.

In order to build the database of the system, MySQL was usedas the back-end database management system. The choice ofusing MySQL as the back-end database system is because it isan open-source service that supports a wide variety of platformswith respect to both programming languages and operatingsystems. Future client applications could be developed in otherlanguages and on other platforms that could reuse the data thatthe ReProTool application has collected. The client applicationconnects to the database through .Net connectors of the .Netframework. The web application has been developed usingMicrosoft’s Visual Studio Development environment using theASP.Net platform. This platform is a popular development platformfor web application development and provides for a relative

straightforward way to develop sophisticated applications that willbe accessible from any operating system that has standard webbrowsers, like Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, and InternetExplorer. A rapid prototype of ReProTool has been developed(Pouyioutas et al., 2012) and ReProTool Version 2.0 is now underdevelopment. The current version of the tool supports five mainuser types, namely administrators, programme coordinators,faculty members, students, and others. The Modules for theadministrators, programme coordinators, faculty members, andstudents are password-controlled. Hence, these users will needto first be authorized in order to access their areas/Modules. Thewelcome screen interface allows users to login using their loginname and password in one of the aforementioned areas. For theothers, i.e. the open access, no authorization is needed.

3.1 System Administrator Module

The System Administrator Module provides the administrator thetools for managing (creating/editing) the end-users of the systemand assigning them authorization privileges. Thus, theadministrator is responsible for the maintenance of the datapertaining to institutions, programmes of studies, faculty,coordinators and students. Figure 2 illustrates the functionalityof the System Administrator Module. In the selected tab, theadministrator is configuring the academic calendar for the Spring2012 semester.

3.2 Programme Coordinator Module

The Programme Coordinator Module assists academic faculty toset up programmes. The system provides programmecoordinators with a list of programmes for which they are

Figure 2: The Administrator Module - Configuring an Academic Calendar.


responsible. Once selecting one of the programmes, thecoordinator can create/edit courses and assign them to theprogramme under consideration. The tool allows the coordinatorto select LOs or create new LOs and assign them to theprogramme. Furthermore the screen interface supports a Reportsmenu choice that allows the generation of reports includingamongst others, LOs of a course, LOs of a programme vs. theprogramme's courses, LOs of a programme not covered by anycourse and a Programme's total ECTS and Semester's total ECTS.Figure 3 illustrates how a Programme Coordinator could modifythe setting of the programme that s/he is responsible for.

3.3 Faculty Member Module

The Faculty Member Module allows faculty to access the coursesthat they teach and thus they are authorized to modify. Facultycan complete the Course ECTS Calculation Teacher form. Thisform lists the course’s LOs, the associated educational activities(teaching/learning methods), the assessment methods and theestimated student workload (number of hours) that students areexpected to spend on each LO. The total student workload inhours and thus the total ECTS of the courses are automaticallycalculated. The Reports menu choice allows one to access andcompare with the student estimated workload and ECTS andhence make any amendments if needed. Figure 4 illustrates thefunctionality of the Faculty Module. The leftmost screenshotshows how a faculty can manage the courses that s/he is thecourse leader (responsible) for, whereas in the rightmost

screenshot a faculty member determines which Programme LOsthe course LOs are supporting.

3.4 Student Module

The Student Module has been implemented based on the resultsof the analysis of user requirements and:

ñ allows lecturers to record student absences; thus calculatingin-class attendance work load

ñ allows students record the number of hours they spend everyweek in a course (Figure 5)

ñ calculates the total number of hours (in class, out of class andtotal) spent by each student in each course

ñ calculates the average total number of hours spent by allstudents in the course and thus calculates the average studentworkload that is translated into the course ECTS as estimatedby the students; provides this workload and ECTS number tothe faculty module for the lecturer to compare with his/her owncalculated workload and number of ECTS

ñ allows student provide feedback to their lecturers on a weeklybasis

ñ provides E-portfolio facilities allowing students to reflect on theirwork and future plans for studying

ñ produces statistics and charts such as

– (weekly and cumulative weekly) student workload (in-class,

Figure 3: The Programme Coordinator Module - On-line Template for Creating a Programme.


Figure 4: The Faculty Member Module - Setting Course LOs.

out-of-class, total) for a course and comparison with theclass average student workload and the expected workloadset by the faculty – bar chart (Figure 6)

– (weekly and cumulative weekly) student workload (in-class,out-of-class, total) for all courses taken by student andcomparison with the class average workload and the

expected workload set by the faculty – bar chart

– Percentage of student workload (in-class, out-of-class, total)devoted for each course (weekly and cumulative weekly) andcomparison with the expected workload percentages – piechart (Figure 7).

Figure 5: The Student Module - Recording Student workload and Providing Feedback to Lecturer

Figure 6: The Student Module - Comparison of Student Workload


Figure 7: The Student Module - Distribution of Student Workload

THE BOLOGNA PROCESS AND E-LEARNING

E-learning platforms can be extended to fully support theaforementioned concepts and thus make e-learning environmentsto conform to the Bologna Process directives. This is explainedby discussing how e-learning platforms support some of theseconcepts and how they can be extended by adopting feature ofReProTool.

One could wonder why the Bologna Process Declaration, whichwas signed back in 1999, has not yet really addressed theconcept of e-learning. One actually should probably not wonderbut be certain why this is the case. One of the top priorities of theEuropean Union (EU) and thus of the Bologna Process is theincrease of people mobility (students, graduates, employees,etc.). The main aim is to achieve a better and quicker integrationof Europe through the interaction and blend of the various culturesthat comprise EU. To this extent, EU has been generously fundingprojects and activities that lead to increased people mobility.Towards this end, EU Higher Education officials have set a targetof 20% student mobility by the year 2020 (BFUG Working GroupMobility, 2011). This will be achieved through various fundedactivities such as Erasmus (targets mobility of students andacademics across European Universities) and Tempus andErasmus Mundus (targets the creation of joint and doublepostgraduate degrees to be offered by consortiums of Europeanand other Universities thus offering opportunities to students tostudy in different countries; also offers funds and scholarshipsfor students and academics and for projects), etc. (EuropeanCommission, 2012).

Bearing in mind the strategic aim of the EU with regards tomobility and considering the fact that e-learning breaks thebarriers of space and is thus more appropriate for those studentswho do not wish/are not able to travel, one can then understandwhy the Bologna Process has not focused on e-learning. One canargue that e-learning could help towards the mobility aim by

offering virtual mobility (through probably social network facilities,chat rooms, wikis, etc.) but this cannot be really a substitute tophysical mobility. An attempt to achieve virtual mobility can befound in the VIRQUAL project (VIRQUAL, 2012).

Finally, as pointed out before, one very important concept of theBologna Process is the adoption of a learner-centeredenvironment, according to which the learning process should bebuilt focusing on the student and not the teacher and the teachingprocess (teacher-learning model). Learner-centered learningmoves away from traditional teaching environments throughwhich students are spoon-fed with information provided by theteachers, and thus utilizes teaching/learning methods/techniques,through which students assume an active role and teachersbecome facilitators and co-coordinators of the student learningprocess, rather than information providers. Suchmethods/techniques include amongst others, problem-basedlearning, simulation exercises, group projects, research work, etc.Thus, it is of paramount importance that any e-Learningenvironment takes into consideration the aforementionedmethods/techniques and builds its learning process in line withthe learner-centered learning model and thus conforms to theBologna Process aims and directives.

E-learning platforms and environments have been around for morethan two decades now and have transformed/created manyuniversities, especially in the United States. The Bologna Processis a European initiative that was initiated thirteen years ago afterthe flourish of e-learning systems. There is a need for EuropeanUniversities providing e-learning services to adapt their learningenvironments to the Bologna Process requirements.

Firstly, and very importantly, the e-learning environments shouldfully support a learner-centered approach. E-learning platformsare indeed built around this concept with academics being moreof facilitators of the learning process rather than teachers.Students are expected to be more independent learners and take


control of their learning process. However, e-learningenvironments may not (and many do not) support a learner-centreenvironment through the adoption of student-oriented learningmethods such as Problem-Based Learning, simulation exercises,etc. Such methods have been very successful in traditionallearning environments.

Secondly, e-learning environments should provide students withfacilities to provide feedback to their lecturers with regards thecourses they take, their delivery, assessment and qualityassurance. Again, one can argue that e-learning environments arebuilt around these concepts, however when it comes to the cross-checking of student workload as compared to the expectedworkload then clearly they do not provide such facilities as theones supported by ReProTool and illustrated in Figures 5, 6, and7.

Finally, e-learning environments should allow academics to createthe LOs of the programmes and courses and associate them withthe on-line delivery and assessment methods. Thus students willbe able to check on-line the extent to which they achieved theexpected LOs and how the way (delivery, assessment) theyachieved them. Lecturers will also be able to monitor the progressof students with regards to the LOs and also receive feedbackfrom students in relation to the workload they have devoted ineach LO. This will enable them to review the programmes/coursesand align them in a learner-center environment.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has presented ReProTool Version 2.0, which can beused for the re-engineering of academic curriculum using theBologna Process directives. The use of the tool in designing anddeveloping academic programmes using Learning Outcomes(LOs) and ECTS syllabi forces academics to rethink from thestudent perspective the curriculum content and theteaching/learning methods and techniques and from theemployers perspective, the expected knowledge, skills andcompetences that graduates should have in order to enter the jobmarket. LOs play a crucial role in the understanding andcomparability of programmes and courses across institutions.Furthermore, LOs are also very important when it comes to

recognition of qualifications across Europe. Therefore any toolthat supports LOs indirectly provide help to Employers, Erasmuscoordinators and NARIC/ENIC networks. Furthermore, the toolprovides support and ensures a learner-centered environmentwhere students play an active role in the educational process.

The paper has exemplified the functionality of the tool by usingsome screenshots of the system, illustrating how the differenttypes of users namely students, faculty and programmecoordinators can benefit from using the tool. The paper has alsodiscussed how the presented features can be incorporated in e-learning platforms to make them conform to the Bologna Processguidelines and directives.

The pilot use of the tool will be carried out at the University ofNicosia during a semester. Selected programme coordinators,faculty members and students will test the tool. Thus all thefunctionality of the tool will be tested. The pilot use by the threetypes of users will take place in parallel and it will be based ondifferent academic programmes. Programme coordinators willuse the tool to build the degree profile of their programme. Facultymembers of these programmes will use the tool to build thecourse syllabi. The programme coordinators will then use thesyllabi in their programmes. Finally, students will use the tool toreport the hours they spend on the various activities in the coursesthat they are taking. Based on the feedback and the reportsproduced by the different types of pilot users,changes/corrections/enhancements will take place and the publicrelease of the tool will be prepared. Release deployment packageswill be built and will be made freely available to anyone from thesourceforge.net web site and the project web site(www.reprotool.com).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the Cyprus Research PromotionFoundation. The project “ReProTool, A Software Tool for the ECTSand Bologna Process Re-engineering of University Programmes”(www.reprotool.com) is an eighteen months project (February2012 - July 2013), co-financed by the European RegionalDevelopment Fund and the Republic of Cyprus through theResearch Promotion Foundation.


REFERENCES

BFUG Working Group Mobility (2011) Mobility for Better learn-ing- Mobility strategy 2020 for the European Higher EducationArea. Available at: http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Irina/Working%20paper%20on%20Mobility%20strategy%202020%20for%20EHEA.PDF

EQF 2010 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_cul-ture/publ/pdf/eqf/broch_en.pdf

European Commission (2012) Lifelong Learning Policy. Avail-able athttp://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/mo-bility_en.htm

European Commission Education and Learning (2008). Thebologna process. Available at:http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna_en.html.

Irish 2010 Available at: http://www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/.

Kennedy, D., Hyland, A., and Ryan, N. (2006). Writing andusing learning outcomes, a practical guide. EUA Bologna Hand-book. Available at:http://www.bologna-handbook.com/docs/frames/content_c.html.

Pouyioutas, P., Gjermundrod, H Dionysiou, I. (2012) “RePro-Tool, A Software Tool for the ECTS and Bologna Process Re-engineering of University Programmes”, IADIS InternationalConference on e-Society, March 2012, Berlin, Germany, pp.42-49

UK 2010 Available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfra-structure/FHEQ/EWNI08/FHEQ08.pdf.

VIRQUAL Network for integrating Virtual Mobility and EuropeanQualification Framework in HE and CE Institutions -http://virqual.up.pt/

AUTHORS Dr Philippos Pouyioutas is a Professor ofComputer Science and the Vice Rector atthe University of Nicosia, as well as aBologna Expert for Cyprus. Before joiningthe University of Nicosia (ex Intercollege)in 1996, he had worked at BirkbeckCollege, University of London (1989-1996)and at University of Morth London wherehe was the Director of the programme

Business Information Systems (1992-1996). He has served aschair, editor of proceedings, member of scientific committees ofInternational Conferences and as supervisor of a PhD student. Hisresearch work is supported by research grants and has beenwidely published (2 books, 9 journal papers and more than 60conference proceedings papers). He has been involved in localand European funded projects of more than 3 million Euros andhas extensive experience as a project manager and researcher.He has had various senior administrative posts and has usedextensively Information Technology in setting innovative businessenvironments at work.

Dr Harald Gjermundrød is currently an

Assistant Professor of Computer Scienceat the University of Nicosia which he joinedin September 2008. Prior to this, he wasa post doctorate associate (2006-2008) atthe High Performance Computing SystemsLaboratory in the Computer ScienceDepartment of the University of Cyprus. Hisresearch interests include middleware,

distributed computing systems, and Grid computing. Gjermundrødreceived his PhD, MS, and BS degrees in computer science fromWashington State University in 2006, 2001, 1999 respectively andDipl.-Ing degree from Oslo University College in 1998 (includinga year as an Erasmus student at the Robert Gordon University).Gjermundrød has worked on projects funded by the EU, theNational Institute of Technology (US), and the National ScienceFoundation (US).

Dr Ioanna Dionysiou joined University ofNicosia in October 2006 as an AssistantProfessor of Computer Science. Dionysioureceived her PhD from Washington StateUniversity (2006), MSc and BSc degreesfrom Washington State University (2000

and 1997 respectively) and Diploma degree from Higher TechnicalInstitute (1994). Dionysiou’s PhD research was supported by

three USA national organizations: NIST (National Institute ofStandards and Technology), NSF (National Science Foundation),and DOE (Department of Energy). Dionysiou’s research focuseson formal trust models and trust management in collaborativeenvironments, security standards deployment, and appliedtechnology in education.


AGAIN FROM THESCRATCH: DIALOGUE AND GENUINEINTERACTION IN ONLINE(AND OFFLINE) LEARNINGCOMMUNITIES

Orestis Tringides


ABSTRACT

In recent years we have seen educational organizationsimplementing collaborative learning systems in onlineenvironments for satisfying their teaching and training needs and-referring specifically for vocational education- to satisfied theincreased need for productivity and collaboration. Unfortunately,studies have showed that the mere application of such tools (thatmay be quite technologically advanced, enabling communication,content and interaction in ways that couldn't be possible someyears back) without firstly establishing some core skills indialogue and interaction, it could render the considerableinvestments of those organizations in e-learning systems andcurricula, non-efficient, in effect wasting the investment itself [1],[2]. With new online tools, various issues become morecomplicated and harder in regards to dialogue, because onlineenvironments inherently lack various communication cues,making dialogue in online e-learning environments even moredifficult [3].

The difficulties and shortcomings that are faced in collaborativee-learning are identified and explained, along with approached onhow can they be overcome, testing whether the suggested FinnishDIALE method that has been successfully applied in remedyingthe same difficulties in Vocational and Professional Education,could be applied into further contexts and environments [4], [5].

The argument is, by equipping learners in educational institutions,as well as employees of corporations (and non-for-profitorganisations/NGOs) with the necessary dialogue skills via amethod (like DIALE, as suggested here), will not only benefit thebetter delivery of online training course and the learning processitself (being in either online, or offline environments) and it willalso equip learners with problem-solving capabilities, conflictresolution, handling soft issues and communication, increasingof productivity and saving costs (because e.g. of not needed torepeat trainings, sessions or proceed to lengthier and costliersessions).

THE SHORTCOMINGS IN ONLINE INTERACTIONAND THE DIALE METHOD

Technology, especially information technology, enables new toolsand possibilities for improving teaching and learning practices.Nowadays, in different subject areas, all kinds of online, blended,distance, continuing and life long education courses and trainingare organized [6].

Thus it is too easy and too attractive to think that technology willsolve the problems of the pedagogy and human learning.

Technological infrastructure is an essential part of most of today'slearning environments but it is also time to think about the socialsettings that support the implementation and use of thattechnology [7], [8].

Over the last years we have seen an increasing trend amonguniversities, higher education institutions and organizations, totransfer more and more of the teaching and learning process from“offline” environments (class and traditional tutoring) to onlineenvironments (namely, e-learning systems or, LearningManagement Systems, discussion facilitation platforms and soon) [7], [9], [10].

This has been done for various reasons: practicality, availabilityand cut-down of costs – if we want to put things into the currentfinancial crisis perspective – but for now these reasons will notconcern this article.

What does concern us, is that in the light of the increasinginvestment of funds for the creation of online learninginfrastructure, it is wrong to think that web-based learning by itselfis the silver bullet for all teaching and learning needs.

First of all, the technology itself does not necessarily make anydeep changes in learning activities in schools (i.e.: anyeducational/training institution). Traditional methods of teachersare deeply ingrained in their minds and they need newcompetencies in order to manage learning processes on the net[3], [6], [10].

Furthermore, learning on the net (-and not only, as well as in allkinds of learning environments) is a demanding and complicatedchallenge in many ways. In the last years, in various scientificjournals many researchers report that collaboration, conversationand problem solving don’t succeed as expected in an onlinelearning environment [2], [5], [8],[11] – as in this case. Sincethe social interaction and dialogue is of central importance inlearning, it cannot be ignored in virtual learning environmentseither, if the aim is to construct or create knowledge.

Unfortunately, many online learning implementations are tootechnologically driven, ignoring certain principal concepts ofpedagogy that are even more important for learning in onlinesettings. Classics like Lev Vygotsky [12], [13] and Paolo Freire[14] had underlined in their works the importance of the conceptsof dialogue and authenticity, and the person's own “voice”. Theideas about scaffolding, the zone of proximal development,dialogue with teachers and peers, and dialogue as an existentialnecessity are also well known. In-depth learning demands socialinteraction, and knowledge creation is fundamentally a socialprocess: interaction between “peers” and “experts” is an


important part of any kind of learning environment and thereforeit should not be ignored in online learning environments, wronglypresuming that it can be replaced or bypassed by systems.

Dialogue is seen as a key concept in teaching-learning processesand thus dialogue could be understood as a crucial form ofconversation in an online environment. It is important toemphasize that Dialogue is not just “mere talk” and it is importantto distinguish dialogue from the general forms of conversation.Dialogue includes many critical actions, a failure in any of whichcan mean that the dialogue turns into regular discussion. Thedanger is present especially in online environments [15], [16].

In teaching and learning situations, in knowledge construction,especially in online learning environments, these concepts ofdialogue and also authenticity are seen to be more and moreimportant. The pedagogy that is needed in the Internet-basedlearning environments supposes more student-centered activity,participation and collaboration.

The difficulty of turning shortcomings and superficiality inlearning communities into dialogue

As mentioned above, because many online learning and pedagogyprojects are too technologically-driven (the focus is on thetechnology), teachers and students are not able to concentrateon the pedagogically appropriate, critical points: the knowledgeconstruction of the students and the activities of the students andteachers. Generating effective online dialogue and equalparticipation patterns in collaborative learning are the centraldifficulties and students do not, as is often assumed, generateideas and solve problems together easily.

Specifically, there are more problems when engaging in dialoguein an online learning environment that surely we can recognisesimilar problems in “offline” environments as well. i.e.:

ñ The others’ posts/speech are taken into account onlyrandomly and even important messages were overlooked withno reaction at all.

ñ The online discussion is undirected and the transitions fromone topic to the next are often shallow.

ñ The “depth” of learning in online environments is analogousto the depth of dialogue in such environments. It is not difficultto understand that superficiality in online discussions can onlyresult in shallow learning: a “Surface-oriented” learner onlyscratches the surface of knowledge, while the “deep-oriented”learner wants to delve into the knowledge and place it in largercontexts.

As a remedy to those problems, researchers suggest that anappropriate social infrastructure has to be created around any e-learning / CSCL (Computer-supported collaborative learning) tool.“Social infrastructure” refers to the supporting social structuresenabling the desired interaction between collaborators using thetool and this social infrastructure should be primary to thetechnical infrastructure.

If competence on dialogue of teachers and learners is placed inthe core of this social infrastructure, it is possible to makediscussions become deeper and student’s thinking transparenton the net, thus enabling discussions in computer-mediateddiscussion forums to actually contribute to the learning process.

Researchers show that teachers and students have many kinds ofbig difficulties in dialogue on the net – especially in the crucialcompetence of questioning and question formulation. If teachersand students were able to create dialogue, having the skills ofinquiring and questioning, then the generation of the new ideaswould be possible [1], [2], [3], [8]They could find continuouslynew paths to promote dialogue, for example, by simply openingpersonal meanings of utterances more and more. With applicationof such pedagogy techniques, mere discussion can be transformedinto meaningful dialogue within an online environment.

Even with those suggested solutions, it still remains a bigchallenge to achieve a good level of participation and make acommitment to genuine dialogue in educational online learningsettings [9], [10]. Mere ushering to ask questions and to inquireis not enough to take the discussion into a deeper level: theparticipants need help in developing the demanding skill ofdialogue.

Instead, in practice, exercising dialogue in an online environment(as well as in all kinds of learning environments) means thateveryone should be active, provides her/his contributions, isresponsive, develops ideas, asks questions, opens the meaningsof utterances, continues the utterances of the others, does notjump between themes, and is engaged in the often time-takingprocess of constructing shared understanding.

The teachers and the learners need skills in dialogue so thatshared knowledge creation and reflection can take place. Thiskind of dialogue is in no way a given, but if the students workingin online environments change their presumptions concerningdialogue with others and the others as a source of informationand understanding, then online learning may be developed in anew and better direction.

Indeed, it seems to be rather difficult to foster genuine interactionin online learning.


The DIALE Web Service

DIALE “Dialogical Learning” (www3.hamk.fi/dialogi/english) isa web service that aims to help individuals improve theirinteraction competence and learning in learning environments, butalso to improve interaction and collaboration between people ineducation in general and working life.

It was designed and constructed in order to encompass theMethodology and Findings [2], [17] of the research carried outduring the last 16 years, into a practical tool. The idea behind thedevelopment of the web service was the fact that through learningdialogue, people can think together in a way that enables betterinteraction and cooperation.

The purpose of this service is to tackle the numerous problemsrelated to learning and to interaction and collaboration betweenpeople (i.e.: superficial learning experiences, discussions withoutany real content, shallow collaboration in various communities),so that learning will more often penetrate deeper than the surface,conversations with others will feel enriching and individuals willbe better equipped to engage in collaborative thinking andcollaborative work.

The Web Service provides guidance to instructors and learnersfor applying the DIALE Method into teaching and learning but alsointo any other everyday context where interaction takes place (e.g.in intra-organization meetings, negotiations, conflict resolution,personal contexts and so on). But moreover, the idea behind thedevelopment of the web service was the fact that through learningdialogue, people can think together in a way that enables betterinteraction and cooperation in, for example, the following areas:benevolent caring about others in communities, creating senseof community, renewing learning cultures, scaffolding and tutoringlearning, multicultural cooperation, building a creative andinnovative work culture, developing leadership cultures. Thecrucial factor is the person’s willingness to become aware of theiractions and change them when needed.

The starting point of the “Dialogical Learning” web service is thatdialogue with others improves learning that requires deep-orientedand higher order thinking.

Deep learning through Dialogue Web Service

The central content of the Web Service is comprised of: dialogicalscenes; instructor’s comments and synthesis; vocabulary andapplication of dialogue. Dialogical competence is divided into fourparts, each of which consists of particular elements of dialogicalcompetence. These elements are exemplified and modelled in 25dialogical scenes (originally 44 in the Finnish language), “modeldialogues” [18]. The dialogue themes include issues concerningcollaborative learning or cooperation – issues familiar fromeveryday life. The instructor evaluates the statements and createssynthesis of the conversations. The goal is that the evaluationsand synthesis concretize the learning of dialogical collaboration.The central principle of dialogue was followed in the creation ofthe service: you are allowed to show incomplete work and ideasto others!

In the Deep Learning through Dialogue Web Service, the followingcriteria of dialogue in online environment are suggested: openingand sharing of the incomplete thinking of one’s own; answeringto the question of someone else; focused continuing of theutterance of someone else; inquiring; questioning concerning thewhole utterance of someone else; inquiring question or a straightquestion to the others; opening the meanings of the key words inthe other’s utterance; inviting others to participate; binding ofone’s own speech act to the earlier utterance of someone elseusing the same expressed words; checking one’s owninterpretations.

The DIALE Project

The DIALE1 project (www.hamk.fi/diale) is an EU-funded projectthat concentrates on the transfer of unique and active pedagogicalinnovation on the use of dialogue in online learning environmentsand all kinds of learning communities, independent of the field ofeducation and focusing on vocational teachers, trainers, tutorsand the improvement of teacher education. In addition, the targetgroup includes in-company trainers and teachers working infurther education services. The competences in dialogue can beused in teaching and guidance work in classroom and distanceeducation, work mentoring and cooperation, independent of thefield of the activities.

1. The DIALE project (www.hamk.fi/diale) is an EU-funded project (under the LLP/ Leonardo da Vinci programme) and is coordinated by HAMK ProfessionalTeacher Education Unit in Finland (www.hamk.fi), with partners from Cyprus (Trisys – www.tringos.eu), Ireland (Calmar – www.calmar.ie), Spain (CEEI –www.ceeiburgos.es) and the Netherlands (Groenhorstcollege – www.groenhorstcollege.nl , STOAS - www.stoashogeschool.nl ). This project has been fundedwith support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for anyuse which may be made of the information contained therein.


The goal of the DIALE project is to develop the competence oftrainers, teachers, teacher trainers and in-company trainers indialogue through concrete methods. Over a two-year period theproject consortium will construct and augment an English versionof the DIALE Web Service (www3.hamk.fi/dialogi/english);develop concrete methods for dialogic knowledge creation;piloting and testing of the developed methods; constructing atraining program for the development of competence in dialogue.

Currently, the developed method cards are being tested in stages[19], [20], in various countries (Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, TheNetherlands and Spain) where every session’s feedback andresults are recorded and analysed. The analysis of those testingsessions will be used to further improve the methods and the webservice that is already running. For the testing sessions, a diversityof groups are congregated in order to ensure a spherical andcritical evaluation of the methods: college/ university/ school/professional educators and students; staff and management of avariety companies/organizations; youth and volunteer groups CivilSociety Organization and Associations are among those groups.

The aim is at the end to achieve: the development of an improvedDIALE methodology, where it will contain an improvedmethodology from a scientific/pedagogy perspective; an improvedpractical training of trainers (methods and web service); to havemuch needed concrete results on how to improve dialogicalcompetences of all actors involved in online learning and as wellas “offline environments” (educators, trainees, systemsdesigners, curriculum and methods designers).

The DIALE project consortium also “walks the talk”, by using theevolving methods in the lifecycle for the development, planningand coordination of the project itself. For the same functions,social media tools and applications are used as well, applyinggood practices of dialogue in an online and all kinds of learningenvironments. All project workings and (intermediary) results canbe found in the project wiki, via its website www.hamk.fi/diale .

FURTHER READING AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

1] Aarnio, H. (1999). In Search of Dialogue: DevelopingDialogue for Communication and Information TechnologicalEnvironment. University of Tampere, Finland. ActaUniversitatis Tamperensis 676.

[2] Enqvist, J. & Aarnio, H. (2003a). DIANA Model - DialogicalAuthentic Learning on the Net. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA2003: World Conference on Educational Multimedia,Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA;June 23-28, 2003. AACE. (pp. 2090-2095).

[3] Järvelä, S. & Häkkinen, P. (2002). Levels of Web-basedcommunication. In H. van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in adigital world. (pp. 77-95). Lawrence Erlbaum.

[4] Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective DiscussionThrough a Computer-Mediated Anchored Forum. Journal ofthe Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437-469.

[5] Enqvist, & M. Helenius (eds.) Developing net pedagogy forvocational education and for on-the-job learning: The DIANAmodel. (pp. 9-272). National Board of Education in Finland.

[6] Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002).Epistemological Foundations for CSCL: A Comparison ofThree Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities. In G.Stahl (Ed.), Computer Support for Collaborative Learning

[7] Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of theComputer-supported Collaborative Learning 2002Conference (pp. 24-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

[8] Reeves, T. Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2002). AuthenticActivities and online learning. In J. Herrington (Eds.)Proceedings of HERDSA. Joondalup: Edith CowanUniversity.

[9] Salomon, G. & Perkins, D. N. (1996). Learning inWonderland: What Do Computers Really Offer Education?In S. T. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the Future of Schooling.Ninety-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Studyof Education (NSSE), Part II. (pp. 111-130). Chicago Press.

[10] Shaffer, D. W. & Resnick, M. (1999). "Thick" Authenticity:New Media and Authentic Learning. Journal of InteractiveLearning Research, 10(2), 195-215.

[11] Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (1998). Content Analysisof Online Discussion in an applied Educational

[12] Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. CambridgeMassachussets: MIT Press.

[13] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. CambridgeMassachussets: Harvard University Press.


AUTHOR Orestis Tringides is the ManagingDirector of Amalgama InformationManagement he has been involved2003 in the areas of e-learning, e-business, ICT Security and the Right ofAccess to Information. He holds a B.Sc.degree in Computer Science, an M.Sc.degree in Information Systems and is

currently pursuing an MBA degree.

He also participates in Civil Society projects and is interested inelderly care, historical remembrance, soft tourism and socialinclusion.E-Mail: [email protected]

[14] Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London:Penguin Books.

[15] Wilson, G. & Stacey E. (2004). Online interaction impactson learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2004,20(1), 33-48.

[16] Webb E., Jonesa A., Barkera P., Schaika van P. (2004),Using e-learning dialogues in higher education, Innovationsin Education and Teaching International, Volume 41, Issue1, 2004, pages 93-103

[17] Aarnio, H. & Enqvist, J. (2002). Development and Applicationof the DIANA Model (in Finnish). In H. Aarnio, J. Enqvist, &M. Helenius (eds.) Developing net pedagogy for vocationaleducation and for on-the-job learning: The DIANA model.(pp. 9-272). National Board of Education in Finland.

[18] DIALE Method Cards https://wiki.hamk.fi/display/diale/Dia-logical+method+cards

[19] DIALE Piloting and Testing phase 2 https://wiki.hamk.fi/dis-play/diale/Piloting+and+testing

[20] DIALE Piloting and Testing phase 3 https://wiki.hamk.fi/dis-play/diale/Piloting+and+testing+phase+3

À¶√μA§∂Δ∂ Δ√ Aƒ£ƒ√ ™∞™ ™Δ∏¡ ¶§∏ƒ√º√ƒπ∫H!√ ∫˘.™˘.¶. Î·ÏÂ› Ù· Ì¤ÏË ÙÔ˘ Î·È ¿ÏÏÔ˘˜ Â·ÁÁÂÏÌ·Ù›Â˜, ÂÈ¯ÂÈÚËÌ·Ù›Â˜, ÂÚÂ˘ÓËÙ¤˜ Î·È ·Î·‰ËÌ·˚ÎÔ‡˜

ÙÔ˘ ÎÏ¿‰Ô˘ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Ó· ˘Ô‚¿ÏÔ˘Ó Ù· ¿ÚıÚ· ÙÔ˘˜ ÁÈ· Ù· ÂfiÌÂÓ· ÙÂ‡¯Ë ÙÔ˘ ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎÔ‡!

Δ· ¿ÚıÚ· ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÔÓÙ·È ÛÂ ÔÔÈ·‰‹ÔÙÂ Ù˘¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ÙÔÌ¤· ÙË˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜, Î·È Ó· ˘Ô‚¿ÏÏÔÓÙ·È ÛÂ Û˘ÓÂ¯‹ ‚¿ÛË ÛÙË Û˘ÓÙ·ÎÙÈÎ‹ ÂÈÙÚÔ‹ Ë ÔÔ›· ı· ÂÓËÌÂÚÒÛÂÈ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ú·Ï·‚‹

ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈÌ¤ÓÔ˘ Î·ıÒ˜ Î·È ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ô‰Ô¯‹ (‹ ·fiÚÚÈ„Ë) ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈÌ¤ÓÔ˘ Î·È ÙÔ ÚÔ‚ÏÂfiÌÂÓÔ ¯ÚfiÓÔ ‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛË˜.

¶·Ú·Î·ÏÒ ÂÏ¤ÁÍÙÂ ÙÈ˜ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¤˜ ÏÂÙÔÌ¤ÚÂÈÂ˜ Î·È Ô‰ËÁ›Â˜ Ì¤Ûˆ ÙË˜ ÈÛÙÔÛÂÏ›‰·˜ Ì·˜ www.pliroforiki.orgÎ·È ˘Ô‚¿ÏÂÙÂ Ù· ÎÂ›ÌÂÓ¿ Û·˜ Ì¤Ûˆ ËÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎÔ‡ Ù·¯˘‰ÚÔÌÂ›Ô˘ ÛÙË ‰ÈÂ‡ı˘ÓÛË [email protected] .


A SEMI-AUTOMATEDPATIENT SPECIFICCOMPUTATIONALFLUID AND PARTICLEDYNAMICS ANALYSISFRAMEWORK FOR BIOFLUIDSIMULATIONSMakris E., Pilou M., Neofytou P.,Tsangaris S. & Housiadas C.

A semi-automated patient specific Computational Fluid and Particledynamics framework has been developed, with the objective to provide avaluable tool for medical diagnosis and prognosis.

The framework begins from medical imaging examination data throughgeometry reconstruction, structured multi-block mesh generation andfluid flow and particle dynamics simulation.

Each of these components is presented in this manuscript. Furthermorethe utilization of the framework on applications that is of great interestfor the biomedical community is briefly presented.


I. INTRODUCTION

In the recent years there is a growing interest in the In-silicosimulation of fluid flows inside the human body in terms of patientspecific simulations. Research in computational patient specificsimulations with applications to biomedical and clinical casescombines the expertise of modern computational engineeringscience with the target of improving the potential of medicaldiagnosis and prognosis.

Inside the human body, direct air or blood flow-field measurementis a highly demanding or even impossible task through the currentin vivo examinations. In addition the prediction of the evolution ofphysical phenomena that appear inside human organs may beimpossible by the use of direct measurement methods.Furthermore, in inner flows of bio-fluids, small differentiations inthe human organ geometry may be important and responsible forvarious physical phenomena.

The aforementioned conclusions underline the necessity for thedevelopment of an advanced patient-specific model to studyclinical cases on an individual basis. The presented computationalfluid dynamics (CFD) and Particle Dynamics analysis frameworkaims at contributing to the study and prediction of various physicalphenomena investigated by the biomedical and medicalcommunity.

The actual process of converting medical imaging data to asuitable computational simulation is not trivial. The presentedframework enables detailed reconstruction and structuredcomputational domain generation of a patient-specific humanorgan shape starting from DICOM data, acquired from a medicalimaging examination. Fortified by the evolution of the medicalimaging techniques and through a series of steps, a precisereconstruction of human organs geometries and a clinical timescale computational simulation of the in vivo flow is achievedleading to a patient specific framework.

This article summarizes the authors’ recent efforts in developinga patient specific Computational fluid and particles dynamicframework for biofluid simulations.

For illustration purposes, the framework is utilized in two biofluidapplications. The first application is the Abdominal AorticAneurism (AAA) and the second is the simulation of aerosol flowin an ideal, single physiologically realistic bifurcation.

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a common abnormalityof the human cardiovascular system that occurs in highfrequency, and its rupture in most cases leads to death. Currently,the maximum transversal diameter of the AAA is used as aprimary indicator of a near-future rupture. Nevertheless, there arestatistical and clinical evidence that more than 30% of smaller insize aneurysms rupture. In inner flows of bio-fluids, flow patternsare highly depended on the patient specific geometry and may bea key factor for smaller aneurysms rupture. As a result theassessment of the AAA rupture risk by a patient specificcomputational fluid dynamics (CFD) framework renders to be animportant task.

The second medical case is the simulation of aerosol flow in anideal, single physiologically realistic bifurcation. The investigationof aerosol flows in bifurcations is significant in biomedicalapplications, because this geometry resembles the branchingairways of the lung. A computational fluid and particles dynamicsstudy of particle transport and deposition in a physiologicallyrealistic bifurcation corresponding to generations three and four(G3-G4) of the human lung was conducted using a fully Eulerianmodel.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE FRAMEWORK

In Figure 1. the structure of the framework is visually presented.The framework comprises of the following steps:

Medical Imaging data (DICOM)

Data processing and segmentation of the volume of interest. Creation of a 3D shell of the human organ.

Generation of a high quality structured computational domain that conforms to the human organ shape.

Patient specific Computational Simulation.

Results presentation.

Medical assessment (diagnosis and prognosis)

Figure 1. Structure of the presented framework


ñ Medical imaging data processing and segmentation of thevolume of interest. Creation of a 3D shell of the shape by amedical data visualization and image analysis program.

ñ Generation of a high quality structured computational domainthat conforms to the surface.

ñ Computational Simulations for individual patient specificvalues.

ñ Results presentation.

2.1 Manipulation of a medical imaging data file.

Currently almost all the medical imaging machines (magneticresonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), medicalultrasonography (MU) etc.) export their results in DICOM format.A DICOM file consists of a set of grey-scale images of planarcross sections of the examined volume. In Figure 2 a typical caseof medical imaging data visualization is illustrated. In thepresented framework, the highly efficient and reliable open sourcesoftware 3DSlicer® [1] is used for accessing the medical imagingdata and for the segmentation of the volume of interest (VOI). Dueto the nature of the DICOM images, a certain degree of useractivity is required for the segmentation of the VOI, mainly in theidentification of the vessels bounds.

After the segmentation of the volume of interest, the 3D Slicer®software produces a 3D surface by combining the selected data.The result of this procedure is a file which describes the vasculargeometry’s outer shell with the use of triangles. In Figure 2. areconstructed 3D surface of an AAA is shown.

2.2 Computational domain creation

The second step is the production of a multiblock structuredcomputational domain with respect to the human organ surfaceshape. This procedure is done by an in-house code developedfor the needs of the framework, which is described analyticaly in[2].

The in-house code has the abillity to produce a multi-blockstructured computational domain which conforms to the surfaceand with computational elements clustering near the artery walls,for better computational accuracy.

In Figure 3. the substunce of the grid generation procedure isvisualized. The procedure of the grid generation comprises thefollowing steps:

Figure 2. Medical imaging data – segmentation of the volume of interest – 3D shape creation.


ñ The calculation of a planar isomorphic triangulation for thesurface triangulation obtained by the medical datavisualization and image analysis program. The surfacetriangulation is depicted in Figure 3a) while the calculatedplanar isomorphic triangulation is depicted in Figure 3b).

ñ The interpolation of a planar structured grid over the planarisomorphic triangulation and the calculation of invariant valuesin the planar triangulation. A graphical detail of theinterpolation procedure is visualized in Figure 3c).

ñ The formation of the surface structured grid by a reversedprojection.The surface strucured grid is depicted in Figure3d). The volume grid generation and enchancement is also atask fullfiled by the in-house code.

In patient specific simulations the most common approach is theuse of unstructured triangulated computational domains producedby commercial meshing software. Unstructured triangulatedcomputational domain is often preferred for its potential ofeffortless grid generation over complex geometries combined withconcurrent preservation of the geometrical shape. Howeverunstructured grids provide less accurate solutions than structuredgrids due to a number of factors, including poor alignment withthe primary flow direction and increased numerical diffusion.. Aquantified comparison between structured and unstructured grid

performance on an air flow simulation with the use of an idealizedgeometry model may be found in previous studies [3].

The presented framework handles multiblock structuredcomputational domains since in clinical cases such an AAA aninaccurate computational result may lead to a mistakenconclusion and a rupture risk underestimation. Therefore the useof the most ellaborated and accurate computational domain maybe essential.

2.3 Computational simulation.

2.3 a) Fluid flow simulation

The in-house CFD code developed by Neofytou and Tsangaris [4]is used to solve the Navier-Stokes equations for the three-dimensional incompressible flow field of the carrier fluid. The codeuses a finite-volume methodology with a collocated arrangementof variables, while it enables multi-block computations. Apressure-correction equation is used and the coupling of velocityand pressure is dealt with using the SIMPLE algorithm. In thecode, the convection terms are discretized using the QUICKdifference scheme, which is of third-order, whereas the centraldifference scheme (CDS) is used for the diffusion (viscous) terms.

Figure 3. Structured grid generation method


2.3 b) Particle dynamics simulation

Transport and deposition of particles suspended in a flowing fluidare simulated employing a CFD-based computational model [5].The particle polulation balance equation is solved for particle massconcentrarion in 3D space using a fully Eulerian model, whichincorporates the effects of particle convection, diffusion and inertiaas well as the influence of external force fields (e.g. gravity). Inthe code, the convective term is discretized using a second-orderdeferred correction, while a second-order central differencescheme is preferred for the diffusive term.

2.4 Results Presentation

The final step of the framework is the presentation of theresults.For that purpose a series of open source visualization kitsare available. In the framework the Visualization Toolkit (VTK) isused and the results are visualized as plots indicative for the bloodcirculation through the arteries and as surface contours of thepressure or shear stress on the wall of the vessel.

The visualized presentation provide important patient specificinformation in a very compact way, and may be used as non-invasive tool in the order of medical diagnosis and prognosis.

III. RESULTS

In this section the results of the utilization of the framework ontwo medical cases with high interest are briefly presented.

The first medical case is the Abdominal Aortic Aneurism (AAA)blood flow simulation. In the AAA case the flow field is simulatedand the wall shear stress (WWS) is computed in order to conducta rupture risk assessment for a specific patient. As it is visible byFigure 4c) the higher shear strain rate is located at areas thattend to fold and have the largest surface curvature.

The second medical case is the simulation of aerosol flow in anideal, single physiologically realistic bifurcation, because thisgeometry can be considered as the building block of the humanlung. In Figure 5 the air flow field (I) and the particle concentrationprofiles and deposition sites (II) are shown for Re=1132 andassuming that there is an obstruction in one daughter tube, suchas the flow ratio between the two daughter tubes flow rates equalsQ1/Q2=2.

IV. CONCLUSION

In this article a brief presentation of a patient specificcomputational framework for biofluid simulations is done. Theframework may be a step towards patient specific models,capable to provide accurate medical diagnosis and prognosis onclinical time scale. The framework is constantly developed andrefined in a number of areas such as automation, handling andtime demand.

As a future trend, the framework will aim at full automation namelythe tight integration and interconnection of its softwarecomponents leading to a valuable and easy to use clinical decisionsupport tool.

REFERENCES

[1] Pieper S, Lorensen B, Schroeder W, Kikinis R. (2006). TheNA-MIC kit: ITK, VTK, pipelines, grids and 3D Slicer as anopen platform for the medical image computing community.Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Symposium onBiomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro. 1:698–701.

[2] Makris E., Gkanis V., Tsangaris S., Housiadas C.(2012) Amethodology to generate structured computational grids fromDICOM data : application to a patient-specific abdominalaortic aneurysm (AAA) model. Computer Methods inBiomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 15(2):173-183

[3] Longest, P. W., S. Vinchurkar (2007) Effects of mesh styleand grid convergence on particle deposition in bifurcatingairway models with comparisons to experimental data.Medical Engineering and Physics 29:350-366

[4] Neofytou P., Tsangaris S. (2006) Flow effects of bloodconstitutive equations on 3D models of vascular anomalies.International Journal of Numerical Methods in Fluids 200651:489-510.

[5] Pilou M., Tsangaris S.,Neofytou P., Housiadas C., DrossinosY.(2011) Inertial particle deposition in a 90-degree laminarflow bend : An Eulerian fluid-particle approach. AerosolScience and Technology 45(11): 1376 -1387


Figure 4. The Abdominal Aorta Aneurysm case

AUTHORS Vangelis Makris is an alumnus of the School of AppliedMathematical and Physical Sciences of N.T.U.A. and a PhDCandidate in the NTUAs Mechanical Engineering School with ascholarship from the National Centre for Scientific Research"Demokritos”. Mr Makris work focuses on the field of patientspecific grid generation and multiphase flows of biofluids.

e-mail: [email protected]

Marika Pilou is a Mechanical Engineer and currently a PhDCandidate in the NTUAs Mechanical Engineering School with ascholarship from the National Centre for Scientific Research"Demokritos”. Ms Pilou work focuses on the investigation ofinteraction of particles with flowing biofluids.


Figure 5. Aerosol flow in a PRB.


Dr. Panagiotis Neofytou is a Research Scientist at the NationalCentre for Scientific Research “Demokritos” in Greece. His PhD,obtained the University of Manchester Institute of Science andTechnology (UMIST), involved the development of acomputational fluid dynamics code for blood flow using specificconstitutive equations for the rheology of blood. Over the past 15years he has specialised in the development and application ofadvanced computational algorithms for non-Newtonian fluiddynamics on physiological flows and he has also collaborated inseveral EU research projects.


Sokrates Tsangaris is a Professor in the Mechanical EngineeringDepartment of the N.T.U.A (Director of Lab. of Biofluid –Mechanics and Biomedical Engineering) with research andworking areas and teaching experience in Fluid Mechanics ingeneral, Biofluid-Mechanics, Biomedical Engineering, TheoreticalAerodynamic with about ninety publications in scientific journals.

e-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Dr. Christos Housiadas is the President of the Greek AtomicEnergy Commission (GAEC) and also Head of the Thermal-Hydraulics & Multiphase Flow Laboratory (THEMLAB) at theInstitute of Nuclear Technology-Radiation Protection of“Demokritos” National Centre for Scientific Research. Dr.Housiadas has an extensive experience of 25 years in researchand project management in the areas of aerosol flows, nuclearengineering, scientific computing, transport phenomena andmultiphase systems and has published more than 100 papers inpeer-reviewed journals and international conferences.



A SUBJECT-SPECIFICCOMPUTER SIMULATIONMODEL OF THE ONE-HANDED BACKHANDGROUNDSTROKE INTENNIS

Mark A. King, Jonathan A. Glynn & Sean R. Mitchell

A subject-specific computer model of a tennis player, combined with anequipment-specific computer model of tennis ball/racket impacts wasused to determine the effect of ball/racket impacts on loading at theelbow for one-handed backhand groundstrokes.A matching subject-specific computer simulation of a typical topspinone-handed backhand groundstroke performed by an elite tennis playerwas determined with a root mean square difference between performanceand matching simulation of less than 1º over a 50 ms period startingfrom ball impact. Using a subject-specific angle-driven computer modelcombined with a forward dynamics, equipment-specific computer modelof tennis ball/racket impacts allows peak internal loading, net impulseand shock due to ball/racket impact to be calculated which would nototherwise be possible without impractical invasive techniques. Thisinvestigation provides a basis for further studies into the factors thatmay increase elbow loading during tennis strokes.


INTRODUCTION

Computer simulation can be used to investigate complexmovements in sport that would otherwise be difficult tounderstand. In addition, determining internal loading duringdynamic sports movements is problematic as traditional inversedynamics methods fail to account for the effects of soft tissuemotion (Pain and Challis, 2006). In tennis determining internalloading has the added complication of the interaction between theball/racket and player to be accounted for with it being critical thataccurate force data is input to the arm from the ball/racket impact.

Computer simulation models have been developed in tennis (forexample; Glitsch et al., 1999; Nesbit et al., 2006). The limitationsof these models are that potentially important features such asracket frame vibration (Nesbit et al., 2006), variable grip pressureand anatomical damping in the system (Glitsch et al., 2006;Nesbit et al., 2006) have been neglected. More useful modelshave also incorporated subject-specific parameters to enablesimulations to be compared with performances by the subject toprovide a quantitative evaluation of the model accuracy (Yeadonand King, 2002; King et al., 2006). In particular for tennis King etal. (2011) developed and evaluated an equipment/subject specificcomputer simulation model of tennis backhand groundstrokes.

The aim of this study was to use a previously developed modelto estimate with confidence peak elbow loadings for a one-handedtennis backhand groundstroke. This was achieved by evaluatinga subject-specific computer simulation model for a one-handedtopspin backhand groundstroke by an elite tennis player.

METHODS

A four-segment angle-driven subject-specific computer simulationmodel of the torso and arm (King et al., 2011) was connected toa two-segment racket model (Glynn et al., 2011) to simulate one-handed backhand groundstrokes. The resulting model wasmatched to a one-handed backhand stroke by an elite tennisplayer.

The equations of motion for a 16 degree of freedom 3D computersimulation model of a human arm and torso segment linked to a13 degree of freedom tennis racket and ball system weredeveloped using AutolevTM 3.4 Professional software package.Rigid hand, forearm, upper-arm, and torso segments wereconnected by frictionless pin joints. The rigid segmentsrepresenting the bones were driven by joint angle-time historiesand movement of the thorax centre from the global origin wasdriven by linear displacement-time histories, obtained from one-handed tennis backhand performances. There were three

rotations and three translations specified for the thorax and threerotations specified for the shoulder allowing shoulderflexion/extension, adduction/abduction and internal/externalrotation. For the elbow there were two rotations specifiedallowing elbow flexion/extension and forearmpronation/supination whilst a constant carry angle was specified.Wrist flexion/extension and radial/ulnar deviation were specifiedwith rotations defined in accordance with standard anatomicaljoint movements. Wobbling mass rigid segments to representsoft tissue motion were attached to the forearm and upper-armfixed rigid bodies by two identical, 3D non-linear masslessspring-damper systems with five degrees of freedom perwobbling mass (Yeadon and King, 2008). The restoring force ineach massless spring-damper was a function of the stiffnessand damping coefficients, the displacement and velocity of thewobbling segment relative to the fixed rigid component (King etal., 2011).

The upper-limb model was attached to a 13 degree of freedomforward dynamics, equipment-specific computer simulation modelof tennis racket/ball impacts (Glynn et al., 2011). The racket framewas represented using two rigid bodies connected by africtionless pin joint with two linear massless torsional spring-dampers to resist motion in and out of the racket plane and modelthe fundamental modes of vibration. The stringbed wasrepresented by nine point masses connected using linearmassless elastic springs. A point mass representation of thetennis ball allowed normal and oblique impacts to occur at oneof the nine specified locations on the stringbed (see Glynn et al.,2011 for further details).

The human hand was represented by a rigid segment connectingthe wrist joint centre to the proximal end of the metacarpal of themiddle finger which was in turn fixed to a rigid, massless cylinderencasing the racket handle. Two points of contact on the racketframe were defined at the hypothenar and thenar eminences. Botheminences were modelled as four equidistant points on thecircumference of the cylinder and an additional two points alongthe principle longitudinal axis of the cylinder (see King et al., 2011for further details). Each point was connected to the fixed pointon the rigid racket handle by a linear massless spring-damperwhich applied a gripping force. In total there were six degrees offreedom (three rotation and three translation) between the handand the racket. Since gripping forces were applied at two singlepoints on the racket handle represented by a rigid rod, amechanism for modelling resistance to the rotation of the rackethandle about its longitudinal axis was necessary. This wasachieved by using a linear torsional spring-damper to apply aresistance torque about the principle longitudinal axis of the racket(see King et al., 2011 for further details).


The subject in this study was an elite male, right-handed tennisplayer with a whole-body mass of 75.5 kg and a height of 1.86m. Testing procedures were explained to the subject inaccordance with the institution ethical guidelines and a consentform was signed. The kinematics of the subject performing one-handed backhand groundstrokes were automatically tracked usinga Vicon 624 motion tracking system. Twelve M2 strobe camerassampling at a frequency of 250 Hz were used to calibrate aperformance volume of approximately 2.5 m3 and then track themotion of markers attached to the subject and a Head LM Prestigetennis racket as he performed one-handed backhandgroundstrokes (Figure 1(a)). Reflective markers were placed onthe subject in accordance with a Vicon generic marker set toidentify joint centres of rotation. Additional markers were placedon the biceps brachii and forearm to approximate wobbling massdisplacements and at six locations on the racket frame to measuredisplacements of the racket relative to the wrist joint centre. Rawkinematic data from the Vicon motion analysis were fitted usingquintic splines (Wood and Jennings, 1979) to smooth errors inthe data and give time histories that could be used to drive thehuman component of the model.

Two genlocked high-speed digital cameras operating at 2500 Hzwere used to measure inbound and outbound ball velocities andimpact locations on the stringbed. New Pro Penn Titanium tennisballs were fired from a Bola ball cannon and the subject wasasked to perform one-handed topspin groundstrokes as he wouldnormally use during a baseline rally. A trial was consideredsuccessful if all data had been captured correctly and the balllanded in a designated target area (Figure 1(b)). A successfultopspin trial where the ball impacted at the geometric stringbedcentre was chosen for further analysis.

Inertia parameters of the subject’s body segments were calculatedfrom subject-specific measurements taken on the elite player

(King et al., 2011). In particular, 95 anthropometric measurementswere taken (Yeadon, 1990). The stiffness of the non-linearmassless spring-dampers of the wobbling masses were chosento match measured displacements of markers on the upper-armand forearm with simulated wobbling mass displacements, acrossthe one-handed backhand performances. Damping coefficientsfor the wobbling masses were selected manually so that thesystem was close to being critically damped (see King et al., 2011for further details).

Equipment-specific parameters for the tennis racket frame,stringbed and tennis ball were determined from independentexperimental tests (Glynn et al., 2011) and were then fixed. Theinertia parameters of the racket frame parts were determined fromthe results of pendulum oscillation and knife-edge balanceexperiments. The torsional spring-damper coefficients wereoptimized using the racket frame model to match experimentalacceleration-time histories of a point on the racket frame afterbeing struck by an impact hammer. Spring stiffness coefficientsand friction coefficients for the stringbed were optimized using aclamped stringbed model to match experimental coefficient ofrestitution values and ball rebound angles respectively. Balls werefired at a range of velocities from a pneumatic air cannon to coverthe range of relative ball/racket linear velocities (18 m/s to 33m/s) measured in the performance data collection. The stiffnessand damping coefficients of the normal component of theball/stringbed impact force were optimized from piezoelectricforce plate data after balls were projected from the pneumatic aircannon at the aforementioned velocities (see Glynn et al., 2011for further details).

The topspin trial was matched by varying the visco-elasticparameters of the grip within realistic bounds using the SimulatedAnnealing optimization algorithm (Corana et al., 1987) in order tominimize differences in the six degrees of freedom (DOF) between

Figure 1. Data collection environment; (a) the elite subject with the global reference frame shown and (b) the equipment set-up.


performance and simulation. Linear displacements in the globalreference frame of the racket relative to the wrist joint centre androtations of the racket relative to the hand segment were establishedby analysing the splined positional data of markers on the wrist,hand and tennis racket. The difference score comprised the root-mean-square (RMS) difference of the three racket angles and threelinear racket displacements relative to the hand from the instant ofball contact with the stringbed and every millisecond thereafter for50 ms. This time period was chosen as it encompassed theball/stringbed contact phase, the peak grip forces and the racketframe oscillation and decay (Brody, 1989). All six DOF were equallyweighted and a 1º difference in racket angle was assumed to beequivalent to a 1 cm difference in racket linear displacement. Theball/stringbed contact time and the outbound ball velocity werecompared for the matching simulation and correspondingperformance. Elbow flexion/extension and pronation/supination jointtorques along with the internal joint reaction force at the elbow werecalculated for the matching simulation for the period from ballimpact until 50 ms afterwards. Peak torques calculated for the one-hand backhand groundstrokes at the elbow for flexion / extensionwere compared with estimated maximal strength values obtainedfrom torque measurements on the same participant using anisovelocity dynamometer (King and Yeadon, 2002).

RESULTS

The inbound ball velocities at the instant of contact with thestringbed were -10.0 m/s (global Y axis; anterior-posterior) and -0.2 m/s (global Z axis; vertical). The relative ball/racket velocitiesat initial ball impact were consistent with a topspin backhandgroundstroke (Table 1) with respect to the fixed global X, Y andZ axes indicated on Figure 1(a).

The grip parameters were determined from the matchingprocedure with RMS differences of 0.8º in racket kinematicsobtained (Table 2). Optimal grip parameter values were of thesame order of magnitude as a previous study with the samesubject (King et al., 2011) suggesting that the elite subject had aconsistent technique. The ball/stringbed contact time for thematching simulation was less than a tenth of a milliseconddifferent to the measured value (Table 3) and the outbound ballvelocities for the matching simulation was 0.6% different to themeasured value (Table 3).

Table 1. Relative global impact conditions.

impact condition global axis

X Y Z

ball/racket velocity (m/s) -0.2 32.2 2.0

racket angles -200º 0º -101º

Table 2. Grip parameters for the matching simulation.

parameter value

damping coefficient for hypothenar eminence, cGH (Ns/m2)

damping coefficient for thenar eminence, cGT (Ns/m2)

damping coefficient for torsional spring-damper, cT (Nms/rad2)

stiffness coefficient for hypothenar eminence, kGH (N/m)

stiffness coefficient for thenar eminence, kGT (N/m)

stiffness coefficient for torsional spring-damper, kT (Nm/rad)

initial force at hypothenar eminence, F0H (N)

initial force at thenar eminence, F0T (N)

RMS difference (o)

716500

741800

9.0

65200

64000

70.0

12.6

14.6

0.8

(see King et al., 2011 for specific equations used)

Table 3. A comparison of performance and simulationoutbound ball velocities / contact times with the stringbed.

outbound ballvelocity (m/s)

topspin

performancesimulation

34.133.9

ball/stringbedcontact time (ms)

performancesimulation

44

The peak joint torques and peak internal joint reaction forces at theelbow (Table 4) were comparable with a previous study with thesame subject (King et al., 2011) suggesting that the elite subjecthad a consistent technique across trials and also that the methodsused were robust. A peak elbow extension torque of 74 Nm and

peak elbow pronation torque of 24 Nm were obtained from strengthmeasurements with the participant used in this study (King et al.,2011). The peak torques calculated from the one handed backedgroundstroke were similar for elbow extension but higher for elbowsupination (Table 4).


DISCUSSION

Combining a subject-specific angle-driven computer model of atennis player (King et al., 2011), and a forward dynamics,equipment-specific computer model of tennis racket/ball impacts(Glynn et al., 2011) has been used to investigate loading at theelbow in a typical topspin one-handed backhand groundstrokeperformed by an elite tennis player. The model can be used tocalculate peak force, impulse and shock loading with sufficientconfidence to compare different strokes. It is now possible toinvestigate impulsive loads experienced by other demographicgroups such as recreational players who are more prone to elbowinjury.

Customizing the simulation model to a specific individual throughdetermining subject-specific model parameters and obtaining amatching simulation has demonstrated that the model hassufficient justifiable complexity without being overly complex tosimulate backhand strokes. In particular to take into account softtissue movement in the forearm and upper arm wobbling masselements have been incorporated and for the grip to allow relativemotion between the hand and racket a six degree of freedom griprepresentation has been used. Ball/stringbed contact time andoutbound ball velocities for the matching simulation (Table 3)

were in close agreement with measured values despite neithervariable being directly matched in the optimization procedure. Thisprovides additional strong evidence that appropriate modelparameters / model complexity was used.

The magnitude of the elbow torques calculated for the backhandstrokes were compared with strength measurements taken on thesubject. For elbow extension good agreement in the maximumelbow torques was found, while for elbow supination the torquescalculated for using the simulation model were larger than thetorques measured directly. Overall, the agreement betweensimulation and recorded performance was good, and thecalculated elbow loads have been shown to be appropriate. As aconsequence, the model can be used with confidence toinvestigate loads applied to the arm during tennis strokes.

CONCLUSION

A computer simulation model for one-handed backhandgroundstrokes has been customised to an elite tennis playerthrough determining subject-specific parameters. Where possible,parameters were determined by direct measurement. Experimentalresults and data from the literature were used to determineremaining parameters from a matching optimisation process.Evaluation of the model showed excellent agreement with RMSdifferences of 0.8º based on racket kinematics. Simulatedball/stringbed contact time and outbound ball velocity were foundto be less than 1% different from the values measuredexperimentally. This study provides a basis for furtherinvestigation of the factors that may increase elbow loading duringtennis strokes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge Head AG and the UKEPSRC for supporting this research.

REFERENCES

Brody, H. (1989). Vibration damping of tennis rackets.International Journal of Sports Biomechanics, 5, 451-456.

Corana, A., Marchesi, M., Martini, C., & Ridella, S. (1987).Minimizing multimodal functions of continuous variables with the"Simulated Annealing" algorithm. ACM Transactions onMathematical Software, 13, 262-280.

Glitsch, U., Schlarb, H., & Baumann, W. (1999). Embedding offlexible bodies into a dynamic simulation of the tennis stroke. InT. van den Bogert, G. Cole and R. Neptune (Eds.), Proceedings

of the VII International Symposium on Computer Simulation inBiomechanics (pp. 14-17). Canada: University of Calgary.

Glynn, J.A., King, M.A., & Mitchell, S.R. (2011). A computersimulation model of tennis racket/ball impacts. SportsEngineering, 13, 65-72.

King, M.A., Glynn, J.A., & Mitchell, S.R. (2011). Subject-specificcomputer simulation model for determining elbow loading in one-handed tennis backhand groundstrokes. Sports Biomechanics,10, 391-406.

Table 4. Peak elbow loading for the topspin trial.

peak flexion/extension joint torque (Nm)

valueloading

peak pronation/supination joint torque (Nm)

-71

-41

peak internal jointreaction force (N)

173


AUTHORS Mark King graduated from Loughboroughin 1993 with a Joint Honours degree inSports Science and Mathematics. Aftergaining a PhD in the field of computersimulation of dynamic jumping he workedas a Research Associate in theDepartments of Sports Science andManufacturing Engineering.

In July 1999 Mark was appointed as Lecturer in SportsBiomechanics at Loughborough and then promoted to SeniorLecturer in Sports Biomechanics in August 2006. In addition hehas been Warden of Royce Hall since August 1999 and isresponsible for the welfare of over 300 students.

King, M.A., Wilson, C. & Yeadon, M.R. (2006). Evaluation of atorque-driven model of jumping for height. Journal of AppliedBiomechanics, 22, 264-274.

King, M.A. & Yeadon, M.R. (2002). Determining subject-specifictorque parameters for use in a torque-driven simulation model ofdynamic jumping. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 18, 207-217.

Nesbit, S.N., Elzinga, M., Herchenroder, C., Serrano, M. (2006).The effects of racket inertia tensor on elbow loadings and racketbehaviour for central and eccentric impacts. Journal of SportsScience and Medicine, 5, 304-317.

Pain, M.T.G., & Challis, J.H. (2006). The influence of soft tissuemovement on ground reaction forces, joint torques and jointreaction forces in drop landings. Journal of Biomechanics, 39,119-124.

Wood, G.A., & Jennings, L.S. (1979). On the use of splinefunctions for data smoothing. Journal of Biomechanics, 12, 477-479.

Yeadon, M.R. (1990). The simulation of aerial movement - II: Amathematical inertia model of the human body. Journal ofBiomechanics, 23, 67-74.

Yeadon, M.R., & King, M.A. (2002). Evaluation of a torque drivensimulation model of tumbling. Journal of Applied Biomechanics,18, 195-206.

Yeadon, M.R., & King, M.A. (2008). Computer simulationmodelling in sport. In C.J. Payton & R.M. Bartlett (Eds.),Biomechanical Evaluation of Movement in Sport and Exercise:BASES Guidelines (pp. 176-205). London: Routledge.

Jonathan Glynn

Biomechanist with an MSc in SportsScience and Mathematics (Honors) & PhDin Sports Biomechanics fromLoughborough University. Currentlyworking at ASPIRE Academy For SportExcellence in Qatar.

Dr. Sean R. Mitchell received hisbachelor’s degree in MechanicalEngineering from Loughborough Universityin 1986. After working for CMBTechnology and Marconi Command &Control he returned to undertake hispostgraduate research in ‘SculpturedProduct Computer Aided Design’ and wasawarded his PhD in 1996. Dr. Mitchell held

the Sports Engineering Research Fellowship in the WolfsonSchool of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering atLoughborough from early 1998. He was appointed as lecturer inSports Technology in September 2000.


The area between the southern end of San Francisco Bay, USA and north of thesouthern end of Santa Clara County, a 50 Km stretch, has been a hotbed of innovationever since William Shockley set up shop in the late 50’s. Silicon Valley, as the area iscolloquially known from the main ingredient of integrated chips and the bounding ofthe Mt. Hamilton and Diablo Range at the east and the Santa Cruz Maintains at thewest, has played a vital role in the creation of the tech industry in the US and aroundthe world. Companies like Intel, Apple, and more recently Google and Facebook, havegalvanized innovation in areas diverse as integrated chip design, digital device designand manufacturing, computer technology, online search and advertising, social mediaand interaction, and many others.

DO YOU KNOWTHIS PLACE?Dr Philippos Peleties


Although Silicon Valley has no official borders – after all it is notan established administrative area - San Jose is usually definedas the "capital", Sunnyvale as the "heart", and Palo Alto withespecially Stanford University as the "birthplace".

Until the mid-19th century, Northern California was a quiet place.California, having been a territory of Mexico until 1849, wasgrowing in leaps and bounds. The discovery of gold precipitatedto the Gold Rush increasing its population many fold.

Just before the turn of the Century, Stanford University wasfounded by former governor of California Leland Stanford nearPalo Alto, California, 45 Km south of San Francisco. TheUniversity, founded in honor of his son, Leland Stanford Jr. whohad died of typhoid fever two months before his 16th birthday,struggled financially during the first half of the twentieth century.

A pivotal person in the development of technology at Stanfordwas Frederic Terman. A Stanford alumnus, he returned to Stanfordin 1925 after receiving his PhD in electrical engineering from theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Having witnessedthe close cooperation between academia and industry while atMIT, he set out a course in electronics research and radioengineering. At those days electronics meant vacuum tubes,circuits, and instrumentation. This was not without a point ofreference. Lee De Forest, the inventor of “audion” vacuum tubeworked for the Federal Telegraph Company at Palo Alto. A YaleUniversity educated engineer with a passion for radio engineering,he had moved to California in 1910. His experimentations withradio transmission and the proximity of his working environmentto Stanford University proved to be a catalyst for Terman’s effortsto introduce electronics at Stanford.

Terman believed in the cooperation benefits between academiaand industry and encouraged the Faculty of the University to bemore entrepreneurial and seek out partnerships. Two of hisstudents, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard working during afellowship under Terman, formed the Hewllet-Packard company,considering Terman as their mentor.

During the Second World War Terman served as the director ofthe Radio Research Laboratory at Harvard University, working onradar jamming.

After the war Terman returned to Stanford as the dean of theSchool of Engineering. The postwar times were filled withexuberance and hope. Stanford University, much like any otherinstitution at that time, needed to grow and grow fast toaccommodate the enormous demand due to returning studentsand the end of the War. However, money was limited. Addinginsult to the injury the University had more than 8,000 acres of

land but could not sell any of it due to Leland Stanford’s wishesthat his farm is not sold. However, nothing was said about leasingthe land to companies. This little secret lead to the creation in1951 of the Stanford Industrial Park (SIP) where the Universityleased land to companies for 99 years. Terman suggested thatthese leases are limited to high tech companies so that theUniversity benefits from their presence. The seeds of the creationof the “Silicon Valley” had, thus, been planted.

The first tenants of SIP were companies like Varian Associates, acompany dealing with the military applications of the Klystrontube, Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory, Eastman Kodak,General Electric, Lockheed, Hewllet-Packard, and many others.

William Shockley, a Palo Alto native, was a 1956 winner of theNobel Prize in Physics for his contributions towards the inventionof the transistor. After receiving his PhD in Physics from MIT, hejoined a research group at Bell Labs doing research on solid statePhysics.

When the Second War World broke out Shockley got involved inradar research. In May 1942 he became a research director atColumbia University’s Anti-Submarine Warfare Operations Group.His involvement required a significant number of trips toWashington where he became a valuable adviser to the Military.It is worth noting that Shockley prepared a study for the WarDepartment on the question of US casualties in the event the USinvaded Japan. His conclusion that the US would incur a heavytoll in terms of casualties influenced the decision for the atomicbombardment of Japan.

After the War, Shockley returned to Bell Labs where he workedon solid state physics where he co-invented the transistor.

Shockley was a difficult man. He had an abrasive managementstyle which was the root cause of his being passed over forexecutive promotion. As a result he left Bell Labs for the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology in Pasadena, California, eventually forminghis own company Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory takingshop at SIP.

Shockley’s abrasive management style was once again in fullgear. In 1957 eight of his researchers, the “Traitorous Eight”,resigned. In what may have been an unfortunate event in acompany’s history turned out to be one of the most importantevents in the history of technology. These eight engineers gavebirth to 65 new enterprises in Silicon Valley. The first was FairchildSemiconductors.

Fairchild Semiconductors was formed with plans on makingsilicon transistors at a time when germanium was the most


common material used. The “Traitorous Eight”, Julius Blank (co-founder of Xicor), Victor Grinich, Jean Hoerni, Sheldon Roberts,(both associated with what became as Teledyne), Eugene Kleiner(founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers venture capital firm),Gordon Moore (famous for the so often quoted Moore’s Law ofintegrated circuit density evolution), Robert Noyce (both foundersof Intel Corporation), and Jat Last approached the wealthyindustrialist Sherman Fairchild after the latter was convinced by aNew York investment banker, Arthur Rock, to talk to them.Fairchild, a wealthy eastern industrialist with considerable militaryconnections and contributions to military aviation and aerialphotography, liked the idea of setting up shop on the West Coastof the US, so Fairchild Semiconductors was born. It is interestingto note that Fairchild’s father, George Winthrop Fairchild, aRepublican Congressman, was a co-founder and the firstChairman of IBM.

The story would have had a happing ending if it was not for thetwo restless co-founders of Fairchild Semiconductors, Moore andNoyce. In 1968, Moore and Noyce, with the help of Arthur Rockestablished a company that is synonymous with the personalcomputer revolution of a decade or so later: Integrated Electronicsor Intel.

As more companies started forming and taking residence in PaloAlto and the surrounding area, the Xerox Corporation, a documentmanagement corporation, founded in Rochester New York, took

notice of the rapid growth of Silicon Valley and the potential thatit offered. During the late 60’s it decided to establish a researchfacility in Palo Alto, called the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC).PARC was a hotbed of innovation amassing a large portfolio ofinventions which include laser printing, Ethernet, object-orientedprogramming, and the Graphical User Interface (GUI). It was thislast invention which lead to the creation of the Lisa, and laterMacintosh series of revolutionary personal computers by Apple.

The story of the success in Silicon Valley is also the story ofstarting a company in your parents’ or friend’s garage only to bediscovered by some venture capitalist and being turned into amulti-billion dollar corporation. Bill Hewllet and Dave Packard,Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, Larry Page and Sergey Brin areall but a few such examples. HP, Apple, and Google three of thelargest tech companies in the world, had their humble beginningsin such a garage.

If there is one company that epitomizes the spirit of Silicon Valley,that is Apple. Founded on April 1st, 1976 by Steve Jobs, SteveWozniak and Ronald Wayne, Apple started life in Steve Jobs’parents garage. The two Steves had met a few years back andbecame friends. Steve Wozniak, a whiz kid with electronics, andSteve Jobs, a super energized techno evangelist with an cunningability to sway the crowds set up shop to build the Apple I personalcomputer kit shown to the public for the first time at the HomebrewComputer Club. With funding from Mike Markkula, a youngmultimillionaire who retired from Intel at the age of 32 (previouslywith Fairchild Semiconductor), Apple flourished early on becominga billion dollar company in just three years after going public.Apple’s IPO, which took place on December 12, 1980, generatedmore capital, and in the process made about 300 millionaires,since Ford Motor Company’s own IPO back in 1956.

Sun Microsystems, now part of Oracle Corporation, was foundedon February 24, 1982. Andy Bechtolsheim, one of the four co-founders of Sun built the Stanford University Network (Sun) Unixworkstation Sun-1 as part of a project he was working on at thattime. With the other three co-founders, Vinod Khosla, ScottMcNealy and soon after Bill Joy, Sun set up shop to produce highperformance Unix workstations. With a strong connection toStanford University (the first three co-founders had been StanfordUniversity graduate students), Sun Microsystems dominated theeducational world. Myriad graduate students in many Universitiesfirst experienced a GUI under Unix on one of the numerous Sunworkstations either donated or offered at very competitive pricesto engineering and science departments.

The World Wide Web (WWW) may have been born at CERN inSwitzerland, but it was in Silicon Valley where it grew andflourished. The underlying delivery mechanism, the Internet,

Image via Wikipedia


through the various transformations since its humble beginningback in 1969 as Arpanet, invigorated by the WWW, gave birth toan entire new industry. The proliferation of WWW sitesnecessitated the creation of ways to search and locate these sites.Search engines such as Lycos, Excite and Altavista offered anever-increasing ability to search and locate.

Two Stanford University graduate students, Larry Page and SergeyBrin, working on the Stanford Digital Library Project, devised away of searching the young WWW and ranking pages not by thenumber of times a given word appeared on these pages, but bythe number of references to these pages. The algorithm, called“PageRank” was based on citation analysis, the method citationsrank the importance of academic papers. This was followed bythe introduction of BackRub, the first search engine incorporatingthe new ranking concept. By early 1997 search engines runningBackRub had indexed more than 75 million URLs with a totalcontent of roughly 207 GBytes.

Google Inc., the company funded by Page and Brin, started life ata friend’s garage. The first investor, Andy Bechtolsheim, co-founder of Sun Microsystems wrote a cheque for 100,000Dollars. The name on the cheque was “Google Inc.” even thoughthe company had yet to be incorporated. A second round of equityfunding came in 1999 from two major venture capital firms,Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital.

Google went public on August 25th, 2004 issuing a total of19,605,052 shares for 85 dollars per share. The meteoric ascentof Google is just another example of how Silicon Valley has andis influencing our lives throughout the World.

It is interesting to note that Google is not the only search enginebenefitting from PageRank type of algorithms. Robin Li who wasworking for IDD Information Services, a New Jersey division ofDow Jones and Company designed and built the “RankDex”search engine based on a similar citation analysis type of concept.This engine has formed the basis for the creation of Baidu Inc., aChinese based web services and search company. Baidu is todaythe closest competitor to Google. However, it concetrates on thelocal Chinese market, thus limiting the ability to expand beyondthe Chinese boarders.

Facebook needs no introduction. The social networking servicemega monster sports in excess of 900 million subscriptionsworldwide, connecting friends and acquaintances in a way thatenforces the feeling that the World is one.

Mark Zuckerman, a second year student from Harvard Universitywrote FaceMatch in 2003 as an “is he/she hot or what” type ofwebsite akin to “Hot or Not”: people would post pictures of people

from the various houses in Harvard and vote for the hottest. Thesepictures initially were copied without authorization from Harvard’scomputer systems where the houses hosted their own“facebooks”, web pages with pictures and information aboutHarvard house residents. The practice of issuing a paper facebookexisted since the mid 1980’s.

Zuckerman was charged by Harvard University for the break inand subsequent theft of student information, but the charges wereultimately dropped.

The following year, 2004, Zuckerman started writing code for anew website called “thefacebook.com”. However, he wasaccused by three Harvard students, Cameron Winklevoss, TylerWinklevoss, and Divya Narendra, for intentionally misleading themthat he would develop a social network site, called“HarvardConnection.com” for them. They filed a lawsuit againstZuckerman which he eventually settles for an undisclosed amount.

Facebook.com, the evolution of thefacebook.com, wasincorporated in 2004 and moved its headquarters to Palo Altoclose to Stanford University. The change from “thefacebook.com”to “facebook.com” set back the company by 200,000 dollars.

Facebook, as it nears its Initial Public Offering (IPO) enjoys atrillion hits per month and rumored valuation in the order of 100billion dollars. A move to its new headquarters in Menlo Park, theold Sun Microsystems Headquarters, has been announced in early2011.

One could go on and on with the stories of the numerouscompanies that dot the landscape at Silicon Valley. The purposeof this article was not to describe all of them, not even a smallnumber of them, but to give a flavor of the kind of place SiliconValley is as the hotbed of technological innovation.

The story of the Silicon Valley would not be complete withoutputting on paper a few words about the Venture Capitalists (VCs).VC companies like Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers with TomPerkins, Sequoia Capital with Don Valentine, Arthur Rock one ofthe first VCs, have provided the “seed capital” for many SiliconValley startups. Without this very first funding many of the startupswould not have survived, let alone flourish and blossom. Just likea baby who needs the care of its parents, in a similar way VCshave guided start-ups through their very first and, oftentimesdifficult and error-prone, steps. The potential benefits for all partiesinvolved are tremendous. Luck is a great factor in making it big.As Don Valentine once said “so much luck goes into these thingsthat without it I think very few of us would have very manysuccesses.”


The culture of Silicon Valley is an integral part of the success ofso many start-ups. It is a culture celebrating the frontier spirit; itis a culture that combines smarts, talent, and necessity for co-existence in a potent mix. “Stay foolish, stay hungry” Steve Jobsonce declared. Many did, many still do.

Notes

A very many sources of information went into writing thesearticles. Many are textual. However, I would recommend that theinterested reader reviews the audiovisual material. Movies like“Something Ventured”, “Pirates of Silicon Valley”, but alsonumerous snippets in YouTube, provide a vivid insight into theinner workings of Silicon Valley.

FURTHER READING AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Silicon Valley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley, (ac-cessed 5/5/2012)

Silicon Valley History, http://www.netvalley.com/silicon_val-ley_history.html, (accessed 5/5/2012)

Frederick Terman, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Ter-man, (accessed 5/5/2012)

Lee De Forest, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_De_Forest, (ac-cessed 6/5/2012)

Hewlett-Packard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard,(accessed 6/5/2012)

William Shockley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley,(accessed 6/5/2012)

Fairchild Semiconductor,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Semiconductor, (accessed6/5/2012)

Traitorous Eight, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitorous_eight,(accessed 7/5/2012)

Intel Corporation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel, (accessed7/5/2012)

Apple Inc., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc., (accessed8/5/2012)

Sun Microsystems, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Microsys-tems, (accessed 8/5/2012)

World Wide Web, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web,(accessed 8/5/2012)

Google Inc., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google, (accessed9/5/2012)

Facebook, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook, (accessed9/5/2012)

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiner_Perkins_Caufield_%26_Byers, (accessed 10/5/2012)

Sequoia Capital, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_Capital,(accessed 10/5/2012)

Arthur Rock, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rock, (ac-cessed 10/5/2012)

“Something Ventured” (2011), Miralan Productions. (alsohttp://www.somethingventuredthemovie.com/, accessed11/5/2012)

“Pirates of Silicon Valley” (1999), Haft Entertainment.

∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi˜ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ºÏˆÚ›ÓË˜ 11, City Forum, 3Ô˜ fiÚÔÊÔ˜, °Ú. 303

1065 §Â˘ÎˆÛ›·, ∫‡ÚÔ˜Δ.£. 27038, 1641 §Â˘ÎˆÛ›·, ∫‡ÚÔ˜

ΔËÏ. +357 22 460 680º·Í. +357 22 767 349

www.ccs.org.cy [email protected]

www.pliroforiki.org

Cyprus Computer Society11, Florinis str., City Forum, 3rd floor, Office 303

1065 Nicosia, CyprusP.O. Box 27038, 1641 Nicosia, Cyprus

Tel. +357 22 460 680Fax. +357 22 767 349

www.ccs.org.cy [email protected]

www.pliroforiki.org

ccs mag - issue 23

Documents

reengineering bologna

positive effect of

mitchellh h h

h h h07 e

glynn sean

man woman place technology

cyprus computer society

westyoung man woman