Consultation response

Consultation response from the Department of Computer Science on "The senior management team's proposal for initiatives and decisions in continuation of the problem analysis”

Below you find two consultation responses from FastVIP and FastTAP staff members and for temporary employees (postdocs and PhD)

Consultation response from permanent employees at Department of Computer Science

FastVIP and FastTAP staff members at the department held a joint meeting about the proposal on Friday, September 5. This statement is compiled by Annemette Hammer and Olav Bertelsen.

Initially the staff members expressed great satisfaction with the overall direction of the proposal. Not least the prospect of the organization now having the chance to be a university and also show it externally.

Furthermore, the following was discussed:

Transparent economy

The principles of a transparent economy were emphasised as being extremely positive, but at the same time there was a focus on the fact that there is a long way from declarations of intent into a changed daily life. Staff agreed that it would be motivating to include incentives in a future financial model.


There was general satisfaction with the intensions to ensure a high academic level in connection with appointments in academic career positions. It is important to ensure high standards at the entire ST.

Financial Management

A concern was raised about whether it currently is possible to create a true and fair financial follow-up at a project level, as it is assumed that this is  prerequisite for a fair budgeting and follow-up on the overlying levels.

Close interaction

The ambitions of increased closeness were highlighted as being extremely positive.


It was pointed out that there is a challenge in choosing the language for communication. It should be the policy that everything as a minimum is available in an English translation, so that foreign employees  doesn’t feel excluded  in relation to information.

Consultation response from temporary employees (postdocs and PhD)

This statement is compiled by Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose

In general we are very positive towards the proposed solutions to the problem analysis.  We only have some minor comments:

  • It was unclear to us why it could be inappropriate for a dean to move back to their home faculty (last bullet on page 4).
  • On page 5 the use of the concept ‘performance target’ is a bit unclear, is it economic performance targets? It could also be academic performance targets.
  • On page 10 it was unclear to us how “external communication must have a clearer scientific and scholarly focus” should be implemented. Does this involve hiring staff with a scientific background in communication or moving them closer to the research groups?
  • Finally regarding the website and rebranding of AU on page 10: Will there be transparency regarding the budget for this?