Lunch meeting ‘decisive organization’
The University can be more decisive and can save money if there is more cooperation. One general supporting service instead of a different service for human resource and IT for every faculty. In other words, no more distinction between central and decentralized levels.
That conclusion could be drawn after the lunch meeting “Decisive organization” , where approximately fifty TiU-employees discussed the new strategic plan and the view of the Executive Board about the future.
The attendants were almost unanimous about the fact that the wheel is re-invented too many times and departments have little contact with each other at TiU. “Why does every faculty have their own human resource department?” someone asked after thinking about how TiU can be more flexible and adaptive.
“The tasks of the services and departments can me much better integrated in the educational and research process. The Language Center for example, is a separate service. However, speaking English correctly is a skill which can also be part of education or research.”
“The different departments are like islands, while they could join forces. TiSEM cannot profit from the knowledge at Law. Employees of different faculties do not know what the others are doing and are sometimes doing the same. Later they find out someone has done the same research a month earlier.”
“TiU is a university, not a collection of companies. The Executive Board should sketch the outlines. We should also get rid of the decentralized culture where we ask deans what they think about something. We are fighting each other out of here.”
Another attendee asked whether TiU should have faculties at all. “Why not make a pool of scientific personnel who are not attached to a faculty, but to a research theme?”
Part of the attendants brainstormed about the question whether entrepreneurship and innovation should be encouraged and whether employees can be stimulated to think outside their department. Some found job rotation, where employees change jobs every five years, a good idea. That new job should fit within the skills of the employee and it should not be obligatory. “A change of culture and of the collective labor agreement will be necessary. It’s hard to replace personnel right now. Even when the old and the new employer want to. There are discussions about social premiums, days of leave and wage classification. There is no money to pay the wage difference. Why don’t we change the reorganization fund to a mobility fund?”
“Employees should take a look behind the scenes of each other’s department. It is hard to do a project at another department because of the bill at the end. You should settle on mutual terms. That would fit a flexible organization. The division between departments should be taken away.”
