Contemporary human resource management takes its origin in America. They were the first to understand that companies need to set up Human Resource Departments into their organisation or use the services of external agencies. Back in the day, employers invested all their money in new technologies and space for their factories. After they tried everything to optimise their business, working hours, work systems they came to realise that the people are the source of the success. The most important element that makes a difference is to use the best suitable and qualified human resources in the right time and position. If the business owners do not use the right person for the right position or do not care about employee rights and work conditions, they will not success.

To perform well in the global economy, you have to spend as much time, effort and money for your human resources strategy, as you spend on your company strategy. It is even truer for medium-sized businesses. Many companies rely on their accountants to deal with their employees’ needs and they believe that this is sufficient for the future of their business. However, the most important aspect is ‘selection and placement’ and ‘employees motivation’. Many companies have a high turn over, which means a waste of time and money.

Human Resources require expertise. When you feel sick you visit your GP to get better and you do not want to spend your money on dangerous treatment methods. When your car breaks down, you take it to the garage because you do not want to drive a vehicle that is unsafe on the road. Human Resource services are no less important than a doctor or car repairer. Like everything else, human resources need to be addressed by experienced specialists.

You may not have these specialists in your business or your HR department might struggle to fill some special positions. This is why PRONET HR is here to fill the gap between your business and your human resources needs. We do selection; placement, budgeting, human resources strategy and incentive plan for the employees. And because we understand how companies work and what they need to evolve, we can engineer specific solutions for any business.

Furthermore, many recruitment agencies do not really meet you or your candidates, our first step is to visit you in your work place. The reason for this is to be transparent with each other. The second step is the selection and placement process. We prepare a CV search list. We have more than 15,000 people in our network. We use our network and our database and we also advertise on career websites. For the latter we use different sites for different positions to optimise the results. After we have determined our short list, we conduct a telephone interview with the candidates. We then call successful candidates for face-to-face interviews. We will then check the candidate’s legalities. Once the check is cleared, we cross check our candidates from at least two references. We also give those reference reports to our clients. In the final step we will arrange for a meeting between you and the candidates. We also provide free consultancy services for a year for each position.

We spend the biggest part of our adult life in our work place. We spend our time, money, effort and hope, making plans and projects. PRONET HR is here to help carry those plans and work in a trustworthy manner. Success is driven by innovation and innovation happens when the right people meet and work together. We are happy to help you reach your potential and make sure that it stays at the top of its game.

By the year 2050 it is expected that the human population will increase by 3 billion and nearly 80% of the earth’s population will reside in urban areas. Currently over 800million hectares are committed to soil based agriculture, which is around 38% of the total landmass of the Earth.

Agriculture has the biggest impact on the environment of any human activity. Key consequences of agriculture include the pollution of water, soil and air, land and habitat conversion, soil degradation, and huge demand for water and fossil fuels. Agriculture draws 70% of the water we use in the world – and in some countries the figure is more than 90%. Freshwater is becoming increasingly scarce with the livestock sector accounting for nearly one tenth of global human water use.

Farms for urban areas

Colombia University’s Professor Dickson Despommier created the Vertical Farm Project as a possible solution to increasing pressures on land and resources. The concept of the vertical farm is to grow food upwards in tall buildings and skyscrapers, providing year round crop production, therefore stabilising the worlds much needed food security. The project does not need the use of tractors, ploughs, shipping and other major polluters, in turn benefiting the environment from a reduction in the use of fossils fuels used for vehicles needed in traditional farming. With 80% of the earth’s population expected to reside in urban areas, the creation of vertical farms would secure a sustainable environment for citizens and there will be no or reduced need to resource crops from elsewhere.

This is all very well but the vertical farm project does not appear to be feasible due to high initial capital costs.  Aerospace engineer and health professor at New York University, Nathalie Jeremijenko suggests that the income created from vertical farming will not be sufficient enough to regain overall costs, for example rent in expensive cities. There are also possible risks of diseases arising from vertical farming, Fusarium and Verticullum, both of which spread fast but can be easily controlled. The question of employment is also a factor; what will happen to the farmers if we introduce an automated system? Farmers will work in vertical farms but a smaller workforce will be needed and there are also the delivery drivers to consider. However, as vertical farming will require an insect-free environment, pollination unlike traditional farming will be required to be done by hand thus new jobs will be created too. This may at first appear to be positive, but this process of pollination is a labour intensive process and could increase the cost of production, causing crop prices to rise.

Less selection  

Although the production of crops will be high in vertical farming, the variety of crop to choose from will be reduced because not all plants can be produce in a controlled environment. Never the less, the world can live with less variety of foods at the expense of saving the environment and sustaining food production. Another disadvantage is that it will be difficult to evenly disperse sunlight in city skyscrapers, consequently, crop production would not be reliable and so light systems would need to be installed. These systems tend to be very expensive and more research needs to be done in creating a cheaper alternative to resource lighting for buildings of this nature.

Chicago plant

John Edel, owner and developer of the Chicago Sustainable Manufacturing Center, wanted to prove that vertical farming is not only sustainable but profitable and replicable. So, in an area of Chicago where property was cheap, Edel created his very own vertical farm: The Plant. The Plant operates indoor grow lights that work as part of an off-grid net-zero energy system run by an anaerobic digester and a combined heat and power system. This system does not rely on evenly dispersed sunlight, so crops can be grown in all areas of the building all year round, and therefore Edel claims that this operating system could be in used in skyscrapers that will struggle with providing natural light. Another advantage for Edel is that The Plant’s system produces net-negative waste by converting waste products into energy. With such low energy and property costs, The Plant appears to be a feasible way to produce a sustainable level of food.

12 Projects

Vertical farming is gaining interest from commercial sources, not only domestic. Many developers are serious about building vertical plants, eco parks and eco cities. There are 12 plants being planted at present in large cities, for example Dubai, Abu Dhabi, China, Las Vegas and Pheonix. It is of real interest for desert cities to build vertical farms, as natural light is more able to spread equally around buildings. Rich Arab countries are seeing the real investment in building plants and becoming self-sufficient. Many of the Arab countries currently trade oil for food and water but they are moving towards a self-sufficient system where they can feed its cities people with city-produced food.

Will vertical farming ever take off? For the time being we have enough land to grow crops and feed the masses in most countries around the world. This does not mean that we should not be thinking of alternative methods. Although disputed, vertical farming is being tested as a feasible solution to future scarcities of land and resources.

 By Yasmin Greenfield Metin

To put it bluntly, today Turkey is less of a bridge and more of a dynamic regional hub in a rapidly changing world where a fundamental powershift is taking place towards Asia away from the West. Turkey has re-emerged as a powerful actor to fill a vacuum in its own right, deriving its strength from a $750 bn strong economy, largest military, huge cultural and historic hinterland, and an increasingly effective and trusted broker role for protracted problems in the region.

Turks also have redefined their strategic interests and are not happy at all to be treated in a patron-client relationship. Our suggestion is that Western officials should accept this new reality not as a challenge but as a positive development. If they stop treating Turkey as a biddable client providing useful transit services, as implied by the bridge metaphor and instead recognize Turkey’s autonomous status and far-reaching national interests, a far healthier basis for future relations between Turkey and its Western allies will emerge.

One way or another, a resurgent Turkey is rewriting the rules of the power game in the Middle East, Eurasia and South East Europe. It is doing so in a positive and non-confrontational manner that, when seen through this new “hub” lens, accords well with Western interests in the troubled regional geography in which Turkey lies at the centre.  

New foreign policy approach…

The signature policy of Turkey’s new self-confidence is the policy of “zero problems with neighbours.” This marks a revolutionary change from the “siege mentality” that promoted the paranoiac view that Turkey was surrounded by enemy countries.  One after another initiative has been launched to pave the ground for the settlement of most historically deep-seated and complex problems.

In this context, Turkey and Armenia, two historic enemies, broke new ground in October by signing protocols, providing for the restoration of diplomatic relations and the opening of the long-closed border between them. If borders are not reopened by April 2010, it seems certain that the Turkish-American partnership could possibly be dealt with another blow due to the long-standing proposed “Armenian genocide” bill.

 Iran remains a single most important item on Turkey’s plate. Erdoğan’s recent visit to Tehran resulted in new projects to increase the existing $11 billion trade volume up to $30 billion over the next few years. There was talk of Turkey brokering a deal with Iran on nuclear matters including storage of enriched uranium on the Turkish soil. Joint exploration and production of natural gas, trade in local currencies, the establishment of an industrial border area and a joint airline are also among the points agreed upon to boost economic co-operation between the two neighbours. 

 Two other visits this past October may serve to more vividly illustrate Turkey’s activist foreign policy. Prime Minister Erdogan, accompanied by nine ministers and an Airbus full of businessmen, visited Baghdad, where he held a joint session with the Iraq government and signed no fewer than 48 memoranda in the fields of commerce, energy, water, security, forestry, the environment and so forth. At much the same time, Foreign Minister Davutoglu was in Aleppo where he signed another 40 agreements.

 These developments have been balanced by some loosening in Ankara’s traditionally close ties to Tel Aviv.  Turkey has closed its airspace to Israeli military training. However, the 24 November visit to Ankara by the Israeli Minister of Industry, Trade and Labour Binyamin “Fuad” Ben Eliezer demonstrated that both sides are minded to repair their mutual relations.

 In the wake of Turkey’s accelerating regional engagement, the EU accession process enjoys less priority, partly due to the particularly unwelcoming approach under the Sarkozy presidency and the Cyprus problem still staying as a stumbling block. 

 In fact, Turkey’s accession story is like an unfinished symphony, started almost half a century ago and yet to be finalised. Turks tend to see EU policy as evasive and full of double standards, with many promises going unfulfilled.  This has cost Brussels a serious loss of credibility in the eyes of most Turks, even those who are fervently pro-European. Turkey has certainly not lost its European vocation, but this will have to be adjusted to fit the new circumstances. On Cyprus, for example, Ankara made it clear that if a choice has to be made at the end of this year between Cyprus and EU membership it would be undoubtedly Cyprus.

 Russian opportunity in a crowded chessboard

 Energy has a pivotal role in shaping Turkey’s regional role as the country, a major consumer of energy in its own, is also key to linking oil and gas producers in Russia, Caspian, Central Asia and the Middle East with energy-hungry markets in Europe. Yet, Turks are not content for being a simple “bridge” over which energy flows only; they aspire to become a regional “hub” extracting greater value for the criss-crossing oil, gas pipelines and power interconnections.

 Unlike the West, Russia seems to have adjusted much earlier to this new geopolitical game. Seizing the opportunity created by Ankara’s growing frustration with the EU and the US, Russian Prime Minister Putin travelled to Turkey on 6 August with his basket of tempting strategic and economic proposals immediately after a similar Nabucco agreement mission in July 2009 by his EU opponents.

 The Russian visit has generated a series of unprecedented commercial and energy contracts worth $40 billion that will support Turkey’s drive to become a regional hub for fuel transshipments while helping Moscow maintain its preferred partner status on natural gas shipments from Asia to Europe.

 There are heightened fears in several capitals about Turkey becoming too cozy with Moscow at the expense of overriding some Western energy and strategic interests, with possible security ramifications in the long run.

 Turks look after their own interests

 Let’s not jump into an easy conclusion that what Turkey has been doing systemically since 2002 in this most difficult part of the world is a simple drifting away from the west and embracing the “rogue” and “anti-western” nations at the expense of its historical western vocation. It is also too early to judge Turkey’s multi-vectoral drives as successful. Indeed, far from looking for a life without them, Turkey is looking for an upgraded relationship with the US and the EU. Turkey can hardly expand its influence without first having a firm footage in the west.

 Turkey is the only country in the world which can simultanoeusly talk in a spirit of trust and partnership to Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, Riyad, Tel Aviv, Moscow, Baku and Erivan, as well as enjoying diaogue with most radical groups in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence,Ankara stands at a historic juncture and possesses the ability to shape politics beyond its borders if it pays attention to the two following parameters: maintain its newfound global role only by building international constituencies and prove that its heart beats for Muslims and non-Muslims, and Turks and non-Turks, with the same strength.

 The current Turkish behavior is shaped by the shifts in the country’s international identity and the changes in Turkey’s vision of its new geopolitical role. These, in turn, are the result of powerful processes that are reshaping the socio-political life of the country. These processes are the economic development in the Anatolian hinterland, the broadening of the elite through the emergence of the new ambitious provincial social actors, who are economically dynamic and culturally conservative, and the increasing role of elected officials and thus a stronger government. None of these dynamics need be seen as detrimental to Western interests.

 Turkish version of the German Ostpolitik

 In revisiting the “Turkey dossier”, the first step for Western policy makers will therefore be to back away from the past where Turkey was seen as the “Sick Man of Europe” or a “loyal ally” of the west on the outer margins of the EU, NATO or Asia. A more constructive image is to view Turkey as being located in the very heart of Eurasia and now working free from the post-Ottoman cliché of “modernization.”

Turkey’s respected and non-confrontational rise in that volatile, troubled region that is increasingly peaceful, with countries co-operating with one another is good for the West and the world. This is an exceptional and unique role Turkey could play as a regional “hub”, rather than a “bridge”.  This is what Washington and Brussels should be supporting wholeheartedly, rather than getting worried about.

 In effect, what we are witnessing today is the emergence of a Turkish version of the German Ostpolitikof the 1960s – with just the same potential for positive outreach into a troubled region.  

by Mehmet Öğütçü and Jonathan Clarke

The 787, named the Dreamliner, made its first international appearance and Boeing used the global aviation event to parade its latest showpiece as the business model for the future. Airbus, Boeing’s long time fierce competitor, was not about to be shunned out of the limelight. Despite launching its competitor program in October 2005, 18 months after the launch of the Dreamliner project and consequently lagging in development, Airbus intended to secure orders for their response, named the A350, and voiced confident noises leading up to the event. During the iconic airshow they secured commitments for 15 A350s but trailed a distant second to the Dreamliner which touched down with a mammoth 860 prior orders under its wings, over 300 more than the A350.

The $150-200 million Dreamliner is designed to be significantly more fuel efficient and economical than its predecessors and, in a new paradigm of extremely high and volatile fuel prices, such a design goal appears crucial to airlines’ success. In contrast to the Boeing 767, the Dreamliner is designed to be 20 per cent more fuel efficient, reduce maintenance costs by one third, operating costs by one-sixth and employ a new innovative electrical architecture that extracts one third less power from its engines. Airbus claim the A350 will be even better, not least by providing a further 8 per cent reduction in operating cost. Such numbers may not appear hugely significant but fuel costs and associated energy considerations have been critical in determining airline profitability in recent years. During the peak in oil prices in July 2008 fuel represented up to 40 per cent of airlines costs and, given the rise in oil prices since 2009, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) estimates that airlines will be faced with a $17 billion increase in their fuel costs from 2009 to 2010. This represents a ten-fold increase in IATA’s estimate of lost global airline revenue as a result of the Icelandic volcanic eruption in March 2010. The reduced CO2 emissions and engine noise also improve the Dreamliner’s environmental footprint. Whilst improving efficiencies, Boeing has not ignored aesthetics within the cabin. With windows that are 65 per cent larger than the industry standard, the Dreamliner has dispensed with old fashioned plastic window shades. In its place lie electrically tinted windows that allow passengers to readily adjust the degree of tint at the touch of a button and even at maximum darkness passengers will be able to see the world passing by. Additionally, the Dreamliner claims to possess health-monitoring systems that allow the aeroplane to monitor its status during flight.

At the turn of the century Boeing and Airbus proposed differing visions for the future of air travel. Boeing designed the Dreamliner for direct point-to-point transfer of 200-300 passengers between many cities thereby reducing the need for connecting flights at major hubs; this strategy would allow airline companies to connect at least 450 new city pairs globally. Airbus, meanwhile, designed the A380 – the largest passenger aircraft ever built – in the belief that the future consisted of transporting 500-800 passengers between fewer, larger hubs. The loss of traction of this model and the record sales for the Dreamliner forced Airbus into a major rethink.

Airbus’s initial attempt to compete with the Dreamliner was a mere modification of its existing A330 aircraft but this failed to impress prospective customers; for example, using the A330’s 23 year old fuselage did not gain market approval. At the time Airbus were under enormous pressure and could not afford to get this plane wrong – having taken a $6 billion hit in profits from problems with its A380 program, orders for the more expensive $200-270 million A350 were helping Airbus counter its most urgent financial problem, the euro’s rise and the dollar’s fall. Under pressure from sales figures that turned the Dreamliner into the fastest selling passenger aircraft in history, Airbus’ parent company, EADS, sanctioned a $15 billion program in an attempt to halt the Dreamliner’s momentum. The final product differs from the Dreamliner in at least one key aspect: its fuselage consists of a carbon composite skin wrapped around a traditional aluminium frame whilst the Dreamliner fuselage is entirely carbon composite. Whilst lighter than aluminium, Boeing’s daring approach exposes the aircraft to unknown risks such as reduced capacity to shed lightening strikes and less shatter resistance than aluminium. However, the one-piece composite fuselage reduces weight and eliminates the need for 1,500 aluminum sheets and up to 50,000 fasteners.

For Airbus, playing catch-up has been significantly aided by a succession of delays that have pushed the Dreamliner project nearly three years behind schedule. Just days prior to the Farnborough Airshow, Boeing announced a sixth delay in deliveries and its waiting customers were extremely dissatisfied. Under fierce competition from local rivals Jet Airways and Kingfisher, Arvind Jadhav, Air India’s managing director publicly derided Boeing’s delivery schedule a “total disaster” as the airline struggled without any of its 27 Dreamliners ordered back in December 2005. As a result of having insufficient wide-body aircraft to run its medium-haul journeys, such as between Mumbai and Singapore, Air India has resorted to narrow-body aircraft and incurred payload penalties in the process. The airline now wishes to renegotiate its entire order of 787s and impose stiff penalties on further delays and at present the Dreamliner remains just that – a dream. Airbus has tried to learn from Boeing’s mistakes and adopt a more conservative approach. Louis Gallois, CEO of EADS, has cited reduced outsourcing as one such area; by reducing the level of outsourcing from 80 per cent to 50 per cent Airbus is hoping that late design issues, parts shortages and fitting errors that hampered the Dreamliner will be less of a thorn whilst conceding that most of their buffer in the A350 delivery program has already been eroded. Additionally, Airbus plans to simplify its huge supply network by reducing the number of key contractors from 250 to just 70.

The war between the two firms would not be complete without the political fires being stoked by the continued court battle regarding alleged illegal subsidies. Boeing has long complained that Airbus has benefitted from illegal European government subsidies whilst Airbus has countered that Boeing receives implicit financial support in the form of US government sponsored research, such as at NASA centres. In 2004, Boeing unilaterally stepped out of the 12-year old EU-US Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft that provided for disciplines on government support and brought a case to the World Trade Organization claiming that illegal subsidies were providing Airbus with an unfair advantage and harming Boeing’s sales and market share. In June this year, the WTO ruled in favour of Boeing whilst both sides claimed victory. Boeing claimed that their allegation of “serious prejudice” was upheld by the WTO whilst Airbus claimed victory that the US allegation of “material injury” was rejected. Needless to say, the appeals and re-hearings mean that this case could go on for years.

Despite the political wrangling and technological boasts from both sides, orders for both aircraft have been relatively similar. Net of cancellations, the Dreamliner has secured 863 orders in contrast to 530 for the A350. However, the Dreamliner’s headstart has meant that both aircraft have been ordered since 2006 only and during that time the Dreamliner has secured 572 orders versus 530 for the A350. Firm wide, Airbus has delivered more aircraft than Boeing every year since 2003 and, over the 2000-2009 decade, Airbus won 6,452 orders in contrast to Boeing’s 5,927. Boeing, however, delivered 140 more aircraft over this period than Airbus. This year, the largest orders for both aircraft have come from the US carrier United Airlines which has ordered 25 variants of each.

The technological and efficiency comparions, coupled with the ever-present legal battle between the two manufacturers will have a major influence on an industry worth $3 trillion over the next two decades. New competitors, from China and elsewhere, will undoubtedly alter the landscape. However, at present, the war is between just two firms and in a multi-billion dollar industry with only two major players, one competitor’s turbulence can be the wind beneath the other’s wings.