|
3.2.6.1. Environmental Awareness
Most FU stakeholders interviewed were quoted to be using conferences and other professional gatherings as their main tool for identifying trends and engaging in ‘casual benchmarking’ with their colleagues and peer institutions.
While the administrative stakeholders showed a relatively high interest and awareness of their university’s position (FU chancellor and management 47) - mostly motivated by the Excellence Initiative (see below) –, the faculty (FU multiple faculty 48) naturally was much less challenged by institutional comparisons and excellence. Stressing instead the pursuit of their own academic interests and awareness of scientific developments.
Regarding internet based innovations, a typical diffusion scheme, as described by Rogers (1983), can be observed. Depending on personal preferences, administrative staff and other faculty learn about innovations and appropriate them as per necessary for their personal use or sphere of responsibility.
3.2.6.2. Entrepreneuring (Strategy & Vision)
For this token an exceptionally homogeneous perception is to be reported. Both administration and faculty expressed a forward looking and stratifying view – mostly caused by the frenzy of the Excellence Initiative (see below). It was felt that after many years of cut-backs, that finally the recession was over, and that it was acceptable to openly envision positive future developments [i].
With regards to internet based innovations, the specialized institutions within the FU each follow their individual agendas. While all of them have expert knowledge about innovations in their respective fields, it is the CeDiS who most actively identifies, assesses, and acts upon trends. The library and eAS follow the strategy of influencing the development of the software suite by participating in the client community of practice (lobbying for their interests there.) ZEDAT on the other hand, has the most structured and standardized business planning processes.
3.2.6.3. New Project Support
The FU has operated for the last 15 years in a state of constant budgetary emergency. In this condition – the realm of exigency (FU chancellor and management 62) – there was no room for experiments that entailed a financial risk. Individual faculty can experiment and set their teaching and research agenda with academic freedom, but institutional support is nothing they should expect (FU faculty 33). Instead, they are expected to find the money elsewhere and (at least overall) they are not doing badly at funding their own research (see figure 3.2.1)
Figure 3.2.1 - Third party financing by professors
Generally all initiatives with a monetary or administrative aspect have to be lobbied for (providing a business case like argument) with the decision resting ultimately upon the Chancellor.
With the (natural) exception of the Computer Science Department, the central services are rather hygienic (sealed tightly) when it comes to the experimentation of users with new IT services [ii].
3.2.6.4. Risk Tolerance
Again, the FU did not- and does not- have resources for experimentation. Thus change happened in a very improvised and bricolaged evolution. In contrast, in the spring of 2006 – as the preparations for the Excellence Initiative were in full swing – stakeholders reported that they had to now reconstruct the ship on the open sea (FU administration 41.) Under such shaky terms, the institution was very risk aware (FU management and administration 46) as it was the widely understood that the FU would either be selected amongst the elite universities or that it would have to endure yet another painful shrinking phase (FU administration 55).
In the IT sector very little risk is assumed as there are enough basic (widely tested) services on the to-do-list (ZEDAT). The internal financial budget is still tight, as are exclusive innovations without a financial dimension (library, web-team) or third party funded projects (CeDiS).
3.2.6.5. Communication
Communication and public relations in particular have been expressed to be an open flank of the FU [iii] (FU administration 56). Insiders praise the direct access to colleagues (FU chancellor, multiple management, and administration 61), and have expressed a preference for spoken agreements, but communication is based on personal and social networks. There is no developed culture of transparently for publishing planning or results (there is virtually no central intranet). One rational explanation is that informal practices and agreements are far more effective than to follow through with the official and laborious bureaucratic machinery (FU chancellor 65).
The individualistic (knowledge entrepreneurial) tendency of faculty was most markedly expressed by Philosophy Prof. Wolf, who stated, when asked about departmental collaboration: “Every philosopher is his world” (FU faculty 66).
--------------------------
[i] Most professors interviewed, and especially the computer science faculty, did not really connect their vision to the FU’s future in general, but rather expressed a motivation and entrepreneuring based on their research.
[ii] The firewall is set to block all unknown services and it is generally difficult for the users to install and run software that is not authenticated by the ZEDAT or other relevant in-house responsible.
[iii] The FU has a particularly difficult stand with regards to the implementation of the Bologna process because of the traditionally well developed left wing student association structures, which oppose the ‘streamlining’ of programs. Another cause of offence is the discourse about the introduction of student fees, which has resulted in long student protests up to the occupation of the main administrative building.
Users' Comments (0) 
|
|
|
