Centralization culture
Permanently disabling several functions of the TU/e network after the cyberattack earlier this year, had immediate consequences for colleagues working on internet security or researching the dark web. Boudewijn van Dongen quotes his director: “It’s like shutting off the hydrogen supply in a chemistry lab because someone higher up decides hydrogen is dangerous.”
This is a clear example of the consequences of TU/e’s culture of centralization, particularly in support services. But centralization is also increasingly affecting the core education process.
Policies, rules, and decisions are set by central entities, without sufficiently involving people on the work floor. As a result, even small changes – such as updating the software version of a package used by first-year students – can sometimes have far-reaching consequences for lecturers, researchers, or PhD candidates.
Besides causing frustration, central policies can sometimes lead to downright comical situations. For instance, I have to approve my PhD candidates’ travel expense claims multiple times in a row, because in the workflow I am simultaneously labeled as the project leader, the supervisor, and the budget holder. Fortunately, I usually agree with my earlier decisions.
A serious drawback of centrally managed support is that work processes are primarily optimized for the work of the support staff, not for the work they are supposed to support.
Take the time-slot model, for example. It makes scheduling efficient, but it is a disaster when it comes to using classroom space efficiently. As a result, our teaching schedule sometimes runs well into the evening, while after 17:00 there is no support available for laptop-based exams. And just ask academic staff what they think of the PhD tracking system Hora Finita.
I propose that we decentralize a large part of our services. Place them administratively and physically within the departments. And let them organize central consultation groups where they can exchange experiences, advise one another, and in doing so improve the primary processes.
This is, for example, how examination boards are organized, and that works just fine. Here too, the foundation of collaboration should be trust. Trust that departments know very well how to organize their work, and also trust that sometimes another department’s way of doing things is simply better.
Boudewijn van Dongen is a professor of Process Analytics at TU/e. The views expressed in this column are his own.
This article was translated using AI-assisted tools and reviewed by an editor

Discussion