Agenda
  1. News (5 min.)
  2. PP Accounting for BIT (10 min.)
  3. Starting the discussion about ‘Common vision and goals for BIT’ (35 min.)
  4. PURE - Best Practice in Research Registration (Peter Forsmann, 10 min.)
Minutes
1. News (5 min)
- Department meeting with Learning Support: Next week we will have an extraordinary department meeting where Learning Support will have the agenda (see Business IT wiki). It is part of our accreditation that we should share good teaching. JCG encourages people to attend.

- Pure: 11 registrations in Pure are missing data or status in the system. It is very important, and it will benefit you and ITU, if you finish your registrations. You have to finish you registrations in order to get the BFI-points and in order for ITU to make the correct registrations.

2. PP Accounting for BIT (10 min.)
Jens Christian presents the PP Accounting for BIT covering 2017. (Please see the attached presentation)

Department Expectations:
When looking at the department expectations in relation to the department gross performance (the sum of the expectations to the individuals of the group) Business IT has succeeded in 2017, since the total number of PP’s is greater than the expected gross performance.

Gross performance
Expected gross performance 2.101,08
Total PP produces: 2.263,04

But, when looking at the Expected net performance, we find an imbalance where BIT has over performed on publications and teaching and underperformed when we look at spending external funding.

JCG has three possible explanations for this imbalance:
1. We are behind in hiring people (we don’t have enough teachers). Soon we will have an opening (for new faculty).

2. Previous years (16 and 17) was extreme years due to the study progress reform (Fremdriftsreformen), which partly explain why we have over performed on teaching the last years.

3. We tend to over plan in terms of finding enough VIP who can teach the courses. . However, in the planning we forget that a substantial part of our teaching is supervision.

Comments from faculty:

- If you want us to be more successful in attracting external funding, could we get an average or baseline for external funding? What do you expect from assistant professors?

JCG: Compared to other IT-departments in DK, some of the best are at the level of spending in average around 800 KDKK per year – so we are in the lower part. It would however be overkill for this department to aim at that level the coming years.
Assistant professors are expected to teach 40 % of their time. It is not a part of the requirements that assistant professors get external funding. When we hire assistant professors, we have an expectation that they after a period get experience applying for external funding, probably together with senior researchers. In many cases, they can demonstrate that they have been part of a team or group that actively have applied for external funding.

- Maybe we could have a workshop with faculty who have attracted external funding and talk about how we can approve easily and attract external funding ourselves.

JCG: I think this is a good idea!

Brit has approached me with a similar idea, so I expect this will be carried out (maybe after the summer).

3. Common vision and goals for BIT (35 min.)
JCG presents ideas to kick off the discussions about common vision and goals for BIT (see slides). JCG stresses, that it is only proposals and that the main purpose is to kick of the discussions in the department.

Comments to JCG’s proposed questions to consider:
- Clarifications question: The goals you are looking for, in which contexts are they to be used? Internal (as inspiration to research) or external (as means to display our self)?

JCG: The latter or both.

- Both groups were asking for common visions – so maybe it is not fair to ask JCG to answer.

- The question is how can we bring TIME and TiP closer together. Starting this process will bring us closer together because then we are in dialogue.

- If we are looking at the question regarding the goals, I think it is problematic since we cannot do this in 5 minutes at a department meeting.

- Maybe we should start another place by sharing funding experiences – and have us interacting. This process should not start by looking at numbers.

- Since we have a vison and mission, it is important to situate this in the Business IT department. Maybe the talk should be about values.

4. PURE - Best Practice in Research Registration (Peter Forsmann, 10 min.)
See Peter Forsmann’s slides.
The outset for this agenda item is that 22 % of the 2017 PURE registrations were not finished in March – this is not good. Peter’s key message: please finish you registrations for 2017. Soon the ministry will lock the system in order to harvest data. The BFI points will not be lost, you are able to get them next year, but we have to count them in the right year.

Peter does not recommend that you import from a bibtex file. When importing from a bibtex file the data quality is too weak due to the lack of metadata. You must remember that the metadata is important to the reader. If you import from bibtex files, Peters urges you to fill in the metadata that is missing. Especially focus on the abstract, the open access file and on choosing the right template. Peter stresses, that as ITU faculty you are committed to disseminate the results of your research as widely as possible. You are always welcome to contact Peter if you need more details, have questions or need help in registering.

Comments:
- I think many of us get the system, but there are some structural problems making it frustrating for us to use it. E.g. it is frustrating that we cannot update conference papers until after the conference.
Idea: could we make a group sharing issues in relation to registering in Pure, and trying to find solutions to them.

Peter: It is a rule made by the Ministry that you cannot publish your conference paper until after the conference.

JCG: Having a group collection issues with this system is a good idea.
Peter: Always contact me if you have questions.

- From a business perspective, it is I waste of resources to make us use time on making registrations in Pure.

JCG: We have chosen a decentralized approach, where it is part of the job of a researcher to register in PURE, this approach gives us a high data quality. The data quality of the registrations in PURE is often rather low at universities who have a centralized approach to the registrations.

Peter: I know the system is not very user-friendly, but in average, you will need to spend one hour a year making your registrations.