1. Orientation (5 min)
2. Proposal for a system for allocation of supervisors (Steffen Dalsgaard, 15 min)
3. Proposal: Evaluation workshop: How to 'educate' our students in filling in course evaluations (Steffen Dalsgaard, 3 min)
4. Research Sharing Day Friday 31 May 2018 at Comwell/Bella Sky (Sisse Finken, 7 min)
5. Follow-up on Workplace Assessment (arbejdspladvurdering, APV) conducted in December 2017 (Jens Christian Godskesen, 30 min)
6. Any other business.

Ad 1.: Orientation (5 min)
1) General notification: The upper limit for hotel costs must be kept not as an average but per night.
2) Please, finalize your PURE registrations for 2017.
3) New colleague in the department: Jonas Valbjørn Andersen, assistant professor and part of the TIME group. Jonas made a short presentation of himself.

Ad 2.: Proposal for a system for allocation of supervisors (Steffen Dalsgaard, 15 min)
Steffen Dalsgaard and Christopher Gad have worked with optimizing this process trying to make a model with a central distribution of supervisors that takes into account both the students and the supervisors.

The process of allocating supervisors is quite a mess right now. The students register for a supervisor in January. When they get a supervisor, they only have 4 months to finish their theses. This is too late and probably affects the average delay in a negative way. If we move the registration deadline, the hope is that the students will be more active from an earlier point.

The proposal:
1) Forecast of how many theses each supervisor should have (late fall)
2) Hearing amongst the supervisors if some should have less or more supervision (e.g. due to part-time, leave of absence, etc.)
3) The students hand in a prioritized list of supervisors (December)
4) Based on the students’ wishes, the students are distributed and assigned a supervisor. (December/January (in connection with the course manning process)). Students who do not make a list will get a supervisor assigned.

This model will make the process more transparent. We hope it will make the students more active earlier, since they are not wasting time waiting to get a positive response from a supervisor and we as supervisors do not have to spend time answering mails from students.

Roman Beck: Can we use external lecturers to take some of the pressure away from us?

Jens Chr.: It is not a possibility to use external lecturers as thesis supervisors, unless there is a very specific reason to do so (Lene Pries-Heje agrees). My plan is to hire more people this spring. We could also consider using PhDs and postdocs as supervisors.

Roman Beck: I hear more and more students saying they do not aim for the first attempt to submit their thesis. I have the problem that new students have pre-papers to hand in and at the same time I have both new master students and old master students, who have not yet submitted their theses and still wants supervision – this is getting hard for me to manage. Can we nudge them to finish in the first attempt?
I also have an issue with the project base: Theses that are finished are still pending in the system, and I do not know if I got my ECTS or PP-points.

Lene Nielsen: This is a large issue. We should have a meeting just to talk about this.

Steffen Dalsgaard: Now you know what we have in mind, let us set up a meeting to discuss this.

Hanne Nicolajsen: It would be nice if people knew how many theses they should supervise. What do Jens Chr. Expect from us?

Jens Chr.: The PP-model shows a norm. Everybody know we are behind and need more staff. As I said, we will hire more staff this spring.
It is decided that the department need more time to work with this theme. A meeting will be arranged.

Ad 3.: Proposal: Evaluation workshop: How to 'educate' our students in filling in course evaluations (Steffen Dalsgaard, 3 min)
Steffen: Do you think it will be a good idea to organize this? Should it be departmental or across the departments? Would you attend?
There seemed to be no interest among the meeting participants to attend such meetings.

Ad 4.: Research Sharing Day Friday 31 May 2018 at Comwell/Bella Sky (Sisse Finken, 7 min)
Each research group or research project should bring posters. Please, remember to let us know if you are attending the event. You will get a program later on.

Ad 5.: Follow-up on Workplace Assessment (arbejdspladvurdering, APV) conducted in December 2017 (Jens Christian Godskesen, 30 min)
Please, see the attached slides to get an overview of the workplace assessment scores and the follow-up plan.

Follow-up process:
After this department meeting there will be discussions and meetings about how to follow-up on the workplace assessment amongst faculty, research groups and amongst HoD and Brit and Roman. Jens Christian will summarize the outcome of these discussions on the next department meeting Thursday 15 March. March 16 Jens Christian will hand in a plan for followingup to HR. June 29 Jens Christian will be reporting on followingup to HR.

Jens Christian presents the bottom five, as themes/issues that may be among those looked into in the follow-up process.
  • Rarely experience stress (2.7)
  • Balance between tasks and time (2.9)
  • Clear goals in unit (3.0)
  • Confidence in Managements management (3.0)
  • Collaboration with other units (3.1)
There are different ways of understanding the questions in the assessment.

Lene Nielsen: The collaboration with other units is not important to work with.

Comment: Clear goals is not important since I make my own goals. The question should rather be; do we as department have clear goals, and are you happy with the department’s goals?

Jens Christian: I think it is important to have clear goals as a department.
Confidence in Managements management (3.0) – this is clearly an issue. There is something to follow up on here. I expect we choose 4-5 task, where we want to make an effort the next 6 month, and hopefully we will make progress in these areas. I may choose from the bottom five list, please let me know if there is other issues you prefer.
Offensive behavior is a key issue. It is a surprise that 22 % have been exposed to bullying. That is 8 out of 36 and way too much.
Do you agree with my observations?

Steffen: I think that the department instability and that we do not have a HoD can explain many of the topics in bottom 5.
Jens Christian: The organization with three departments will hopefully exist in several years from now, hopefully that will give the stability that the department need.

Comment: Shifts and changes to the PP-model makes it hard to know what we are committed to do. I would like to know how long the PP-model will remain the same, that would reduce instability.

Jens Christian: You can expect that the model will be updated every second year. In the end of the document, there is a timeframe of when the model will be renewed.

Comment: To me it will make sense, if we all make suggestions to what is stressful in the job, and what we can change to bring the negative stress down. Many of the stress factors is not for ITU to change.

Oliver Müller: Clear goals are shared goals. It would be interesting to see if CS is more coherent. It is not because we do not share the same goals – but maybe we do not agree about the goals.

Lene Pries-Heje: I have a comment to the last slide about offensive behavior:

To talk in groups and to HoD etc. is a good idea to prevent offensive behavior in the future – but bullying and unwanted sexual attention is a very sensitive issue. You need one from outside ITU to dig into this and see what is behind it.

Comment: This is not just an ITU problem; it is a problem that is seen in many organizations. Maybe we could use established processes to work with this problem.

Ad 6.: Any other business.