2.              Use of standards

3.              Membership

4.              Structure

5.              Communication

6.              Leadership

8.              Capability to innovate

9.              Client industries

10.           Liaison/collaboration

11.           Business model

12.           Brand

·       Scope covers the entire protocol stack of the digital media area

·       Scope extends to other areas (genome, neural networks, more?)

·       As digital media mature, it gets more difficulty to start new projects

·       Often work areas are well attended only when (technical) people see “the beef”

·       Scope requires large membership – conflict with ISO/IEC Directives

·       In the traditional digital media scope

·       In the extended scope: see Analysis of possible data compression areas (v3) (WG 11 N18400)

·       Compression is important but customers need more (how much more?)

·       MPEG is compression-centric but other groups have different approaches while using the same words (e.g. AR/VR)

·       Reduction of WG 11 scope

·       Breaking up WG 11

·       Global/cross-industry standards à tools for globalisation

·       Toolkit approach allows wide re-use of technologies (e.g. CABAC in video, genomics and neural networks)

·       Used by virtually all industries: more than 1T$ in devices, 230 B$ pay-tv, 2.8 T$ installed base of devices (global data, 2018)

·       Many WG 11 standards do not have high quality SW, content creation tools etc

·       There is no mechanism to analyse “lack of success” of a standard

·       Rigid “business model” à loss of market share

·       Use our enormous and competent  brain power in traditional and new fields

·       Comply with directives while keeping ecosystem intact

·       Break up to comply with directives

·       Membership is not granted for ever; members may leave because our standards are no longer attractive or profitable

·       Break up à net loss of experts accustomed to current scope

·       Membership competent in all areas of scope, hence large (>1500 experts, >500 attending, both growing), global (>30 countries)

·

·       % of experts from companies directly using standards is shrinking

·       % of experts working for NPEs is growing (experts’ growth is good)

·       % of academic members is growing (25%, research growth is good)

·       ISO/IEC directives say that WGs should be “limited in size”

·       No presence in JTC 1

·       Use our enormous brain power in traditional and new fields

·       Comply with directives while keeping WG 11 ecosystem intact

·       Break up to comply with directives (WG 11 considered too large)

·       Membership is not granted for ever; members may leave because our standards are no longer attractive or profitable

·       Break up à net loss of experts accustomed to scope

·       Not designed by committee but result of 30-year long learning process: Subgroups, AhGs, BoGs, Joint meetings, Chairs meetings

·       Ecosystem of interacting subgroups developing integrated stamdards

·       Powerful IT tool supporting document management, meetings, work plan etc.

·       Processes enabled by structure well understood

·       Structure develops standardisation strategies

·       Technical structure with insufficient awareness of market needs

·       No dedicated component to generate great new ideas of standards

·       Lost opportunity: TC on Data Compression

·       Opportunities as suggested by this SWOT analysis

·       More effective collaboration via Joint Working Groups (JWG)

·       Loss of glue à less attractive standards

·       Moving functions with proven results to unproven SC 29

·       WG status à delay in responding to industry needs

·       Web site, press releases, white papers, MPEG columns, video tutorials, Reference Software, social networks, liaisons, AhGs, CfE, CfP, verification tests, roadmaps, workshops, …

·       Messages often too technical, insufficiently addressing user needs

·       Text of scope of standards needs improvements

·       Insufficient/uncoordinated presence in academic circles

·       More industry engagement when defining work plan/work items

·       Communicate to industry at start of project not only at end

·       Communicate to industries less sensitive to the value of standards

·       Active and coordinated presence in journals and conferences

·       Some client industries are led astray by clever messages because they underestimate/do not understand the value of standards

·       Consolidated and experienced leadership

·       Ready to delegate authority to AhGs-BoGs

·       AhGs-BoGs allow identification of new leaders

·       Static leadership

·       New leaders identified in AhGs-BoGs not put to good use

·       Regenerate leadership by creating a new entity and associated WGs, JWGs and AGs

·       Envisage new means to provide candidates for nominations of chairs/convenors by Secretariat

·       WG status constrains expression of leadership within JTC1

·       Thorough implementation of ISO/IEC process

·       Major extensions to seek technology and prove value of our standards (CfE, CfP, VT etc.)

·       ISO process a tool for better standards, not a bureaucratic duty

·       Ad hoc nature of chairs coordination meetings

·       At meetings there are so many interesting things happening but not enough time to follow them all

·       Better support of standards development, e.g. MPEG-I Project Plan à needs secretariat support

·       Break up à destruction of subgroups ecosystem

·       Inability to use all available time to check drafts during ballots

·       All WG 11 standards are results of internal bottom up process

·       High innovation capability, 180 standards, work plan, N18400 etc.

·       New ideas fed continuously in the process (e.g. Video Coding for machines)

·       Context-Use Cases-Requirements represent market insufficiently

·       Digital media is maturing

·       Traditional innovation process may not be enough

·       Add “market-aware” entity co-competing with Requirements to study proposals for new standards/investigate new areas from business & technology viewpoints

·       Break up à reduced capability to innovate

·       Parts of traditional areas are being lost – new areas are hard to exploit

·       WG 11 never had a “reference industry” à always sought to provide standards to client industries: 3GPP, ARIB, ATSC, BDA, CTA, DVB, ETSI, ITU-T/R, TTA

·       WG 11 has an array of industries following our lead

·       Proportion of client industry following our lead is shrinking

·       WG 11 is appreciated by many non-ISO industries, less by closer ones

·       In ISO you are considered for your level, in industry for what you are

·       Recover old client industries – acquire new client industries

·       Break up à weakened MPEG’s “emporium” image

·       Some industries abandon us not because our standards are best but because we cannot compete on other features

·       Consortia may build their own specs based on our building blocks rather than propose new work to WG 11

·       WG 11 always sought collaborations with neighbouring fields: e.g. 3GPP, AES, IETF, ITU-T SG 16, Khronos, SCTE, SMPTE, VRIF, W3C

·       Ongoing collaborations: ITU-T SG 16, TC 276/WG 5

·       Earlier collaborations: ITU-T, TC 276,  WG 1, SC 24

·       Regular contacts with VCEG on many items of common interest

·       Broad scope offers more opportunities to collaborate and provide better standards

·       WG status reduces ability to deal with some other bodies authoritatively

·       More collaboration vital to the success of MPEG standards (e.g. SC 41, SC 42, OIF etc.)

·       Joint Working Groups for effective formal collaborations

·       More collaborations based on common interests, not on break-up

·       Less collaborations=less opportunities to develop good standards!

·       Best standards that remunerate good IP

·       Royalties fund more good IP for future standards

·       Currently Business Model is weak because it has not been allowed to adapt

·       Resistance to changes even of limited scope

·       Extend Business Model retaining strength

·       We will become irrelevant if we stay exclusively with our outdated Business Model

·       Developed industry agnostic and global digital media standards

·       Led media industry from analogue to digital

·       Gave industry opportunities of new business models

·       Enabled sustained expansion of the digital media industry

·       Highly appreciated by industry

·       Sustained production of new digital media standards

·       Imprinted even in consumer minds

·       A brand must be continuously cultivated

·       A strong brand may become just an icon if not supported by new facts and/or a reminder of importance lost

·       Can regain full industry confidence if EVC standard and licensing terms are successfully released

·       We can deliver both the old way (VVC) and the new way (EVC)

·       Failure of both EVC & VVC will be a fatal blow to MPEG brand

·       Break up à end of MPEG brand

·       Reduced scope à reduced value of brand