Enclosed 3 final reports working groups 10-pointplan

Faculty of science Steering group 10-pointplan Faculty of science Date 4 March 2016 Contact person Heleen Verlinde Enclosed 3 final reports working groups 10-pointplan Email h.e.w.verlinde@uva.nl Subject Working groups' final reports 10-pointplan Faculty of science Dear Dean, dear Karen, The steering group has the pleasure of enclosing herewith the Faculty of Science (FNWI) 10-point plan final reports, which have been drafted in response to the UvA 10-point plan by the three working groups. Recap On 10 March 2015, the Executive Board presented a 10-point plan, setting out ten principles for modernising the university s organisation and decision-making processes. In response to this, on 16 March 2015 the FNWI organised a Faculty debate about participation in decision-making, teaching and research. The debate resulted in the agreement to set up Faculty working groups to address these topics. Creation of steering group and working groups In summer 2015 the dean of the faculty of science adopted an action plan for tackling the 10-point plan. The dean first established a 10-point plan steering group for this purpose, whose task was as follows: To have working groups develop a constructive and effective translation of the 10-point plan for the Faculty of Science, so that areas for improvement identified within the Faculty can be collectively defined or placed on the relative agenda. At that moment, staff and students could register to participate in one of the three working groups: 1. Governance innovation 2. Teaching and research 3. Quality and efficiency

The steering group subsequently divided the 35 registrants into the three working groups based on their 1 st and 2 nd preferences. See Appendix A for the composition of the steering group and the working groups. Division of roles and working method The steering group's role consisted of guiding the working group process. The steering group anchored the process in terms of timing and mutual coordination. The working groups focused on the details of the 10-point plan and could add topics if necessary. The working groups were solely responsible for compiling the reports, which are also provided to you in their entirety. Starting from September 2015 the working groups met on several occasions in order to perform a problem analysis and draft recommendations. The administrative renewal working group also asked staff and students to provide feedback on its draft report. Members of the teaching and research working group interviewed stakeholders in the teaching organisation and exchanged ideas with their colleagues. A sub-working group also conducted a survey. The steering group held two meetings with the working groups during which the draft reports were discussed and the steering group offered non-binding recommendations to the working groups. The steering group also commissioned a legal assessment of the working group's recommendations, which led to a number of changes. On 18 January 2016 the steering group and working groups held a debate on the working groups results, which was attended by approximately 90 staff members and students. Each working group presented its findings and recommendations and subsequently continued the discussion in smaller groups. The working groups compiled their final reports using the feedback they received. Points for attention identified by the steering group The steering group would like to take the liberty of communicating the following points for attention to the dean: 1. Over the past few months, the working groups have put a great deal of effort and commitment into developing recommendations for the Faculty. Intense discussions took place in the working groups, which could not always be fully resolved due to the complexity of the matter as a whole. In addition, the recommendations target many sections of the Faculty such as the executive team, representative advisory bodies, research staff and teaching staff. The steering group advises the dean to provide the academic community with a comprehensive response to both the process and the content and to continue to provide feedback over the next 12 months (or longer if applicable) with regard to the progress made. It is vital that staff and students see what has been done with their input. 2. The steering group advises the dean to commission a short evaluation of the process followed by the steering group and working groups. This can be used to examine whether those involved were satisfied with this working method and the lessons learnt as a result. This evaluation could take the form of a series of questions sent by email to those involved. 3. During this process, one point of discussion was the language in which the reports are published (English or Dutch). The steering group recommends establishing a guideline for the use of English and Dutch in the Faculty's policy. Page 2

Now that the working groups' reports have been finalised, the steering group would like to request that the dean discharge the three working groups and the steering group. Kind regards, On behalf of the 10-point plan steering group faculty of science, Kind regards, Prof. P.C. de Ruiter, Chairman steering group 10-pointplan faculty of science Page 3

Appendix A: Composition of the FNWI steering group and working groups FNWI 10-point plan steering group Peter de Ruiter Jeroen Goedkoop Piet Rodenburg Micha de Groot Rogier Vlijm Eric Opdam Ivo van Vulpen Danne van Roon Coralie Pluut Jonas Lodewegen Chair of the steering group/director of the IBED Director of the College of Science Chair of FNWI Works Council Chair of the FNWI Faculty Council Chair of the PhD Council Director of the Representative for the assistant professor/associate professor/tenure track sounding board group /representative for the BoS Head of the FNWI Communication Department /former chair of the FSR Secretary: Heleen Verlinde Governance innovation working group Anne Schuth Carlos Fitzsimons Erik van Heumen Jan Wiegerinck (Chairman) Joost van Mameren Kris Kok Ralph Wijers Steen Ingemann Jorgensen API Secretary: Eric Sennema Teaching and research working group André Heck Andrea Haker* Page 4

Boris Jansen Breanndán Ó Nualláin* Bregje Swart* Emiel van Loon Eric Laenen Gadi Rothenberg (Chairman) Gerben Yntema* Jacobijn Sandberg* Jan Brandts Karst Koymans* Mikola Schlottke Natasa Zupancic- Brouwer Sicco de Knecht* IBED AUC IBED ESC * these members did not sign the final report of the working group. Secretary: Peter Scholts Quality and efficiency working group Anouk Geenen Anthony 'Toto' van Inge Bas Cornelissen Bas Kleijn (Chairman) Machiel Keestra Mark Golden Martijn Stegeman Sape Kinderman Tessa Cramwinckel Thijs van Eeden Wytse Wadman Secretary: Kees van Wensen Page 5