PHASES OF THE LIFE CYCLE OF UNIVERSITY SCIENTIFIC AND PEDAGOGICAL SPECIALIST’S BRAND

The article considers the life cycle of a university scientific and pedagogical specialist's brand as a continuous period from the moment of gaining a high level of recognition by the target audience to the moment of loss of specified influence on the target audience. A direct correlation between the phases of a university scientific and pedagogical specialist's brand life cycle and starting points of the theory of innovation diffusion is proved there. The division of the life cycle of a brand into six phases is proposed. They are as follows: phase of development of branding technology, phase of the introduction of a university scientific and pedagogical specialistʼs brand into the educational and scientific activity of a university, phase of growth of personal and professional potential of a brand, phase of stabilization of interaction of image and reputation brand components; the phase of extinction of the university specialist’s brand and the phase of the brandʼs exit from the market of providing educational and scientific services. The inexpediency of purposefully avoiding the development phase of branding technology is argued, as such “dynamically oriented” branding does not take into account the peculiarities of the personal and professional potential of the specialist, as well as lacks systemic and strategic focus. It is specified that depending on the purpose of application, rebranding of the university professor’s brand can act as a connecting phase of a life cycle of a specialists’ brand and as a singular process of formation of a new university professor’s brand. It is emphasized that preventive or forced-consolidating rebranding by a university professor due to fixing a temporary decline in his brand demand by the target audience in a phase of growth of personal and professional potential is ineffective. Keywords: brand; university professor; life cycle; phase; differentiation; target audience; university; rebranding.

Gravity Field Model Determination Based on GOCE Satellite Point-Wise Accelerations Estimated from Onboard Carrier Phase Observations

GPS-based, satellite-to-satellite tracking observations have been extensively used to elaborate the long-scale features of the Earth’s gravity field from dedicated satellite gravity missions. We proposed compiling a satellite gravity field model from Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) satellite accelerations directly estimated from the onboard GPS data using the point-wise acceleration approach, known as the carrier phase differentiation method. First, we composed the phase accelerations from the onboard carrier phase observations based on the sixth-order seven-point differentiator, which can eliminate the carrier phase ambiguity for Low Earth Orbiter (LEO). Next, the three-dimensional (3D) accelerations of the GOCE satellite were estimated from the derived phase accelerations as well as GPS satellite ephemeris and precise clock products. Finally, a global gravity field model up to the degree and order (d/o) 130 was compiled from the 71 days and nearly 2.5 years of 3D satellite accelerations. We also recovered three gravity field models up to d/o 130 from the accelerations derived by differentiating the kinematic orbits of European Space Agency (ESA), Graz, and School of Geodesy and Geomatics (SGG), which was the orbit differentiation method. We analyzed the accuracies of the derived accelerations and the recovered gravity field models based on the carrier phase differentiation method and orbit differentiation method in time, frequency, and spatial domain. The results showed that the carrier phase derived acceleration observations had better accuracy than those derived from kinematic orbits. The accuracy of the recovered gravity field model based on the carrier phase differentiation method using 2.5 years observations was higher than that of the orbit differentiation solutions for degrees greater than 70, and worse than Graz-orbit solution for degrees less than 70. The cumulative geoid height errors of carrier phase, ESA-orbit, and Graz-orbit solutions up to degree and order 130 were 17.70cm, 21.43 cm, and 22.11 cm, respectively.