|
The most dominant aspect of the current environment at the FU is the lack of funds . It is a typical example of state regress (economically caused political liberalism) from educational responsibilities. The result is more effective and more context-aware stakeholders, less then optimal facilities, a streamlined education and more business oriented research.
The FU has yet to fully exploit the possibilities from the closeness of most of the first- class German research science institutions like Max Planck or the Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing. A program “MBA’s meet Innovation” is in the planning stages, but there is still no central strategic activity to foster FU’s stakes.
The complementary leadership duo at the FU’s top, is effective and determined, but authoritarian. While many in the administration report ‘short paths’ (meaning direct access to decision makers) there is a practice of behind the door diplomacy and deal making that spurs power politics and cliquism; even in best-case scenarios these practices exclude the non-members from opportunities and decisions (FU 22).
The new 1998 governance structure supports the efficiency of the processes at the cost of the traditional (tedious) discourse and consensual decision making. The efficiency of informal coordination is augmented by moves to follow the official procedure in order to satisfy political guidelines only to ask external consultants to produce ‘favourable reports’ (FU management 45), while striving towards the intended result “un-bureaucratically”. These practices led to the de facto creation of a parallel informal structure used to achieve results.
The FU has emerged out of extraordinary historical conditions, which even today makes it a unique institution in regards to the scientific and cultural experience it provides. Even though most of the ‘critical’ experiments initiated during the 1960’s have not been sustained, there is still a high degree of self-determination necessary to reach the degree sought after [i]. What is more, doing research is a matter of motivation and bootstrapping as monetary feasibility depends mostly on self-initiative, marketing and deal making.
Culturally the legacy of the leftist student movement is still recognizable but the new generation is noticeably less idealistic and political than their predecessors. Nevertheless, the FU provides a suitable atmosphere for young adults to learn to stand on their own two feet (e.g. through the Heinzelmaenchen), and generally offers a vast variety of opportunities for students to assess and realize their ambitions [ii]. As such, the observations of Levesque et. al. (2004), that German university students have a significantly higher level of autonomy than other European or American peers (also FU student 54), are assessed to be generally on the spot for the FU.
The Excellence Initiative has succeeded at energizing HEI leadership and at an instilling entrepreneurial spirit, but the effect might be short-term as there is an ‘either we make it or we are out of business  mindset that is implicitly roaming in many universities. In contrast to the British and the Catalan system, Germany has setup a “one time competition”, while in the other two countries there is a constant bidding for state resource allocation.
Probably the single-most decisive deficit at the FU is an inclusive, transparent and systematic strategy process. Until now the university has only engaged in due diligence regarding its bureaucratic reporting obligations [iii], and has only now, for the first time developed a vision for the future. However, this vision was developed by a selected few and communication was (due to the competitive setting) on a secret service mentality (i.e. “everybody knows only what s/her has to know”). A holistic entrepreneurial strategy would engage the stakeholders, and ideally- create a shared vision.
3.2.11.1. Internet based innovation appropriation
With regards to the appropriation of internet based innovations the FU represents a good example of the positive and negative effects of poly-centric structures. On the one hand, individual entities are free to pursue their interests and develop the technology and practices they deem most adequate. On the other hand, one observes redundancy and non-compatibility instead of synergies and economies of scale because of the entropic state of IT governance.
Especially with regards to entrepreneurship, the polycentric IT structure seems to allow for little synergies and congruence. The CIO is a committee institution with relatively little IT competence and lacks strong thematic leadership; it thus misses its mandate to coordinate interests and prohibit the territorial fights through a stringent holistic IT vision and strategy.
The CeDiS is clearly the most dynamic and entrepreneurial exploiter of the current situation. CeDiS embodies ‘new public management’ and positions itself as a ‘service agency’ (FU administration 57). Run by a leader with entrepreneurial motivation, CeDiS was founded because the opportunity had been identified and assessed positively. From its very beginning, CeDiS was market-oriented by: scanning the ‘e’ education and research field for relevant innovations (through general meetings, and thematic working groups), requiring business cases for new project start, and most decisively, by encouraging wide spread stakeholder ownership by providing opportunities – facilitated by the e-learning consultants and the in-house funding- for faculty to look for needs that can be satisfied with IT. The CeDiS model is assessed to be successful in identifying, evaluating, and spreading opportunities for internet based knowledge entrepreneurship at the FU.
ZEDAT is on its way to more effective management practices but has a tough time ahead due to the continued scarcity of funds, and even the sheer size and heterogeneity of the mandate make it very complex to navigate. The web-team presents itself more as a classical public administration department and does not seem to be aware of the opportunities in its field. The library does well as a traditional knowledge depository entity but has not fully embraced the fluid multi-disciplinarity of modern information sciences.
On the other hand, the eAS initiative holds the promise of revolutionizing FU’s administration processes – the same way Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems have revolutionized private enterprises - by introducing one-coherent-process architecture [iv]. Even though eAS is not involved in knowledge entrepreneurship, their project is relevant, because they provide the standardized process structure that (theoretically) allows for ‘state of the art’ efficiency in administration (structure) and thereby allows more space for real academic processes (FU chancellor 60).
The clear separation of IT mandates – infrastructure, process, and knowledge - as suggested by one of the key stakeholders (FU management 59), is assessed to have potential for improving the situation at the FU.
As for the LSE, the provision of an open FU wide intranet seems to provide a very interesting opportunity to energize social networking, make practices more dynamic and transparent, allow for organisational learning through knowledge sharing regarding environmental scanning and assessment, and ultimately to cultivating a more entrepreneurial atmosphere. A step in this direction has been initiated by CeDiS planning for the social networking platform.
-----------------------------------
[i] Which provides office space and political flanking.
[ii] The economic condition of the FU is quite grave and student fees are presented as the only solution. However it seems to be overlooked that it is mainly the natural sciences, which need grand funding for their laboratories and experiments. Niklas Luhman – the famous German sociologist - is well known never to have solicited any funding (FU faculty 52). All he needed for his outstanding research was the library and discourse with colleagues and students. This might be an extreme case, but it is surely true that the high costs are mostly produced by the natural sciences. Thus it might be prudent to think about separate conditions for financing social- and natural-sciences
[iii] The individual institutions have more or less developed links to the specialized research centres.
[iv] This is not the place to consider the pros and cons of a monolithic ERP system, but allow me to raise that on the one hand there is great potential for conflict as this centrally controlled instrument goes against the freedom of the departments to decide on their practices, on the other hand it bears great promises for efficiency and transparency, and it has no influence on the teleology/ontology and academic freedom (the knowledge mandate) of faculty. As such the eAS might bring a solid bureaucratic structure that enables intellectual freedom.
Users' Comments (3) 
|
|
|
