The chairman of the expert group: We are of course hoping for a better AU

Over the course of the last four months, Torben M. Andersen and the other members of the internal group of experts have been in the throes of developing the report that has now been published on this site. Despite the size and diversity of the organisation, the report identifies clear patterns. The report has come together with considerable support from the employees, students and management. In this article, Torben M. Andersen accounts for the work the expert group have done to identify the internal problems at the university.

The structure of Aarhus University is problematic. Employees and students are dedicated to and interested in doing a good job – but a high degree of centralisation and standardisation within the organisation is causing trouble, especially regarding the accessibility of the management, employee and student involvement and administrative support. 

This is just one of the main conclusions presented in the report that has been developed by the group of internal experts. There is plenty of reading material for employees and students to get started on: a main report of 94 pages, background reports and other appendices.

A comprehensive overview

The expert group were given four months to identify the most significant problems at AU, and according to chairman Torben M. Andersen, they did not discover anything that we were not already aware of. They have, however, gathered all the input and formed a comprehensive overview of the issues at hand, and this will hopefully enable us to see “where the shoe pinches the most”.

“We were asked to follow up on the academic development process and conduct an internal problem analysis. That we were asked to do so was, of course, no coincidence. Following the academic development process, there have been quite a few ongoing discussion, most significantly regarding the psychological WPA. The management then decided to take action and initiated the process, which the expert group’s work is part of. We were given free reign in dealing with the assignment, and even though we weren’t able to talk to every single person at the university, I can very well say that the report paints a fairly accurate picture,” explains Torben M. Andersen.

Goodwill among employees and students

All employees and students have had the opportunity to answer a questionnaire regarding the accessibility of the management, employee and student involvement and administrative support. About 6,000 employees answered the questionnaire, and about the same number of  students submitted their responses. Moreover, a long series of focus group interviews and interviews with all the heads of department have been conducted.

“Everywhere we went there was a great deal of goodwill and support towards the project. And one participant actually showed up two days early for a focus group interview simply because he was so eager for his opinions to be heard,” says Torben M. Andersen and proceeds to explain that a lot of people have also submitted comments along with the questionnaires – in fact, they were able to gather more than 800 pages of comments.

“There is actually one comment that we don’t mention in the report, but which we wanted to include: ‘I have no comments, because they are never really taken seriously anyway.’ But the fact that both students and employees are willing to spend time on writing detailed comments just goes to show that they are extremely dedicated and committed to the university, and they deserve to be taken seriously and have their opinions brought forward, so we can talk about the problems they are pinpointing.”

However, Torben M. Andersen is well aware that, when they read some of the comments, there may be some members of the technical and administrative staff who feel they are being targeted. But he is hoping that they will then turn to page 36 in the report, where it says: “Through their work, the expert group have gained a clear impression that there is great dedication and commitment among all employee groups, not least the technical and administrative staff. There is a great sense of professional pride and a clear wish to be able to develop strong solutions and facilitate progress. A number of factors indicate structural and systemic sources to the problems in the administrative area.”

“In other words, it is the framework that people have been placed within that is causing trouble,” emphasises Torben M. Andersen. He then proceeds to point out that when asking questions about current problems, you only get the critical points of view. No one tells you about the positive aspects.

Outlining possible solutions

The expert group’s terms of reference does not directly require of the group to offer suggestions for possible solutions to the internal problems that the report is meant to identify. Nonetheless, the expert group have opted to outline solutions to some of the issues at hand. For instance, within the given framework, we could work with 1. Decentralising authorities and responsibilities, 2. Making better use of the existing structures and 3. Improving the communication.  In addition, the expert group raises a number of other suggestions, which call for major organisational changes. For instance, regarding the internal structure within some of the departments, which the employees describe as insignificant units, and regarding the organisation of the administration.

To the question about why the expert group have chosen to also provide possible solutions, Torben M. Andersen replies:
“The terms of reference stipulate that we consider some possible solutions in line with the diagnosis, but they are all just drafts.  And the report is just one part of the process. The analysis panel will begin their work now, and then it will be up to the senior management team to develop the suggestion that will then be submitted for consultation at the university. But on behalf of the expert group, I do hope our work can be used as a foundation for improving the situation and solving the problems.”

One size does not fit all

And then there is one thing that Torben M. Andersen is very eager to say:
“Working to develop the problem analysis has been incredibly instructive and inspiring. And there was one thing in particular that struck me: Aarhus University is a huge and very diverse organisation. And for that reason we cannot find one solution to solve all the problems. Not one system that fits all. So it’s naive to think that we can work out a structure that does not give rise to criticism and red markings. One size does not fit all here at AU, and that is one of the clearest patterns that the report has identified.”