Los desafíos actuales de las organizaciones sociales : cuando la mirada del Estado se transforma y las necesidades se multiplican

Con los embates del neoliberalismo que venimos transitando, las organizaciones sociales y políticas han asistido a un proceso de desgaste institucional en su vínculo con el Estado. Si bien, las organizaciones tienen para capitalizar un alto nivel de experticia en la gestión pública en la última década, la falta de legitimidad en los ámbitos institucionales deja a la vista la fragilidad de su vínculo. Producto de su interrelación directa con las políticas públicas que se direccionaron a trabajar con problemáticas sociales. En este sentido, las fortalezas de las organizaciones difieren de los años 90. Los procesos de empoderamiento y la gestión directa de los programas sociales en los territorios generaron la reconstrucción de las tramas sociales desarticuladas producto de la crisis final del año 2001. Pero, dichos procesos se encuentran en la actualidad amenazados, si el Estado deja de fortalecerlos. Por ello, nuestro objetivo, es reflexionar y discutir cual es el papel de las organizaciones en su doble adscripción; por un lado el vínculo en el territorio (construir y articular para que el tejido social no se rompa) y por el otro, el vínculo con el Estado (la redefinición de esta relación). Finalmente poder entender el rol que han adquirido y que posee estos espacios organizativos en la nueva coyuntura socio-política.Fil: Giraudo, Carina. Universidad de Buenos AiresFil: Martínez Vergerio, Gonzalo. Universidad de Buenos Aire

MIMO Capacity Estimation at 2 GHz with a Ray Model in Urban Cellular Environment

MIMO technology promises a linear increase of capacity in function of the minimum antenna number at the transmitter and at the receiver. In order to test if these performances can be actually met in mobile communications, we propose here a study of MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) capacity in urban cellular environment at 2 GHz with a help of an efficient ray propagation model. We have tested different types of base station antennas (vertically or ±45° polarized) and two different types of mobile. Capacity is found to significantly increase between SISO (Single Input Single Output) and MIMO systems, but less than usually expected. We show that return and coupling losses as low as 10% can also reduce significantly the capacity. On the other hand, we study the influence of the way to take into account received power level on the MIMO capacity estimation

Study on a wide-angle scanning phased antenna array for 5G mm-Wave

openIn questo elaborato di tesi viene studiato un metodo per realizzare una schiera di antenne ad ampio angolo di scansione per applicazioni 5G mm-Wave nella banda di frequenze comprese tra 26.5 GHz e 27.5 GHz. Dopo aver descritto le caratteristiche di propagazione delle onde millimetriche, si introdurrà al ruolo che i Network Controlled Repeaters (NCRs) avranno nelle reti mobile multi-Gbit del futuro. Successivamente, si passerà alla fase di progettazione dell’elemento radiante. Tramite delle simulazioni, verrà inizialmente analizzata la cella unitaria che costituisce la schiera: una patch a microstriscia con doppia polarizzazione lineare appositamente modificata con degli elementi parassiti per ottenere un pattern di radiazione ad ampio beamwidth. Successivamente, delle schiere di tale elemento vengono simulate per valutarne il comportamento ad ampi angoli di scansione. Questo lavoro è stato svolto durante il periodo di tirocinio presso l’azienda Adant Technologies Inc. sita in Legnaro (Padova).This thesis work studies a method to design a wide-angle scanning phased antenna array for 5G mm-Wave communication systems in the frequency band from 26.5 GHz to 27.5 GHz. After a general introduction to the propagation characteristics of millimeter waves and to the role that Network Controlled Repeaters (NCRs) will have in future, multi-Gbit mobile networks, the work will then continue with the design process of the radiating element. The array unit-cell is initially analyzed: it consists of a dual linearly polarized microstrip patch antenna that has been modified with the introduction of parasitic elements in order to obtain a wide beamwidth radiation pattern. After that, arrays of the proposed unit-cell element are simulated to evaluate their performance at large scan angles. This work has been carried out during the internship time spent at the company Adant Technologies Inc. located in Legnaro (Padova)

Data-driven building performance evaluation at different scales. Innovative metrics and methodological insights

L'abstract è presente nell'allegato / the abstract is in the attachmen

Canon-Making in the History of International Legal and Political Thought

Peer reviewe

BREEAM Communities and ZEN Definition at a glance. A qualitative comparison and what we can learn

Learning across BREEAM Communities and ZEN definition A significant effort in ZEN has been put into defining what to measure to define a neighbourhood as ‘zero emission’ through the identification of assessment criteria and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), whose final version will be published in 2024 in the ZEN Definition and guideline reports. Less was said, beyond the pilot projects, in terms of how to achieve the goals that the ZEN criteria and KPIs represent. Thus, it is now important to define some process recommendations in this sense. This is a reason why, in this memo, we investigate the similarities and differences between BREEAM (i.e., BREEAM Communities, named BREEAM-C) and ZEN (i.e., ZEN Definition) to understand how the BREEAM thinking can help us in doing so and what would it take for the industry, which is very familiar with BREEAM, to align with ZEN Definition vision. Through this memo, after presenting the two schemes in their most recent publicly available forms, we learn that the BREEAM-C and ZEN Definition show both similarities and differences. They are both structured as several issues (in BREEAM-C) or criteria and KPIs (in ZEN) grouped into 6 categories, which are areas of performance to be addressed. They both have a system of credits/points to rate communities/neighbourhoods. However, unlike BREEAM-C, ZEN will not have one score, but rather a rate per each category (i.e., ‘Emissions’, ‘Energy’, ‘Power’, ‘Mobility’, ‘Urban form and Land use’, ‘Economy’). While BREEAM-C specifies when the issues should be addressed (among 3 steps, namely principle’s establishment, layout’s definition, and detailed design), ZEN defines the scale of application of the KPIs (building, district or both) and KPIs are not finally and systematically allocated to specific project steps, but most of them are defined as valid for both strategic planning, implementation, and operational phase, which can be targeted for performance assessments. However, as the ZEN Definition is still in progress, there is no final indication of by whom and in which project steps the KPIs must be addressed. When comparing the schemes at the individual issues and KPIs level, we observed that half of the BREEAM-C issues show similarities with ZEN KPIs in terms of their motivation or scope/focus. The similarity is rarely one to one. This is both because BREEAM-C issues have broad scope and because ZEN KPIs are specific in saying what to measure, and the actions that a BREEAM-C issue suggests are directly reflected in more than one quantitative metric. Indeed, ZEN generally focuses more on saying what to measure and how, while BREEAM-C tends to describe subsequent actions to take and document to ensure that the aims are secured. This approach is also reflected in the way the credits/points are awarded. More BREEAM thinking in ZEN would translate into the definition of practical actions to ensure that the objective that ZEN criteria and KPIs advocate can be operationalized. For instance, actions that BREEAM-C issues similar to ZEN KPIs entail can be grouped into 3 areas: ‘Anticipate’, ‘Plan and Manage’, and ‘Secure’ actions. More ZEN thinking would require the industry players to be more focused and specific about environmental impacts. Indeed, in ZEN, a huge focus is on quantifiable environmental impacts. Methodological guidance is important, and in ZEN the LCA methodology is the backbone. A great ambition that makes ZEN, as a district-level assessment scheme, special is the possibility to target the operational phase as one of the stages where ZEN criteria and KPIs are assessable, which is not currently within the scope of BREEAM-C. In essence, the creation of Zero Emission Neighbourhoods is a collaborative effort that requires both precise definitions and flexible toolkits. The ZEN definition, with its focus on specific KPIs, and the BREEAM-C certification, with its broad scope and systematic allocation of issues, together build a synergy that will be instrumental in driving progress towards more sustainable communities.publishedVersio

Perspectives on ambitious goals and collaboration

How can we ensure that buildings/areas are realized as intended? How can we ensure good processes for a zero-emission area? What are the possibilities, limitations, and effects of collaboration in meeting ambitious goals? Addressing these questions is critical because in many projects something is lost from the early phase, when the client must decide on ambitions for a building/area, until completion. Well-known challenges include weak goals formulation and poor decision-making. Even though they might be characterized as an owner problem, who is unable to clarify goals and follow up on decisions, such an assumption seems like a gross simplification. In the face of the complexity that ZEN projects bring to the picture due to high ambitions and multiple owners involved, we need to examine processes and practices that can help meet the project’s goals, closing the gap between expectations and delivery. This is what the reader can find in this report: literature- and case-studies-based knowledge, with a focus on collaboration, helping us to succeed in building projects and when scaled up to ZEN. Success is the accomplishment of an aim or purpose. Failure is the lack of success. This implies that for success you need to set an aim, goal, or purpose. Goal formulation must follow certain good practices (e.g., clear and concrete, linked to perspectives, organized in a hierarchy, referred to as a final status, and more). Not least, the entire project must understand the goals, and the goals must be followed up during the process as they provide management opportunities. Most research in ZEN focus on success criteria (i.e., criteria and KPIs used to determine if the project is a success), while lesser attention has been given to success factors (i.e., factors that lead to success), which we investigate in this report with a more in-depth look into collaboration. Multiple aspects contribute to the overall performance of the completed building/district, which, together with the fragmented nature of the Architecture, Engineering and Construction industry, calls for an integrated approach to project delivery and innovation, where collaboration is a key element. Most of the literature around collaboration in building projects covers two macro topics: Project Delivery Methods (PDMs) and Building Information Modelling (BIM) and digital tools. A PDM is the way a project is brought from idea to realization. As a complex system of organizational, contractual, and cultural elements, it largely determines the level of collaboration. Among PDMs, Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a hot topic in the literature about collaboration. BIM, as a methodology, offers great potential for collaboration. With such a knowledge basis, three cases located in the Trondheim area (Norway) and characterized by high ambitions and collaborative arrangements were analysed through a qualitative approach (interviews) to learn how they worked with ambitious goals, what the actors recognized as success factors, and what are challenges and opportunities for collaboration. Discussing findings with the theory we can conclude that: • Clarity in the project mission is a success factors in literature that is also recognized as such by all parties in the project’s organization. Ownership over goals is also mentioned as such. • Sometimes priorities are unclear, and differences are not only among parties, but also within, which brings more complexity. Aligning the owner’s and project’s goals as well as looking for top management support is crucial. • The contract must enable collaboration and the ability to solve the clients’ goals. Proper economic frameworks and more communication and transparency are needed to alleviate the differences among parties. • Locking down alternatives for the project too early and without the proper competences on board leads to suboptimization. Process management is a success factor; to have the right competency at the right time to solve the issues. • Economics influences the collaboration dynamics, as it should be in balance with ambitions. Letting the project develop with continuous cost control helps the client to make sound decisions and the project develops within the frames. • Influence in the project, in terms of roles and responsibilities, should be both clarified at the contractual level and backed by a culture of trust, which collaboration allows to build. • It is important that processes and tools are agreed upon and effectively communicated to all parties in projects, including project plan/schedule, communication, and communication channels. Planning is a success factor in projects. Communication should involve the owner, as they are the main decision-maker. • The informants mentioned that the collaborative culture that they experienced in the projects did not just happen, it was a point of focus and hard work. • Trust is a fundamental element of collaboration, which is built on relationships and transparency. At the end of the report, this and other findings are scaled up into recommendations for ZEN Research Centre’s partners and researchers to be aware of challenges/threats in pursuing ambitious goals and to leverage good practices/success factors when developing a ZEN.publishedVersio

Ensuring ambitious goals: Barrier and good practices in the planning and building process

Barriers and good practices in ambitious projects How can we ensure good processes before, during and after the realization of a zero-emission area? How can we ensure that buildings are realized as intended? Why do we struggle with good intentions being lost in the process from early planning to completed construction? With this report, we want to collect key findings from the literature in terms of barriers, challenges, best practices, and drivers in pursuing ZEN-like projects. The focus is on building processes in the context of projects with ambitious energy and environmental targets. In the context of energy-efficient projects, hidden costs, split incentives, and inertia, are only a few of the constraints that ambitious projects must deal with, together with a lack of accountability of the actors after delivery, lack of knowledge and skills, poor communication and collaboration, lack of life cycle thinking, etc. They ultimately cause a gap between ambitions and actual delivery. Clear goals formulation, collaboration, closeness, involvement of stakeholders, and shared understanding/acceptance of the concept of Zero Emission Buildings by actors were some of the success factors in the pilots of the Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings. However, the complexity rises significantly when we move to the district scale (like we do in the Research Centre on Zero Emission Neighbourhoods). Conceiving the development as a program of projects with a central coordinator seems a promising way forward to tackle the challenge of building carbon-neutral neighbourhoods. Many challenges persist, including uncertainties, interests mismatches, lack of knowledge of technical requirements and management processes. The success of a project in terms of goal achievement is strictly related to a successful process. With the adoption of integrated design and Soft Landings strategies, the literature suggests the importance of collaboration, improvement of information flow, the rise of actors’ accountability in the aftercare, and acknowledgement of the users’ and Facility Manager’s perspectives since the design stage. With commissioning, they have the potential to bridge the gap between design goals/ambitions and the operational status of a building, delivering actual benefits. Their maintenance might also require new actors in the urban panorama (i.e., urban Facility Managers). Organizational, contractual, and cultural aspects should then be revised and improved to build the proper environment for a project's success, deploying new tools and methods. Tools to enhance projects’ goals include quality assurance methods, early-stage simulation tools, information technologies, and extended reality technologies. With organizational strategies (e.g., Lean principles) and suitable contractual arrangements, they should support performance-based design and integrated project delivery, including integrated risk management, as a measure to ensure project success in terms of goal achievement. In the fragmented and project-based Architecture, Engineering and Construction industry the adoption of tools is under its full potential because of technical, but also non-technical reasons. Most importantly, collaboration is still hindered, since diverse actors are coming together for a limited amount of time, with their own cultures, practices, and objectives. Lack of stakeholders’ collaboration and commitment, insufficient organizational processes, and unsupportive development frameworks are reasons for failure in reaching energy master plan goals at the neighbourhood level more than lack of technologies. Thus, the literature suggests that to increase the opportunities for a project’s success, the following actions/elements, among others, should be promoted: • Exploration and implementation of collaborative frameworks and tools (including digital), • Demanding and knowledgeable clients pursuing and following-up on ambitious goals under fair contract arrangements, • Long-term relationships between actors to build trust and a ‘no-blame’ culture, • Championing, • Contracts as management tools, • Early involvement of contractors and suppliers, • Users’ involvement, • Increasing knowledge across industries, • Sharing of knowledge, information, risks, and rewards, • Life cycle thinking and performance assessment tools, • Building and maintenance of a project culture, • Improvement of experts’ communication, • Implementation of tools/practices to reduce conflicts. Tools/recommendations are needed to untap the potential for integrated approaches in ZEN developments, and stakeholders’ engagement must be guaranteed by carefully evaluating and managing goals, values, and risks.publishedVersio

Perspectives on ambitious goals and collaboration

How can we ensure that buildings/areas are realized as intended? How can we ensure good processes for a zero-emission area? What are the possibilities, limitations, and effects of collaboration in meeting ambitious goals? Addressing these questions is critical because in many projects something is lost from the early phase, when the client must decide on ambitions for a building/area, until completion. Well-known challenges include weak goals formulation and poor decision-making. Even though they might be characterized as an owner problem, who is unable to clarify goals and follow up on decisions, such an assumption seems like a gross simplification. In the face of the complexity that ZEN projects bring to the picture due to high ambitions and multiple owners involved, we need to examine processes and practices that can help meet the project’s goals, closing the gap between expectations and delivery. This is what the reader can find in this report: literature- and case-studies-based knowledge, with a focus on collaboration, helping us to succeed in building projects and when scaled up to ZEN. Success is the accomplishment of an aim or purpose. Failure is the lack of success. This implies that for success you need to set an aim, goal, or purpose. Goal formulation must follow certain good practices (e.g., clear and concrete, linked to perspectives, organized in a hierarchy, referred to as a final status, and more). Not least, the entire project must understand the goals, and the goals must be followed up during the process as they provide management opportunities. Most research in ZEN focus on success criteria (i.e., criteria and KPIs used to determine if the project is a success), while lesser attention has been given to success factors (i.e., factors that lead to success), which we investigate in this report with a more in-depth look into collaboration. Multiple aspects contribute to the overall performance of the completed building/district, which, together with the fragmented nature of the Architecture, Engineering and Construction industry, calls for an integrated approach to project delivery and innovation, where collaboration is a key element. Most of the literature around collaboration in building projects covers two macro topics: Project Delivery Methods (PDMs) and Building Information Modelling (BIM) and digital tools. A PDM is the way a project is brought from idea to realization. As a complex system of organizational, contractual, and cultural elements, it largely determines the level of collaboration. Among PDMs, Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a hot topic in the literature about collaboration. BIM, as a methodology, offers great potential for collaboration. With such a knowledge basis, three cases located in the Trondheim area (Norway) and characterized by high ambitions and collaborative arrangements were analysed through a qualitative approach (interviews) to learn how they worked with ambitious goals, what the actors recognized as success factors, and what are challenges and opportunities for collaboration. Discussing findings with the theory we can conclude that: • Clarity in the project mission is a success factors in literature that is also recognized as such by all parties in the project’s organization. Ownership over goals is also mentioned as such. • Sometimes priorities are unclear, and differences are not only among parties, but also within, which brings more complexity. Aligning the owner’s and project’s goals as well as looking for top management support is crucial. • The contract must enable collaboration and the ability to solve the clients’ goals. Proper economic frameworks and more communication and transparency are needed to alleviate the differences among parties. • Locking down alternatives for the project too early and without the proper competences on board leads to suboptimization. Process management is a success factor; to have the right competency at the right time to solve the issues. • Economics influences the collaboration dynamics, as it should be in balance with ambitions. Letting the project develop with continuous cost control helps the client to make sound decisions and the project develops within the frames. • Influence in the project, in terms of roles and responsibilities, should be both clarified at the contractual level and backed by a culture of trust, which collaboration allows to build. • It is important that processes and tools are agreed upon and effectively communicated to all parties in projects, including project plan/schedule, communication, and communication channels. Planning is a success factor in projects. Communication should involve the owner, as they are the main decision-maker. • The informants mentioned that the collaborative culture that they experienced in the projects did not just happen, it was a point of focus and hard work. • Trust is a fundamental element of collaboration, which is built on relationships and transparency. At the end of the report, this and other findings are scaled up into recommendations for ZEN Research Centre’s partners and researchers to be aware of challenges/threats in pursuing ambitious goals and to leverage good practices/success factors when developing a ZEN.publishedVersio